business law court paper

COURT PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Name

February 27,, 2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- PART 1

1st Trial

What courthouse did you attend? King County Superior Court in Seattle 
 Dates attended? Wednesday, January 25, 2012 and Thursday, February 2, 2012 Judge’s name? Eadie, Richard D. 
 What type of proceeding was it? Criminal proceeding

What was the subject of the case? Murder in the First Degree

What stage of the proceeding did you observe? I observed the direct testimony and cross examination.

2nd Trial

What courthouse did you attend? King County Superior Court in Seattle Dates attended? Thursday, February 2, 2012 
 Judge’s name? Lim, Dean S. 
 What type of proceeding was it? Civil proceeding

What was the subject of the case? Breach of contract

What stage of the proceeding did you observe? I observed the direct testimony and cross examination.

1

3rd Trial

What courthouse did you attend? King County Superior Court in Seattle Dates attended? Thursday, February 23, 2012 
 Judge’s name? Spearman, Mariane 
 What type of proceeding was it? Criminal proceeding

What was the subject of the case? Stalking and Violation of Anti- Harassment Order

What stage of the proceeding did you observe? I observed the direct testimony and cross examination.

2

PART II

As an international student from Thailand, the concept of the United States judicial system is somewhat new to me. I used this assignment to observe three trials at the King County Superior Court. The paper includes my observations about each of the trials, as well as a comparison and contrast between several key elements of the US and Thai judicial process, including the countries’ doctrine of jurisprudence, use of juries, participation of judges, the discovery process, and the use of court transcripts.

While the United States has 50 independent states and a strong federal government, the Thai government structure is comprised of 76 provinces (plus the capital Bangkok) that are all part of the centralized federal government. As a result, the Thai judicial system is “flatter” with fewer courts and jurisdictions. There are Municipal courts for minor offenses, Provincial Courts which serve as trial courts, Provincial Appellate Courts, and the national Supreme Court. Bangkok is the capital serving as a special administrative district like Washington, DC in the United States. It uses a trial court called the “Court of First Instance” instead of a Provincial Court.

I learned that Thai and United States judicial systems are similar in some respects, but different in doctrine. Thailand follows the principle of civil law, a legal system whose primary feature is an emphasis on codifying laws into collections rather than a doctrine of strict compliance with judicial precedent. In contrast, the United States adopted the tradition of common law systems where the doctrine known as “stare decisis” is applied to its judicial system. This system evolved to provide a sense of fairness so that similar cases are decided

3

using the same criteria and have the same outcome. Each decision forms a precedent for judges to use in subsequent cases.

I had the opportunity to observe three trials over three different days at the King County Superior Court in Seattle which has general jurisdiction over felony criminal and civil cases. This trial court roughly corresponds to the Provincial Court in Thailand. A major difference between the systems is that there is no jury system in Thailand. A quorum of two judges is necessary to hear the cases, render the verdicts, and decide the sentences. To be able to have the experience where the jurors are the ones who render the verdicts was very exciting for me. As an alien, I had very few perceptions about the trial procedures inside the courtroom in the US. I decided to observe more than one trial so that I can be more familiar with the courtroom atmosphere. Even though I was able to observe three different cases, each trial spanned several days so I was not able to see all phases of each complete trials, such as closing arguments or jury instructions.

My very first experience was observing two sessions of a murder trial on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 and Thursday, February 2, 2012 for the State v. Curtis Walker at room W-728. This case waited for two years to get to trial, and the actual trial spanned several weeks. I was able to observe the testimony of some expert witnesses and a video introduced by prosecutors. As for the verdict, the defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. The second case was the civil case of Moody v. Desert Sun Franchising on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at room E-713. Moody was suing their franchisor for breach of contract. For the morning session, I was able to observe witness testimony from plaintiff’s side. The third case was a criminal case of State v.

4

Bradford for Stalking and Violation of Anti-Harassment Order on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at room W-965 respectively. I attended the entire the morning session where I observed the testimony by the State’s witness and audio evidence from 911.

All three trials followed a similar procedure. Each morning the trial started when twelve jurors and two alternate jurors entered the courtroom and were seated. I noticed that the trial for the homicide case appeared to be a

more tense and thorough examination. The atmosphere inside the courtroom of State v. Walker was very intimidating. At one point when the court recessed, the defendant was escorted from the court room and he turned around making eye contact with me. This experience was very frightening to me. From my observation, all 14 jurors took notes and carefully listen when the state prosecutor direct examination. Compared to the murder trial, I found that the groups of jurors in other two cases appeared to be somewhat more relaxed. I concluded that the first case seemed to be sensitive to everyone involved. This is due to the fact that it was about a life and death matter where a severe sentence might be imposed.

