On Tuesday May 23rd Professor Coughlin, two other students and I visited NYS Criminal Court.  This court is located right next to campus and shares the building with Family Court.  We selected this court as the class had already observed Federal Court.  Earlier that morning Professor Coughlin spoke to one of the officers in the lobby and ascertained that there were cases that we could observe.

We arrived at the court by 10:30am approximately, we checked in with the officer once more and he kindly gave us three cases we could observe on the 19th floor, so off we went.  All of the cases we observed were already in progress and there was very little information, if any at all, regarding each case. Two were bench trials and one a jury trial.

Both of the bench trials, we didn’t have any of the particulars regarding the charges etc. One thing I took note of is that both of them used technology to present their respective cases.  The first case, in my opinion, was building the foundation of the case and was kind of routine, mundane questions.  The video showed snippets of five individuals walking Franklin Avenue at 4:23am from various cameras.  There was no information available as to what the trial was actually about and how these individuals might be involved.

The second case we observed was also in progress and the prosecutor was questioning the arresting officer.  Fortunately, for us we saw the officer downstairs and we asked him questions pertaining to the facts of the case and he was so willing to accommodate us.  The case was about a young man that an ICard was issued for. An ICard means that if any officers sees the individual they can arrest him.  The officers saw the suspect walking on Broadway and entering a restaurant so they followed him in an arrested him.  There was a warrant for his arrest for gun possession.  The young man did not resist, was very calm and fully cooperated with the officers.  He truthfully said that he did have a gun on him which the officers confiscated and placed in a bag for evidence.

I enjoyed this observation.  While we didn’t have much information regarding the cases, it was an interesting experience.  It only served to reinforce my desire to be an integral part of the legal field.

Date- April 27th, 2023

Venue- US District Court of The Eastern District of New York

We as a class observed two cases that were in the beginning stages and were just starting to commence. The first of which we later learned was a drug trafficking case because of the involvement of the JFK airport being talked about and certain flight being discussed. While stepping into the court room we walked in on a JFK airport worker being examined and questioned by the prosecution. The employee was being asked basic questions about what certain pieces of papers meant and the meaning of certain words on those papers and I didn’t realize at the time that the attorneys were just building a base for the later steps of the case to refer on. The second case we observed was a murder case right across the hall and we had a clear view of the defendant who is a somewhat famous drill rapper. During the case the Prosecution was questioning the defendant who spoke about his involvement in the case. The Prosecution also was bringing up documents and a music video that he asked to be put into evidence. What I learned from this court observation was how tedious it can be to build the groundwork for a case, especially when it comes to asking basic questions to refer to.

On April 18, 2023, I went to the highest court in the state of New York.  Which is the “New York Court of Appeals” located in the capital of the state Albany, NY.  I had the opportunity to go to this court on a field trip organized by the NY City Tech Law and Paralegal Studies department.

The case I observe that day is People v Tyquan Johnson.  The appellant’s lawyer is named Paul B. Watkins, while the name of the respondent from Monroe County Assistant District Attorney is Martin P. McCarthy, II.  The Joint Judges that were proceeding with the case are Judge Singas, Judge Rivera, Judge Garcia, Judge Cannataro, and Judge Troutman.

Tyquan Johnson was arrested by a police officer because of drug possession. Johnson was then convicted of two counts of third-degree possession of a controlled substance and one of marijuana possession. The Supreme Court denied Johnson’s motion to suppress the evidence. The Appellate Divison, Fourth Department affirmed the Supreme Court ruling.  Johnson was appealing his convictions to the state arguing that the drugs recovered from a search and seizure by a Rochester police officer should be deemed unlawful and the evidence should be suppressed.  In Court, both lawyers were arguing about the four levels of police encounters.  The appellate attorney Paul Watkins argues that the Rochester officer didn’t have levels three and four against his client Tyquan Johnson.  On the contrary attorney Martin McCarthy II, argue the officer did have those levels, based on the movement of Johnson inside his vehicle.

