Question by The Blockader: What do the Judge and Prosecutor say in a Court Hearing?
I have to write a play for my individual drama piece at school, and then I have to act it all out by myself in front of a live audience, -_-“.

I need to know what the Judge and the Prosecutor and anybody else in the courtroom would say during the whole process of a Court Hearing, every thing from “All rise” to “I sentence you to life in prison”.

It would be nice if someone could also show me some examples from other websites, maybe this has been written out in some other script as well. Any help is a lot. Thanks.

Best answer:

Answer by westsidedavid
If you are contemplating a play about a murder trial, you should realize at the outset that this sort of a trial is the most complicated, technical, and exacting procedure known to the law, precisely because the stakes are so high. As one expression of just how complicated such trials are, consider this: many murder defendants cannot afford an attorney, so the court must appoint counsel. In most jurisdictions, no attorney is allowed to be lead counsel (“first chair”) until he or she has been assistant defense counsel in at least one first degree murder trial defense. Some states require as much as three appearances in subordinate roles. For the standpoint of manageability of your assignment, I recommend something less demanding.

Another reason is that because the stakes of a murder trial are so high, the degree of preparation that is required and expected from everyone involved is much greater than in other cases. This means that the “drama” involved in a murder trial is often much less than in other cases, in which the attorneys simply cannot invest the exacting preparation that a trial involves. This means that in lesser cases, there are slip-ups, unexpected turns, and the sort of situations that allow for much more freewheeling “drama.”

For instance, from actual cases:

In an assault and battery case, the defense counsel was able to get the defendant released on bail, which meant, among other things, that the defendant was dressed in a business suit the day of the trial. The victim was the first witness, and one of the prosecutor’s first questions was, “Can you identify the man who attacked you?” “Yes!” the victim replied, pointing. “He sitting right there at the table, right there. I’ll never forget his face as long as I live.”

A silence followed. The defense attorney rose slowly, turned to the judge, and said, “Your honor, please let the record reflect that the victim has identified the assistant prosecutor as his attacker.”

Or a variant, again from an actual trial. The defense counsel again had the defendant dressed in a suit and looking reasonably respectable. He had his paralegal wearing a grubby T-shirt, looking like a street tuff, and acting very surly. While cross-examining a critical witness, he had the paralegal stand up, and got the witness to swear that this man was the attacker. The defendant then revealed that this was his paralegal. The trick did get the defendant off. However, it was a fraud on the court, and it got the attorney suspended for 60 days for the trick. Of course, this case raises an interesting and complicated issue: if defense counsel is absolutely convinced that the defendant is truly innocent, is it right for counsel to risk his career to serve the ends of justice? Or does justice require that the rules of trial be observed even at the risk of seeing an innocent man convicted?

A final example, one somewhat dated: during the Vietnam War, there were some cases that involved tremendous tension that touched every aspect of some trials. In one case, jury selection was crucial. The defense learned that one potential juror was devoutly religious, and asked if any of his four children has applied for conscientious objector status. The potential juror replied that all four of his sons were conscientious objectors. Defense counsel immediately stopped all further questions, and the juror was seated as a member of the jury. The defense counsel came to regret the move. He had failed to ask how the man felt about what his sons had done. He was not on speaking terms with any of them, regarding them as cowards and traitors to their country. He was determined to convict the defendants, no matter what.

Now, to respond briefly to your specific questions: the judge is largely the referee. The prosecutor presents the evidence for the government, trying to convict the defendant.

Give your answer to this question below!

 

 

Seattle Individual Counseling with Peter Hannah MA LMHC – Seattle counselor Peter Hannah describes his therapy work with individuals.