COURT OBSERVATION

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.

Court observation

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.

Corrections to syllabus! & tomorrow’s class! (Tu May 9)

Hello Students!

I hope you enjoyed the lovely, “Spring-y” weekend!  As some of you noted, the syllabus states that you are required to submit a draft demand letter by email tomorrow 8am — disregard it!  We will discuss that and some other amendments to the syllabus in class tomorrow.  Your only assignment for tomorrow is to read textbook ch. 9, especially pp. 251-260, on legal writing.  If possible, please bring your copy of the excerpts from the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that I distributed in our last class because we will continue discussing htat.  Here’s the full decision, just fyi — no need to print it out, it’s over 200 pages!  If you don’t have your excerpt tomorrow, that’s OK.

If you didn’t give your oral reflection on your court observation in last Thursday’s class, you are welcome to do that tomorrow or Thursday, May 11, without penalty.  If you didn’t yet post your court observation summary on OL (due tomorrow, per syllabus), you may do so by end of this Thursday, May 11 without penalty.  If you didn’t yet post your Law in Culture review due this past Thursday, May 4, you may also do that by the end of this Thursday, May 11 without penalty.

I’m sorry for confusion about the assignments!  Enjoy the rest of today, see you tomorrow morning!

KC

 

Court Observation

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.

Court Observation

I attended the class court observation trip on Thursday April 17th 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.

A Fall from Grace

“A Fall from Grace” is a film that was directed by Tyler Perry. It was released on January 17th, 2020.The movie starts off with Jordan, a police officer telling an elderly lady to come off the roof and she keeps repeating that “she has nothing” and he keeps trying to comfort her, but she jumps and commits suicide. The story then goes to Jordan coming home to his wife Jasmine who we later learn is a public defender attorney. Jasmine goes to the office the next day and her boss Rory gives her a case of Grace Waters a woman who allegedly murdered her husband, Shannon Delong. Jasmine is pleading with her boss to give the case to someone else, but Rory says that she is doing it, that Grace is adamant about pleading guilty, that plea deals are Jasmine’s strength, and that there is numerous evidence that proves that Grace is guilty. But the more Jasmine starts reading into the case she realizes that a couple of pieces are missing including Shannon’s body. And she believes that Grace is innocent. Jasmine, therefore, sets out to uncover more details. Grace tells Jasmine about the night the alleged murder happened. It started with Grace and Shannon getting into an argument because Shannon was doing the deed with another woman in their bed. That was her breaking point Shannon had already robbed Grace of all her money, got her fired from her job at the bank due to secretly taking out her money, and had mortgaged her house therefore putting it in foreclosure. The argument got heated and Grace hit Shannon with a baseball bat a lot of times and then pushed him down the stairs. She then drove into a deserted area and told her best friend Shannon that she had just murdered her husband. Sarah then says later that she saw Grace’s son Malcolm coming out the house after the murder and since Shannon’s body is missing Sarah says that Malcolm hid it. At the trial Jasmine calls Sarah as a witness which backfires due to the numerous calls between Grace and Sarah the night of the alleged murder and that Sarah admits that Grace told her that she had murdered Shannon. Jasmine ultimately loses her case and defense, and the jury deems that Grace is guilty. Jasmine felt hopeless so she decided to stop by Sarah house which is a residence for elderly women and discovers an elderly woman named Alice. Alice wants to leave the house and reveals that women have died at Sarah’s house. Meanwhile Jordan runs a background check and realizes that Sarah has a criminal record, so he goes to tell Jasmine, but she isn’t picking up her phone, so he goes to Sarah house to see if she saw her. Sarah says she hasn’t, but Jordan calls the Jasmine phone again and realizes that the Jasmine phone is ringing from the basement. Jasmine has discovered that there are a bunch of elderly women locked up in the basement and she is therefore kidnapped by Sarah. Jordan then bursts in through the door, gets into a physical altercation with Sarah, he then handcuffs her, then goes looking for Jasmine but somehow Sarah escapes still. Jordan then runs into Shannon who is not dead, and Jordan shoots him while Jasmine tries to escape. Shannon is assumed to be actually dead this time. They escape and Grace goes back to court and has one last trial where it is revealed that Sarah and Shannon are actually mother and son and are living under false names and have criminal records like Bonnie and Clyde. Their real names are Betty and Maurice Mills. They have been conning elderly and middle-aged women out of their money for more than 25 years. Jasmine then proves to the court that Grace is innocent as Betty and Maurice were convicted criminals and that Shannon was not dead and that they have warrants out for them in multiple states. Grace is therefore declared as innocent, and the movie ends with them celebrating. But Betty aka Sarah is still on the run and has been hired to take care of elderly women in a nursing home therefore starting the cycle up again. “A Fall from Grace” addresses the concept of proving your clients as innocent and going as deep and as strong as you have to do to prove to the jury and judge that they did not commit the crime. Jasmine felt like the case was missing some pieces and that grace was innocent, so grace did research and pieced together that Shannon was not dead and that him and his mother was regular con artist living under different identities but still robbing elderly women out of their social security check and keeping them locked up in the basement. Jasmine was really only known as the plea deal lawyer because most cases she did always ended in plea deals, so she really didn’t assume anything different with grace case and her boss also wanted to keep it as Grace was guilty because the company didn’t have much money and didn’t want to deal with media as that ruins the firm’s reputation. I feel that the firm just showed how corrupted the government can be due to money issues or feeling lazy when it comes down to pursuing a case that is injustice although it is literally in their oath. I really liked “A fall from Grace” even from the name cause you will think of it the word Grace and that it’s something like biblical in away because something probably happened that made The grace essentially change but what the movie is about is literally in the title with the main character name is grace and her husband supposedly got pushed that the stairs leading her to jail for murder so there’s her fall but as we all know later on that Shannon was not dead and did indeed con her out of money and made her seem crazy and conspired along with his mom which acted like she was Grace friend but the whole time she was an enemy. And it did portray the legal field because it showed that innocent people can go to jail and that due to budget or the attorneys thinking that the case is an easy case and just needs a plea deal because everything points to that person being guilty but that’s not true. People sometimes just say they are guilty because they are covering for someone, or they just think that might as well be guilty cause that’s what everyone thinks already. I’m so Happy that Jasmine trusted her gut and didn’t follow her boss’ advice because an innocent woman who had already lost everything was going to lose her freedom as well. I learned to follow my instinct if something doesn’t feel right, keep on researching and putting the pieces together because it might not be right.

