"Ask the Judge" Column continues in La Prensa, 9-2
Ask the Judge: Representation without Counsel
By Judge Steve Walker
The majority of plaintiffs and defendants in Justice of the Peace Court choose to represent themselves in the courtroom. After all it is the People’s Court.” Many do so to save attorney’s fees since they don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer.
From a practical point of view this is not the best plan to assure you a victory in the courtroom especially if you are being sued for thousands of dollars or you are the one filing the lawsuit.
While it is totally acceptable to represent yourself in Justice of the Peace Court on any docket, it is not the most advantageous when the other side has legal counsel who is versed in the law and practices it on an ongoing basis.
You face an uphill battle unless you diligently research the laws pertaining to your case. It helps if you are quick on your feet or an exceptionally good debater.
Although it is difficult, you can still win your case. It happens occasionally. The good news is if you go into a jury trial and the other side doesn’t have legal counsel either, at least you level the playing field somewhat. Both sides however, must follow rules of procedure in the courtroom. In a trial without a jury the same rules apply in front of the judge.
Court procedure in a jury trial can be a slippery slope when you have not gone to law school. The trial begins with the case being called by the judge. Ex: John Smith vs. Jose Cervantes. Once the case is called, the Judge then swears in the 25-30 potential jurors who show up for jury duty.
The next step in a trial is “Voir Dire.” Each side starts with the plaintiff followed by the defendant directing questions to the jurors. Usually general questions like, “Can you be fair in hearing the case?” or “is there anybody here who feels they cannot be objective?” and so on are appropriate. Sometimes the plaintiff/defendant will ask directed questions to specific jurors for a variety of reasons.
After both sides have had an opportunity to ask the jurors basic questions, the two opposing sides may arbitrarily strike three of the numbered jurors they think might not be favorable to their cause. The first six jurors not challenged will sit on the jury.
After six jurors are sworn in, the trial begins. Each side is afforded the opportunity for an opening statement explaining what they hope to prove or disprove.
Then the plaintiff calls his/her first witness if they have any and cross-examines them. Once the plaintiff finishes with each witness, the defendant may cross examine them as well. Once the plaintiff is finished the defendant is allowed the same procedure. Questioning witnesses is optional and is not required. Many times it is only the plaintiff and defendant that testify.
After each side is allowed a closing statement, the jury is charged to render a verdict. By law the plaintiff is expected to prove their case. If the jury feels they didn’t prove by a preponderance of the evidence, they will rule for the defendant by declaring a take nothing verdict. If they rule in favor of the plaintiff they may award monetary damages.
If there is no jury involved, the process is much quicker as the Judge usually asks the questions before rendering a verdict.
“Lastly as always, if you are due in court, be sure to show up to court on time. It is in everyone’s best interest.”
Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2 Steve Walker is a Vietnam Veteran and a former Journalist.
By Judge Steve Walker
The majority of plaintiffs and defendants in Justice of the Peace Court choose to represent themselves in the courtroom. After all it is the People’s Court.” Many do so to save attorney’s fees since they don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer.
From a practical point of view this is not the best plan to assure you a victory in the courtroom especially if you are being sued for thousands of dollars or you are the one filing the lawsuit.
While it is totally acceptable to represent yourself in Justice of the Peace Court on any docket, it is not the most advantageous when the other side has legal counsel who is versed in the law and practices it on an ongoing basis.
You face an uphill battle unless you diligently research the laws pertaining to your case. It helps if you are quick on your feet or an exceptionally good debater.
Although it is difficult, you can still win your case. It happens occasionally. The good news is if you go into a jury trial and the other side doesn’t have legal counsel either, at least you level the playing field somewhat. Both sides however, must follow rules of procedure in the courtroom. In a trial without a jury the same rules apply in front of the judge.
Court procedure in a jury trial can be a slippery slope when you have not gone to law school. The trial begins with the case being called by the judge. Ex: John Smith vs. Jose Cervantes. Once the case is called, the Judge then swears in the 25-30 potential jurors who show up for jury duty.
The next step in a trial is “Voir Dire.” Each side starts with the plaintiff followed by the defendant directing questions to the jurors. Usually general questions like, “Can you be fair in hearing the case?” or “is there anybody here who feels they cannot be objective?” and so on are appropriate. Sometimes the plaintiff/defendant will ask directed questions to specific jurors for a variety of reasons.
After both sides have had an opportunity to ask the jurors basic questions, the two opposing sides may arbitrarily strike three of the numbered jurors they think might not be favorable to their cause. The first six jurors not challenged will sit on the jury.
After six jurors are sworn in, the trial begins. Each side is afforded the opportunity for an opening statement explaining what they hope to prove or disprove.
Then the plaintiff calls his/her first witness if they have any and cross-examines them. Once the plaintiff finishes with each witness, the defendant may cross examine them as well. Once the plaintiff is finished the defendant is allowed the same procedure. Questioning witnesses is optional and is not required. Many times it is only the plaintiff and defendant that testify.
After each side is allowed a closing statement, the jury is charged to render a verdict. By law the plaintiff is expected to prove their case. If the jury feels they didn’t prove by a preponderance of the evidence, they will rule for the defendant by declaring a take nothing verdict. If they rule in favor of the plaintiff they may award monetary damages.
If there is no jury involved, the process is much quicker as the Judge usually asks the questions before rendering a verdict.
“Lastly as always, if you are due in court, be sure to show up to court on time. It is in everyone’s best interest.”
Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2 Steve Walker is a Vietnam Veteran and a former Journalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment