I heard that there was a criminal court case scheduled on 3rd June 2015. After confirming that the court case was still on in Minnesota State, I attended the session. The main purpose of me attending the court case was to find out how justice is to be realized in a criminal case involving two close people. The court case was in Minnesota in Carver County at 8: 45 am. The judge was Honorable Terrence, E. Conkel, and was assisted by Honorable Kathryn D. Messerich. The court case was assigned three hours, from nine to twelve. Since it was to begin at 9:00 am, the audience was made to settle by 8:45 am. The court registrar ensured that the court case was still on, and allocated it to the Court number four. The participants included the judge, the counsels, witnesses, the complaint, and the defender. Everyone was made to stand up as the judge and the court reporter came in. The judge bowed to the audience and sat down. The audience was then allowed to sit.
The audience consisted of family members and friends of the complainant and the suspect. The registrar’s role was reading complains and directing the court. He called in the complainant first to state the case. Thereafter, he called the witnesses each at a time. All the witnesses who were allowed to talk had to take an oath using the Bible. The murder case was about unfaithfulness in a romantic affair. The fiancé of the victim and his competitor were friends from the same college. According to the witnesses, the lady was first approached by the fiancé but fell in love with the friend. Their man discovered their hidden love and decided to kill the lady so that they could both be free.
The judge remained independent and neutral all through the session. I gathered this information through a set of questions he posed to the witnesses. The witnesses were not part of the audience. They were kept in another room to give their side of the story without any prejudice. I also realized that all the participants apart from the audience were in business attire. At the end, the court was adjourned for another day, as there were other witnesses to be called.
Since the judge never announced his verdict, it was difficult to know the fate of the suspect. I however agreed that another day would be sufficient for the hearing of the witnesses before the verdict could be announced. The case was tricky as the suspect had his witnesses who claimed that the friend was guilty. The attorneys in the case were critical. They examined all the witnesses and exhibitions brought forward. The trial was run well. Both parties were given time to give their side of the statement. The audience remained silence all through. Hence, the code of conduct in the court was maintained. Furthermore, the judge also enquired about the areas he needed more clarification. After realizing that there would be partiality in a court case, I would pursue a trial to the end. This would be to allow the court to listen to any witnesses and other recorded information. In case the suspect would be declared free, I would like to ask the judge whether the criminal would refund the suspect of the humiliation and stress he had endured.