Essay About Jdcourtroom Work Groupevery Day And Court Room

Courtroom Work Group
Courtroom Work GroupJulia PearsonCJS/204June 2, 2014Rey Cuellar, JDCourtroom Work GroupEvery day in almost every city there is a court room full of people. Some of these people are the accused waiting for their name to be called to go in front of the judge. Others are the people you will see in that courtroom every day. These are the professional courtroom work group. They are the ones who make that courtroom run as efficiently as possible. These are the people who make sure justice is carried out, and proper procedure is followed.The courtroom work group consists of the judge, prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, bailiff, court administrator, court reporter, clerk of courts, and expert witnesses. In the courtroom, the judge holds the ultimate authority, ruling on matters of law, weighing objects from both sides, deciding the admissibility of evidence, and keeping order in the courtroom (Schmalleger, 2011). Most state jurisdictions have a chief judge who also serves as the management of the court system. The prosecuting attorney presents the case for the people. I will discuss the role of the prosecutor in detail later in this paper. The defense counsel represents the accused as soon after the arrest as possible to make sure his civil rights are not violated and represents him through the criminal justice process (Schmalleger, 2011). The bailiffs’ job is to ensure order in the courtroom, announce the judge’s entrance into the courtroom, call the witnesses, prevent escape of the accused, and supervises the jury if they are sequestered. Bailiffs are usually an armed law enforcement officer (Schmallager, 2011). The court administrators provide uniformed court management and assume many of the responsibilities of the chief judge. The court reporters’ role is to create a record of all that transpires during the trail. The clerk of courts maintains all the records of criminal cases. An expert witness is a person that has a special skill or knowledge recognized by the court as relevant to the determination of guilt or innocence (Schmalleger, 2011). The members of the courtroom work group are dedicated to seeing a successful completion to the trial. Working and interacting with each other on a daily basis is more likely to lead to close working relationships. This will often lead to more cooperation, better negotiations, less reliance on formalities, more informal arrangements (Mays, 2011). I wouldn’t make any changes to the courtroom work group. They have the same goal and as long as they take each case individually, the trial process should run smoothly.One of the key players in the courtroom work group is the prosecutor. The role of the prosecutor is to represent the people in criminal proceedings against those accused of committing a criminal offense. They present the state’s case against the defendant in court. They introduce evidence against the accused, use expert witness testimony, witness testimony, and argue in favor of conviction.  Burdon of quilt is up to the prosecutor to prove (Schmalleger, 2011). Prosecutors determine what cases they will pursue by reviewing the evidence gathered. The prosecutors can file formal charges only if they believe that they can prove a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors have what is called “prosecutorial discretion.” Prosecutors can look at all the circumstances of the case, including the suspect’s past criminal record, in deciding whether and what to charge (Bergman & Berman, 2013). Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can choose not to file any charges at all. (U.S. v. Batchelder, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1979.) Prosecutors are an elected position so to be reelected they have to have a proven record of convictions that may influence their decision to bring charges against the accused. If it is a case that has made media attention or is a celebrity that may influence the decision also (Bergman & Berman, 2013).