Facts of the Case

1. On January 15, 2006 Marvin Jones, a 22 year-old adult male of sound mental state, saw Rosa Jacobs while she was walking down street attempted to start a conversation with her. After 30 minutes of talking he was able to get her phone number and promised to call her on the following day. 2. On the following day, January 16, 2006, Jones called Jacobs requesting that they meet at Steve’s Diner for coffee. The two met as planned, and after having coffee, they had dinner and made plans for another evening.

During dinner, he revealed the fact that he had been previously convicted of a felony 4 years earlier. Jones walked Jacobs home and they parted. 3. On the following evening, Jones arrived at the place he had planned to meet Jacobs and found her accompanied by her two brothers. These men expressed concern for their sister’s well being in light of their knowledge of Jones’ previous convictions for assault just 4 years earlier. 4. The brothers also expressed concern about the differing backgrounds of Jones and Jacobs, as both had attained different levels of education.

Jacobs was an accountant and Jones a waiter. 5. Jones responded in an aggravated fashion, and this response to the brothers’ concerns led to name calling, pushing, and eventually to battery using fists. 6. At this point, Jones pulls out a gun and shoots both brothers, after which the police arrive on the scene and arrest him. 7. Charges were brought against Jones by the State of Florida amounting to two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. 8.

These charges, brought before the Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County on March 14-17, 2007, were in violation of Florida Statute Section 784. 021. 9. Jones was tried before the court and presiding Judge Gonzalez and convicted on both counts out aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 10. Jones was sentenced to two three-year terms to be served consecutively. Procedural History The trial which took place between March 14, 2007 and March 17, 2007 the following actions were executed according to procedure.

The bailiff announced the entrance of the presiding judge, Judge Gonzalez, to the courtroom and the trial proceedings began. Judge Gonzalez was present and fully prepared to hear the case. Jones sat in the defendant’s seat and had his lawyers present and at his side. The prosecution and defense were allowed to make their cases in a systematic and regulatory format. Jones was allowed to testify in his own defense with the jury present to hear his testimony.

Jones was allowed to converse with his council, Mark Stevens, during the trial and was in fact accorded all the rights of a defendant, even though Jones’ behavior during the trial was consistently offensive. The courtroom was made properly secure. In light of the defendant’s violent history as demonstrated in his prior conviction for assault, he was held in a manner that would ensure the safety of the jury, the judge, and all other persons present at the trial. This necessarily involved Jones’ being placed in shackles.

Objections were brought by Jones’ council Mark Stevens against the manner in which Jones was held, but these were necessarily overruled by Judge Gonzalez in light of the security standards to which the courtroom must be held and to provide the jury with a more secure environment in which to draw their conclusions. The prosecutor, Susan David, utilized three peremptory challenges to rid the courtroom of jurors considered unsuitable. David found one 22 year old Jennifer Jackson to express nervousness in during the proceedings, and this David deemed a deterrent to her appropriate performance as a juror.

She was found not to be able to maintain eye contact and displayed a general sense of immaturity. Objections were made by Council Mark Stevens to the use of this peremptory challenge, but the Judge Gonzalez found it necessary to overrule the objection as Jackson was deemed unable to perform her legal duties to the proper standard in light of her apparent intimidation. The second peremptory challenge was issued against Deidre Sheldon. Sheldon expressed a lack of emotional detachment disinterest in the case when she attempted to argue with the prosecution during the presentation of the case.

Sheldon expressed her prerogative to “do what I feel like, when I feel like, how I feel like,” and this David deemed to be an unsuitable attitude to be held by a juror. Mark Stevens made an objection to David’s use of this challenge on the grounds that Sheldon was being wrongfully dismissed. However, Judge Gonzalez, who had been present at the time of Sheldon’s outburst, overruled this objection on the grounds that Sheldon was truly unfit to serve as juror in this particular case.

David’s third peremptory challenge was issued against Eugene Frederick who by his attitude expressed a general non-interest in the case. Objections were again made by Mark Stevens to David’s use of this challenge. This objection was overruled by Judge Gonzalez, who considered it necessary in the interest of justice to maintain a jury that would remain attentive to the proceedings in the courtroom. Reference Jones v. Jacobs, Jacobs, and the State of Florida. (2007).

Sample Essay of Custom-Writing