For my court observation, I visited the Collin County Court-At-Law #2 located at

the Collin County Courthouse in McKinney. I chose a Court-At-Law because at the

current time the judges in the state district courts were at a national conference. The
presiding judge of this Court-At-Law was Honorable Barnett Walker. He is a Republican
and previously was an attorney doing private practice and graduated with his JD from
Southern Methodist University. The legal action taking place is a DUI case that occurred
in the small city of Melissa in northern Collin County. The case at hand involved a
woman who was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence. The reason for
initially pulling her over was presented before I entered the courtroom but through
inference during the hearing she showed signs of alcohol consumption while driving on a
road with a speed limit of 65 mph. Inside the courtroom, the dash cam video was played
for a substantial part during its relevant part and after that it was turned off and then
switched to a 1 and half hour hearing from the police officer who pulled her over. He was
asked questions by the defense attorney for the most part and also by the states attorney
for the other part.
The questionnaire by the defense attorney begin with the questioning of the police
officer and his various credentials which I thought was odd and didnt know that was
supposed to occur. There were a lot of questions regarding if the officer knew al the rules
of arrest in terms of DUI and also his credentials and if he had completed and understood
all the police programs that are instituted for DUI results like manuals, rules, and specific
guidelines when arresting someone under the suspicion of DUI. There was also a
conversation about the knowledge of probable cause for her to be pulled over under the
suspicion and whether there was cause, which is important because she was noted to not

have two distinct characteristics of people, which are pulled over for DUI, which include
slurred speech and a disheveled face.
Other important questioning from the defense attorney included the authenticity
of the police report, which was noted to be shorter than usual and not as in depth as the
defense would have liked. In the police report, the officer failed to mention all aspects,
which should have been included such as the non-showing of slurred speech and
disheveled appearance, along with the fact that there was no alcohol in the car.
The next discussion between the defense attorney and the police officer was about
the alcohol testing done, and different types of alcohol testing that can be used. During
this time the state attorney did something I didnt know about which was asking the
presiding judge to make sure the questions contained relevancy toward the topic as this
is when I noticed the defense attorney was talking a lot more than needed and was noted
also by the jury because of there lack of attention during this part as I saw some yawns
and wandering eyes. The police officer was noted to have asked for a blood sample
instead the traditional breath sample, later him saying that juries usually found it more
helpful if blood samples are present. There was also talk about DIC 24 which is
supposed to be mentioned before asking for a blood sample, its also noted that the suspect
did not give the blood sample even though the officer said there could be consequences
given which is legal under law. The defense attorney then brought up SFSTs
(Standardized Field Sobriety Tests). He talked about the three different tests that could
have been used to test the suspect but were not used which led to questioning of the
officer if he knew about the procedures and guidelines, which he actually did. There was
also talk about whether there was a warrant if the officer could indeed ask for a blood

sample, it was true that he could issue a warrant on the spot to receive a blood sample
from the suspect but is the suspects right to not give it to him. I found the testing aspect to
be odd because I dont understand why the officer would not have asked for a simple
breathalyzer test or even the other SFSTs before asking for a blood sample and then
taking her to jail. Overall, during the hearing of the officer I learned many new rules and
guidelines regarding peoples rights and the different tests that can be used to test out
sobriety of people who are under suspicion of driving under the influence.
In terms of my expectations, everything was met as I didnt know what to expect
as this was my first time entering a court room in which both a judge and a jury was
included. Upon walking in and sitting in the gallery I noticed the severity of the
courtroom and the whole room looked me upon when I walked in. When I was there it
was just I and one other person in the gallery, which turned out to be the suspects
husband. The jury contained 6 people of different race and genders, which showed
equality, and they all seemed interested and paid close attention to the hearings except for
one part I said above. The judge seemed to be willing and neutral, as he didnt make any
remarks or judgments that seemed unordinary. Also in the room were a police offer, a
court reporter, court administrator and a bailiff along with another person who I dont
know. There were no witnesses present during my time listening to the hearing.
The conduct of the court did indeed fill my requirements of the administration of
justice. Although I did leave slightly early before the ending of the session during a jury
break, there was word of no more testimony so Im sure the court will make the right
choice in terms of the final decision and I think the suspect will be found guilty of DUI
and personally I dont understand how a DUI could be fought but today I learned that and

the experience I gained today while visiting a court room with a live hearing was
extremely intriguing. I learned the many rules and guidelines of a courtroom and the way
evidence is brought upon to a jury. It was interesting to see the judiciary system work in
front of me and the legality that is followed with it. Overall, it was a great experience to
observe a court.