Court Proceeding Observation, anti-narcotics police, The court rules
The case presented before the court involved drug trafficking. The accused were being charged with counts of drug dealing in the city. There are three suspects involved in the case; two men aged 30 and 38 years and a young lady in her mid twenties. On 3rd March 2013, they were found in possession of 2kgs of marijuana in their resident. The investigations were carried out by the anti-narcotics police. They are believed to have been selling the drugs to the young youths and part of criminal gangs terrorizing the city. The three suspects before the court had been marked by the police as a dangerous gang and put in the list of wanted gangs in the city. Some of the residents questioned by the police admitted to the three being drug dealers. The court used the evidence presented before it to either hold them accountable or rule otherwise (White 120).
Ten minutes before the proceeding, the audience who are to follow the whole process took their seats in the courtroom. As one of the audience I took to the front seat in order to follow keenly and closely. At exactly 9 am we are guided into a standing ovation as the presiding judge entered the court room. Then the suspects were brought into the courtroom under a tight security (White 129). One of the clerks ordered silence. The judge requested one of the assigned clerks to read the case for the suspects to confirm their case. He proceeded to read to the suspects the democratic rights that they enjoy while in the court. The court rules were then read out to the court. That people were to remain silent during the sessions and no misconduct in the court. The suspects were asked to corporate and the lawyers to treat each other with respect. The police provided evidence they collected during their investigation and bared witness that these were the real suspects they caught. The witnesses were given time to testify. They were called one by one and questioned in detail by the prosecutor, lawyers and the suspects
[...] Drug trafficking is a menace faced all over the world and the dealers are heartless people who will stop at nothing and sell them to the society. Justice did prevail in this case since the suspects will stay in jail for five years and the other criminals still at large can a lesson from this heavy penalty (White 431). Many drug lords operate at large since they have influenced the courts and they are powerful people. Having non partisan courts is advantageous to the society since no favors are given to anyone. Work Cited White, M. Australian Offshores Laws. London: Federation Press Print. [...]
[...] The court rules were then read out to the court. That people were to remain silent during the sessions and no misconduct in the court. The suspects were asked to corporate and the lawyers to treat each other with respect. The police provided evidence they collected during their investigation and bared witness that these were the real suspects they caught. The witnesses were given time to testify. They were called one by one and questioned in detail by the prosecutor, lawyers and the suspects A plea of not guilty The accused were given the chance to prove that they are not guilty. [...]
[...] Court Proceeding Observation Introduction The case presented before the court involved drug trafficking. The accused were being charged with counts of drug dealing in the city. There are three suspects involved in the case; two men aged 30 and 38 years and a young lady in her mid twenties. On 3rd March 2013, they were found in possession of 2kgs of marijuana in their resident. The investigations were carried out by the anti-narcotics police. They are believed to have been selling the drugs to the young youths and part of criminal gangs terrorizing the city. [...]
[...] His clients were being denied rights to good services while in custody. Their rights were also violated since they were never given a chance to call and talk to their lawyers (White 267). This resulted in a heated debate in the court with the prosecutor complaining that the defense lawyers were some trying to hold the court into ransom since they wanted their terms considered. This stand still resulted in the court being adjourned for one hour as the two teams consulted on what to do next. [...]
[...] Recommendations According to the crime brought before the court, it was justified to give out the ruling as stated in this paper. The accused committed a serious offence and the court acted within its jurisdiction to sentence them. The accused were treated well and their rights respected. They were given enough time to explain themselves. Security given them was adequate to protect them from the public. The court was well organized and its proceedings went as per the schedule (White 398). Those expressing themselves like the lawyers were given enough time to do so without any intimidation or biases. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