 Goodfellas is a very well known movie that takes place here in New York City, The film was released September 19,1990 in the USA. The movie is directed by Martin Scorsese. Goodfellas details  the rise and fall of a Brooklyn teenage Henry hill and friends. Laced with heavy violence and drug activity goodfellas still invoked the sympathy for fir a younger whom just wanted success and a good life. While feeling sorry for some of the characters, my own moral standards triggered still, and an urge for the end of lawlessness in this  piece I waited for. 

 

Henry Hill, a young New Yorker in the late 1950s, born into an Irish/ Italian working class family. It appeared to be a stable home .It also appeared Henry was encouraged and enforced by his father to focus on school. Yet Henry looked up to the” wise guys” in his neighborhood. Henry admired their suits, cars and personas. Henry and others of his neighborhood found their local wise guys to be stand up members of the community. From afar Henry idolized these men and imagines they had developed in NYC. Soon Henry found himself working at his idol’s cab stand. His parents initially liked the fact their son was earning an honest living to their knowledge. Initially. Henry’s job was supposed to be a partime job, but as Henry worked and hung around the cab stand he spend less and less time in school. Now that Henry has basically stopped attending school to become a fulltime wise guy in training. All while Henry’s parents assumed he was in school ,he was In Fact learning what it meant to be a wise guy. Henry slow began to understand why his idols was allowed to park at fire hydrants, and not receive a ticket. Why these gangsters he looked up too was so well respected.  The closer he becomes with his locks the more intertwined he become with crime. As he Henry launches his criminal career and endorses he also make a name for himself.

 

As time goes by Henry begins to achieve the gangster status he admired immensely about his idols. Finally being part of the inner circle Henry began to indulge in the lifestyle he dreamed of living. Now being able to afford suits from the “scores” he gained, Henry’s new persona caught the attention of his parents, mainly his father who opposed it to no avail. As Henry enhances his skills in criminal activity he also gets married and has children.  At this point the many ruthless crimes which include theft, extortion, distribution of illegal drugs across state lines, insurance fraud and murder, and not to mention a nasty cocaine habit. Suddenly white enjoying the fruits of his illegal labor, he is arrested and sentenced to prison after the feds find drugs in his home.I would think this would be the moment he smartened up and made better life decisions, not only for himself but for his wife and children. If not for his family then perhaps for his girlfriend whom he started having an affair with while dealing drugs. Yet Henry returned from his jail sentence even more determined to life Achieve his goal. Not only does he return to crime and his wise guy lifestyle, he participates in the biggest score of his life, which includes a heist at NYC JFK airport. Although the heist when off without any problems and our movies gangbangers made off with millions of stolen dollars, 

The authorities were closing in on the crew who just could keep things together within itself. Whether out of paranoia or greed, wiseguys turned against each other and murder each other. Finally the authorities had Henry testify against his gang mates for immunity.  What motivated Henry was fear his gang mates would  kill him to cover their own tracks or perhaps out of greed. Ultimately Henry and his family helps the government put his partners on crime away in prison, while they relocate in witness protection.