My reaction to the case is that law enforcement will say anything necessary to try and arrest a person.  It’s interesting to see how cases from the lower courts get brought up to the highest court in New York.  To see how much time lawyers have to argue their case in the New York Court of Appeals is fascinating.  From this trip, I became keen to pursue a career in becoming a Judge in the New York Court of Appeals.  I enjoyed the fact that the Judges were the one’s arguing with the lawyers about the facts in the case.

April 27th 2023 at the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York at Downtown Brooklyn

we saw two cases at the court. one called USA v Belliotti and another called USA V Acevedo. The first case we saw was a drug trafficking case. The second one we saw was a murder case involving gang violence. I found the second case (USA V Acevedo) more interesting. It surprised me how small details could make such a big difference in a case. One example is how the witness on the stand stated how one of the gang members’ chains were stolen, which led to conflict, and also stated how liking an Instagram post caused a violent ordeal. I also noticed a white board next to the witness containing many photos of men who are involved in the case as well. As I walked into the courtroom for the second trial, I felt the energy shift from the previous one. The second courtroom we visited had a more serious feel to it and many of the lawyers, judge, and jury looked more serious in the last courtroom. This trip definitely affected my view of the law a little. When I watch shows like Law and Order, things seem to be a little more dramatic but I’m glad I had the opportunity to see a realistic trial taking place.

On 4/27/23 , I visited The United States Eastern District New York federal court located in Brooklyn.

My experience in the court house began with a brief walk from NYC college of technology, just two short blocks across Tillary street. Once we arrived at the federal courthouse I was instantly taken by its architectural beauty. The interiors clean white marble floors, walls and ceiling coincided with the many levels of terraces lined with offices felt like I was walking into Olympus where the gods reside. I was immediately greeted by the federal officers who secured the courthouse. After successfully getting through security clearance, I was directed  to the first case I would be observing.
The first courthroom I entered into was already in session. A trial was already underway with a judge sitting in the chair, observing everything that happened in the courtroom.  I noticed the large courtroom filled with many people. I noticed a gentleman in the witnessstand, explaining his expertise and value information obtaining to the case. I observed a prosecutor standing before the witness, and the judge, at a microphone asking questions obtaining to the case. I saw a table before that prosecutor outlined with his colleagues and coworkers. Just a few short steps away I noticed a second table, which appeared to be the defendant lined with his legal team. Seated to the far wall slightly elevated on rows of desk like cubicles I saw the jury. This federal offense seemed to have taken place at JFK international airport. I heard the witness answer and discussed his knowledge of the security access check points and the airport’s cameras system. The witness answers the prosecution’s questions before the court about how the airports track security access points and who accesses them. This case was very interesting even though I could only briefly attend that proceeding as I had another court observation to attend.

my second court observation was just a few steps across the hall from my previous proceeding. As I entered the quart room, I immediately felt a dark ominous tone in the atmosphere. I noticed an extremely tall Gentleman who was the prosecution stood at a microphoned podium facing the judge. The judge sat above the courtroom watching. Next I notice in the witness stand a gentleman who appeared extremely uncomfortable and anxious. The witness for my entire court observation answered questions by the prosecutor about a shooting in New York City in 2019.The prosecutor in the witness discussed gang activity and violence that led them to the trial I was observing. While the witnesses answered incriminating questions about his friends and associates, set a very expressionless, and checked out defendant. Slightly to the right of the witness stand stood a post broad lined with photographs of young men including the defendant, the witness and several underground New York City rappers. The prosecution lowered a display screen, where the court presented to the jury, a music video as evidence.next the prosecution continued questioning the witness about shootings in gang activity.

this was my first time visiting the federal courthouse.This experience was very interesting on many levels. I was interested in the arguments of the prosecution, and I would love to have stayed and heard the defense of the defendants. Ultimately, the decision of the jury lies on how strong the prosecution proves the point and how well the defense can invalidate the prosecution as points. The fact that I actually witnessed a very interesting federal proceedings was very informal to me. This experience has made me interested in exploring the possibilities of legal reporting or journalism.