Courtroom Workgroup Case Study

The differing personalities between the two courts has an impact on the courtroom workgroup ethic. Both proceedings displayed the effectiveness of the workgroups and how each interacts differently. In felony courts, “court actors” improve the effectiveness of the courtroom. Attorneys and judges that work with each other on a regular basis foster improved relations. As a result, cases have a higher probability of resulting in a plea and the length of disposition is decreased (Metcalfe 2016). Judge Stevens’s courtroom displayed such interactions. In the case of The State of Texas v. Manuel Gonzalez Barajas. No. 334409, the attorney for Mr. Barajas, Dustin Galmor, failed to promptly inform his client of his trial date. The defense attorney spoke

Galmor brought up issues with requested documents. Judge Stevens, in hopes of protecting the “establishment of justice,” discussed the solution with all attorneys. He dictated the conversation. Directing each attorney to acknowledge each issue. While Judge Stevens controlled the workgroup, Judge Holmes merely listened and responded to the workgroup around him (The State of Texas v. Kayla Chvone Marshall. No. 315716.). In considering Mrs. Marshall’s sentencing guidelines, Judge Holmes enlisted the courtroom actors to assist him in making his decision (Judge Stevens did not ask for assistance). Personality of the Felony Court hinges on the idea of control and retribution. Judge Stevens, although technically a part of the workgroup, controls the effects of the actors. While the Misdemeanor Court works along with the workgroups to ensure change or rehabilitation. Judge Holmes even explained that County Court number two is a “people’s court” and “this is your court [to make changes]” (Judge Terrence L. Holmes, personal communication, November 15, 2017, Jefferson County Court at Law number two). The dynamic of each Court is unique to the level of jurisdiction. With each jurisdiction, different workgroup ethics emerge (as well as