 

In my opinion Henry was born into a family who struggled financially and he dreamed of a successful life and happiness. Perhaps Henry saw those qualities in the mobsters he idolized growing up. If those criminals were the only major role models for success, it could explain a lot. It seems to me Henry just wanted the finer things in life and was lead down the wrong path to obtain those things. I also believe if his parents had better opportunities perhaps they could have provided him better opportunities in life. Although Henry wasn’t the worst character in the film he was the most focused on and his character reminded me of many others storylines was similar in my own lifetime. As a black man in American many opportunities are present , yet we are often overlooked. Many black men in lower income or minority communities are systematically targeted and oppressed by our government, society and etc. these issues many earning an honest living hard especially if your reputation has been destroyed before you even become legally old enough to pursue any career. In My opinion after being only the second generation who can participate in a more fair education system, generational curses are hard to break.although Henry isn’t a descendent of oppressed enslaved African Americans, he represents a sensitive disenfranchisement . I felt he and others who turned to crime felt left behind by our nation. I felt they choose to break the law more and more because the gain seems more than the risk.

Law in Culture Review

Law In Culture Review

Benjamin Cordova

The piece of media I’ve chosen for my “Law in Culture” review is “Better Call Saul” a television drama by the famous director Vince Gilligan who is well known for his award-winning show “Breaking Bad” That “Better call Saul” is the prequel to. The show ran from 2015-2022 like its counterpart “Breaking Bad” and had a lot of the same actors involved just telling more of their backstory. Both shows are on Netflix and made by the same team of writers and directors giving both the shows the same treatment and respect from the fans.

The story of “Better call Saul” is a prequel to the lawyer character “Saul Goodman” from “Breaking Bad” in which he is a side character. The story follows directly after the events of “Breaking Bad” where we see Saul working at a Cinnabon in black in white with a new identity and in a different state like he said he would be at the end of the series “Breaking Bad”. Saul is on the run from the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) for representing the infamous “Walter White” (the main character from “Breaking Bad”) and helping him rise in power as drug kingpin in Albuquerque New Mexico. The story then shifts to flash backs to Jimmy Mc gill who was Saul’s previous name before the events of breaking bad. As we are introduced to Jimmy, we see him as a struggling public defender representing clients in losing cases and follows him as he struggles through his day of being a broke public defender wearing old suits and driving a small old car with mismatching doors. We also see Jimmy compare himself to other lawyers by looking at the way they dress or what they eat for lunch as he eats his bag of chips and his dollar coffee. At the end of his day, we see him go back to his office in the back of a nail salon that is a small, cramped space with a desk and a sofa that folds into a futon, and we discover that he also sleeps there. The next day we see him stop by his brother’s house who is a rich successful lawyer that is a third of the firm “Hamlin, Hamlin and Mc gill” but who has a mental condition that makes him think he is allergic to electricity and forced him to remove anything electric in his house or else he has a mental breakdown. When Jimmy walks in we can see that he cares a lot about his Chucks opinion of him because he lies about his career as a lawyer is going because his brother chuck is bound to his home because of his made-up condition that he gave himself. As they speak you get a sense of Jimmy wanting his brothers respect but also the feeling that he is living in his shadow because of the way Jimmy conducts his career because he cuts corners and is a ‘CRIMINAL lawyer not a criminal lawyer” as in Jimmy breaks laws to win cases. Jimmy gets his way because he has a talent for being a con man unlike his brother who is very by the book and can sense when Jimmy is doing the wrong thing and becoming “Slipping Jimmy” (A nick name that Jimmy that his brother gave him before his brother helped him start his law career). Before passing the bar and getting help from, his brother Jimmy was always getting arrested and was a con man and it will always be a part of him even as a lawyer.