In State v. Walker, I witnessed both attorneys make an opening statement. The state prosecutors presented the evidence with the exhibition of three different guns, and two expert witnesses were called in to take a stand. The first expert witness was from the state forensic lab who performed the DNA test. The second witness was an Associate Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy. I was quite startled when the Medical Examiner displayed the actual autopsy pictures when presenting the evidence. Both witnesses looked very professional and credible in their fields. I was very impressed in the way that the prosecutor used very technical

5

and specific medical questions to link the testimony to specific claims she was trying to prove. Given the gravity of the trial and the amount of scientific/technical issues, my exposure to TV shows led me to expect many more objections by the defense attorney, but I was surprised that there were no substantial objections raised by either party. In addition, unlike on TV, the courtroom was quite small and I was shocked to see the prosecutors, defendant’s attorneys, and the defendant sitting right next to each other at the same table. I expected the interactions between the prosecution and defense to be much more confrontational. The defense attorney tried an interesting strategy to introduce “reasonable doubt”. He was persuasive in raising the possibility that the defendant’s DNA evidence on the gun might have been transferred to the gun from gloves worn by the defendant and later worn by a friend at the time of the crime.

For the second trial of Moody v. Desert Sun Franchising, the entire morning session was devoted to testimony from two witnesses from the plaintiff’s side who was a franchisee. The witness gave testimony describing the unprofessional manner of the franchisor as they personally accessed the plaintiff’s customer database and deleted some of them without the franchisee’s knowledge. The testimony seemed to be limited to the questions answered and applied directly to the case. But at one point, the judge called for a recess where the jury was required to leave the courtroom and had a private conversation with both sides of the attorneys. On my observation, I found some differences between the role of the judge in the US and in Thailand. In the US, judges are mainly involved in managing the courtroom, conducting the hearing, and ruling on procedural issues. Thai judges do that but they are more active participants in the trial process, frequently asking questions of fact and trying to clarify statements from both sides. This is due to the fact that there is no jury system and the panel of

6

judges on the case renders the verdicts and delivers the sentences. The Thai system without jury can have some advantage in complicated or technical cases because the judges are selected to have deep knowledge of the subject matter and should be able to apply the law more accurately than novice jurors. Seeing all 14 jurors with different ages, backgrounds and very much diversity makes me wonder what kind of procedures they use to select the jurors and whether the “voir dire” – the process of jury selection (Cross & Miller, p. 47) - is applied accurately. After watching the movie in “12 Angry Men” in class, it helps to remind me of how important it is for each juror to weigh their judgment and decision before they render the verdict. Having experienced judges to decide the case might resolve issues with some complicated cases, but having a jury system makes it much harder to sway the outcome due to corruption. Overall, I prefer the jury system because it is less prone to corruption and promotes a general sense of civic responsibility and awareness of the law.

The third trial case was State v. Bradford. This case might appear to be a tort in a civil case – by definition – a private or civil wrong or injury insulting from a breach of a legal duty that exits by virtue of society’s expectations regarding interpersonal conduct, rather than by contract (Law

Dictionary, p. 548). But in this case, the defendant not only caused emotional distress by stalking the plaintiff (if in civil case), but the defendant also violated a previous order of Anti-harassment by the state. During the session, I witnessed the direct testimony from two witnesses. The prosecutor presented the audio record from a 911 call. This is an example of evidence introduced through the discovery process. I am impressed by the extensive discovery process supported by the US judicial system. In contrast, the Thai judicial system has a very weak discovery process that only requires a list of evidence to be submitted to the court seven

7

days before the trial. There is no deposition process where both attorneys are present and with a formal record by a court reporter.

In each trial, there appeared to be two or three court clerks or reporters typing the transcripts or otherwise recording some aspects of the trial. It is obvious that the court transcripts are an integral part of the US judicial system providing transparency and analysis of the case for all parties. Furthermore, these transcripts support the basis for all appellate filings since they document the grounds for objections raised throughout the trial. In contrast, in Thailand there are no verbatim court transcripts, and the only official written record of the trial is the decision written and delivered by the judges. After I have thought about the importance of complete and accurate court transcripts, it seems impossible to imagine fair and transparent judicial proceedings without them.

This assignment allowed me to view the US court system first hand and compare it to that of my native country. Americans may not realize that there are substantial differences between the judicial principles and doctrine of the US and other countries. Many elements of the US system, such as juries, discovery, and court transcripts are taken for granted. Even the types of torts can vary between different countries. For example, in Thailand slander and libel are criminal torts – not civil torts. Regardless of the differing judicial doctrine and procedures, the goal is to provide justice for the citizens. The courts I attended supported this goal by being well run and orderly with the judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and court staff

operating cooperatively under common procedures that respected the need for a fair trial procedure.

8

Bibliography

Cross, F.B., & Miller, R. L. The Legal Environment of Business. Mason, OH, South-Western, 2012. Print

Giftis, Steven H. Law Dictionary. Hauppauge, NY. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. 2010. Print

Kalyanasuta , Kanokpun. Suriyawong , Atchara. The Criminal Justice System and Community- Based Treatment of Offenders in Thailand. 26 Feb. 2012. http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no61/ch17.pdf

The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. The Judicial System in Thailand 26 Feb. 2012

<http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/docs/ Judicial_System_in_Thailand.pdf> Tilleki and Gibbins International LTD. Thai Legal Basic 26 Feb. 2012

<http://www.isaanlawyers.com/thai_legal_system.pdf>