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.

Court Observation

I attended the court observation with the class on April 27th 2023, at the US District Court of the Eastern District of New York, near the college in downtown Brooklyn.

We saw two cases. The first one was USA v Belliotti. The second was USA V Acevedo. In the first one we seemed to be in the early stages. It was a drug trafficking case. The prosecution was doing a direct examination of a man who worked for the airline and was knowledgeable about the security systems they used, as far as employee access to different parts of the terminal. They had him authenticate various logs with dates and timestamps. The logs also indicated when someone entered a certain place or exited and he explained this to the jury. After each document was shown and authenticated, the government offered the document as evidence, with no objection from the defense. The defense probably already knew what they were going to submit as this would have been shared in discovery.

The second trial was a murder trial. The prosecutors were doing a direct examination of their witness. Evidence was presented in the form of a music video. The witness gave some context and background. It seemed to me that he knew the defendant personally and was being made to testify against him. The prosecutor had him talk about other people he knew, like his friend who objected to the witness liking another person’s social media post, and about his cousin Mark. The witness testified about certain places where people involved could be found, like the house they hung out at, or the parole office where people had to go to.

I found the first case interesting because of the details they had to go into. It seems tedious to confirm over and over again where someone was based on their ID and logs, but this sets the stage for what they are actually trying to say he did. I like this part where you build the foundation. A bunch of logs might make your eyes glaze over, but there is a story there and it is your job as the prosecutor to find it.

The second case made me wonder what kind of protection, if any, the witness was being offered or if he was even entitled to any sort of protection.The first thing he said as we walked in to the courtroom was that “telling” was one of the worst things that you could do and that is exactly what he was doing. I wonder if he had his own case that was being tried and perhaps there was a plea deal involved. He seemed to be a credible and compelling witness, just on my limited observation. If he was in the middle of his own case, then I also wonder if he was going to be sent back to the same jail as the defendant?

One thing I noticed in the two cases was that the attorney for the drug trafficking case seemed more serious, or maybe he was just nervous. Whereas the attorney for the second trial seemed a lot more relaxed as he asked his questions. I was also very curious to know who the men were in the court room for the second trial who were dressed in flannel. They all seemed to belong there but I couldn’t tell in what capacity since they were not in uniform but they gave a sense that they were there for a specific reason. I think in class, Professor Kouglin said they might have been US Marshals, if I remember correctly.

Using the music video as evidence is somewhat concerning to me, but I would have to do more research on it. I do not know if the video was useful because it showed a physical location or it showed that certain people knew each other. I don’t know about lyrics being used as evidence. I think it should go on a case by case basis. I don’t think a prosecutor would bring forth lyrics as evidence unless it was very compelling evidence, and if it was that compelling, then the artist is telling on themselves. But I go back and forth on it.

In this case, as a juror I would just be asking why are they showing the video? Because a lot of people say a lot of things in music but it isn’t necessarily true… however the witness did testify that (to paraphrase) “you’re rapping about serious stuff, so if someone takes your chain and you don’t do anything, it makes you look soft”. That is not a direct quote but he did say something to the effect of it. Which is probably what the prosecutor wanted- to speak to the frame of mind and motive, since not doing anything after someone snatched your chain would have been disastrous to your reputation, your career, your whole life! But again I don’t know about using lyrics or videos as evidence and I go back and forth. If the case is strong then there will probably be more evidence than just a song.

Overall, it was interesting to be a part of the trial process as an observer. It gave me a lot to think about.

The date of the court observation was April 27th 2023.

The court we went to is U.S. District Court – Eastern District of New York. Located Downtown Brooklyn.

The proceeding was choose by Professor Coughlin

Name of the cases we saw was (USA V Acevedo) and (USA V Bellosi). In the USA V Acevedo case there was a witness talking on stand when we walked in about summer of 2019 and a shooting that had happened then due to shawny chain being snatched and we learned that after being killed, having your chain snatched is the second worst thing so there gang had to get back at the other gang for that to assert dominance. The lawyer was asking the witness a bunch of questions some personal and some general such as his cousin and did his cousin know about something and also a car accident that the witness had got into too. I found this case really interesting because it was like a New York celeb case so it felt really lowkey and something that you would see on tv or on the news. I was really intrigued to figure out why all those people faces was on the board and what happened to them and did Acevado kill them or not.

The court observation was one of the most interesting moments in my life because this was my first time going to a court house and experiencing how court works and watching a case in person. The USA V Acevado case was one of the most interesting case because When I research about the case, they have all the evidence to prove the person on trial is guilty. I had read that it was shooting that happen in 2019 over a rapper’s chain. The guy that murder the person had got caught because of the car he was driving in the shooting. The person had tracked the license plate to his mom.

I attended the class court observation trip on Thursday April 17^th at the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The first case we observed was USA v. Belliotti, a drug trafficking case. It appeared as though the prosecution was going through the process of admitting evidence (JFK airport records) into the court record by having a witness on the stand explain what each record meant and confirming that they looked accurate. It was unclear what the witness’s relation to the case was, other than that he had knowledge about how information is recoded at the JFK airport. From just the snapshot of what we observed, it wasn’t clear what the case was about. We witnessed one of the more sterile and tedious aspects of a trial.

The second case we observed was USA v. Acevedo, a murder case. One of the first things I heard the prosecution mention was something about how the case was related to drill music. To be honest, this immediately soured me on the prosecution because I personally believe that artistic expression including music lyrics should be protected from being used as evidence in court cases. From what we observed, it wasn’t clear if either party was going to attempt to use song lyrics as evidence. However, I did feel that the prosecution was attempting to use the defendant’s drill music career to diminish his character and call to mind in the Jury how popular media has portrayed drill music as extraordinarily violent and how New York City’s Mayor, Eric Adams, has gone as far to declare war on drill rap.

In the USA v. Acevedo case, the prosecution was questioning a witness who appeared to be in a rival gang of the defendant. The scope of the questioning seemed to be very wide, and it was unclear how all the facts being established were relevant to the murder case. It was also unclear how the witness had been compelled to testify. The witness was clearly unhappy about testifying. The questions and answers seemed to incriminate the witness himself as well as the witness’s family members and fellow gang members rather than establishing much that would incriminate the defendant.  This to me reflected poorly on the prosecution who it seemed had been the party that compelled the witness to testify. I personally feel that if you have presented a witness who has agreed in some way to help your case, you have a duty (even if its not a legal duty) to demonstrate goodwill to that witness and to do otherwise reflects poorly on your character.