An example of legal concepts addressed in this show is the idea of ethics because of the way that our main character Jimmy likes to bend the law and find ways around dealing with the law. An example being when Jimmy forged legal documents that his brother had filled out purposely changing the information on the documents to incorrect information. In doing this he got his brother thrown from the case because of the clients getting upset and asking he be removed from the case because of his fake condition and the mistakes that Jimmy purposely forged. Another example of a breach of ethics in this show is when Jimmy paid 2 young skaters who were trying to scam him to jump Infront of an old woman’s car and threaten to call the police because she hit them so he could get black mail on her for a case they were both involved in. Another example is when he knowingly forced a case to settle using his connections with the victims who were old of age by lying to them because in the closing of the case, he would get a piece of the money that was won in the case.

My reaction to the show was excitement because of love for the director and his past work but what I’ve got from the show was an accurate representation of the legal field having to do with clients and cases in every episode. Ethics was also a major thing that I got from the show since our main character is constantly breaking them because he doesn’t care for them and just wants to con his way to success by the end of the show but at what cost. Watching this show spiked my interest of the legal field even though most of the ideas are very dramatized I still found the whole legal system interesting and seeing other character that followed the ethics be so invested in their cases and life inside their law firm.

Law in culture

The movie I chose is “legally blonde” a comedy romance released in 2001 by Robert Luketic. Its about a girl named Elle Woods, a wealthy, blonde sorority girl studying fashion merchandising at California University, is the protagonist. Elle is heartbroken when her boyfriend, Warner Huntington III (Matthew Davis), breaks up with her before leaving for Harvard Law School. Elle, determined to win him back, follows him to Harvard and enrolls in the law school, despite having no background in law and only experience with legal matters from the fashion and beauty industry. Initially, Elle struggles to fit in with her classmates, who are all serious and studious. With the help of her new friend, Emmett (Luke Wilson), and her bubbly personality, she proves her critics wrong when she excels in her classes. While defending a fitness instructor accused of murder, Elle uses her knowledge of fashion to win the case. She graduates with honors, becomes a successful lawyer, and falls in love with Emmett, who admires her for who she is, not just how she looks. The film portrays the legal system as flawed, with corrupt individuals manipulating the law for their own benefit. A good example is Elle’s ex-boyfriend Warner, who is more interested in his own career aspirations than in pursuing justice, and he is trying to manipulate her into dropping her legal case. Professor Callahan also exploits his power to take advantage of female students, highlighting the issue of sexual harassment in the legal field. It exaggerates and simplifies many aspects of the legal system for entertainment purposes. Although it touches on some aspects of the legal system, it is not an accurate representation. For example, the courtroom scenes in the movie are not exactly accurate, as they often depict dramatic and unrealistic situations that don’t reflect the actual workings of a courtroom. Even though the movie has some unrealistic and dramatic portrayals of law i did pick up on the important message of being true to oneself and not judging people based on their appearances. I would recommend this movie to someone who’s interested in pursuing a certain field but feels like they can’t because they don’t have the “look”. In addition, to women who feel undervalued for their skills and hard work.

A Handmaid’s Tale

The book I chose for my “Law in Culture” review is called The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.  The book was published in the year 1986.  Anchor Books released its edition of the novel in the year 1998.  The ISBN for the book is 978-0-385-49081-8.

The Handmaid’s Tale is a book set in a dystopian America.  Where The Republic of Gilead has taken over parts of the country.  The objective of the state is to have females reproduce for the sake of the government. The government will do everything in its power in order to try and achieve its goal. The protagonist of the story is Offred.  Throughout the novel, Offred recalls stories about her past, stories about her time spent at the Red Center (an educational institution for prospective Handmaids), and stories about her time with her assigned Commander and the household.  Offred endured many hardships with the government, but she has received her luck of shares as the novel progress.

In this novel, we as readers can see how a government creates a society that favors them and not the people.  In this case, we can see how women’s rights have been abolished and their right to freedom is no longer capable.  The right to abortion is no longer in their favor (In today’s world we are experiencing how females’ rights are being abolished in certain states).  There is no longer a need for courts in this book, if the government finds a person deemed to be a threat to the state they would simply be hanged on ” the Wall” (31).   For example, doctors have deemed criminals in the novel and the government would consider the practice of abortion illegal.  This sort of action from a government will destroy all past precedents and gouge case laws that were established.

After reading this novel, and seeing what is happening with women’s rights.  I feel that it’s important to implore future judges and lawyers to fight for an equal society. I encourage my classmates to read this novel, so they can read what sort of struggle a woman will go through if their rights to freedom have been stripped from them.  Lawmakers should be wary of how decisions on the sort of law to create could impact society.  We all come from a woman’s womb, some are grateful for the life they have been given, others not so much.  In the end, we as a society have to at least understand that all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion or not.