The assistant court room prosecutor is expected to analyze cases and recommend the best
course of action for the prosecutor. To achieve this, the officer should examine all the documents
in each case then collaborate with all the courtroom workgroup officers to make discretionary
decisions. The criminal courtroom workgroup is casual collaboration between the criminal
prosecutor, public defense attorney, and the legal officer. The collaboration forms the criminal
equity framework which is used to bring down court levels and provide for the chance to make
discretionary decisions. The theoretical court workgroup is founded on four ideas: collegiality,
speed, pragmatic, and cynicism.
Discretion in the courtroom workgroup involves looking at the specifics of a case in order
to make a critical decision supported by facts. Again, discretion comes into play when
determining the weight of a case. The prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge tend to have
strong working relationships that make the justice system fair and efficient. Fairness occurs when
the courtroom workgroup keeps an open-mind reviews the data vigilantly.
Discretion is used in the courtroom workgroup at each stage of the case. Prosecutor
assistants are required to look at the specifics of the case then choose the most appropriate
decision. The same strategy is used by all other players in the courtroom workgroup. As such,
each decision should be critically thought through. In case the decision is misinformed, the
repercussions will come back to the initial decision maker.
The ideals of justice requires retribution for the right person through trials or plea
burgeons. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment requires fair treatment to all people found
braking the law. However, the 6th amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial before
involving the jury. Successful assistant prosecutors must use discretionary decision to
differentiate cases that can be burgeoned and those that should go to trial.
The first case involves Mr. Baxter who was charged with several offenses. First, he was
driving under influence. Second, Mr. Baxter was driving recklessly. Third, he failed to provide
insurance. Alongside the charges were; text messaging while driving, not wearing a safety belt,
and careless driving. The defense attorney offered to drop the case and made a proposal. In the
proposal, the defense attorney request to the prosecution to drop the DUI charges and reduce
reckless driving to careless driving. The proposal was not fair and since the prosecutor has a tight
schedule, I decided to look at other options.
As the assistant prosecutor, I worked closely with the defense attorney to make sure that
justice was served fairly and in the shortest time possible in accordance to the 6th amendment.
The offender was driving under influence, text messaging, and did not put on the safety belt. All
these factors affect the safety of the public and himself. The offer provided by the defense
attorney is light and not just. I decided to apply critical thinking like a judge. The judge considers
all principles governing the courtroom and the justice system. I applied such discretionary
thinking to make the decisions in both cases. By so doing, I would offer just sentences that are
not too harsh nor too lenient.
In the first case, I recommended to have a counter offer that lets the prosecution drop the
DUI charges and have the offender accept a guilty plea for reckless driving.
recommend that you propose dropping the DUI charge and accepting a guilty plea for Reckless
Driving. The driver was a danger on the road-no matter what the underlying reason-and it is the prosecutor's job to
enforce the law, in part to serve as a deterrent for both the defendant and for others in the future. I recommend
proposing the first counteroffer.
I recommend charging the defendant with Misdemeanor Simple Assault. The victim suffered some
serious injuries as a result of the fight with the defendant, and someone must be held accountable. However, the
defendant should be charged with misdemeanor assault due to the ambiguous circumstances of the case.