The function of the courts is to give the public an opportunity to present themselves if they need to sue or defend a dispute against them. It is known to all that a court of law is a place where disputes can be resolved using fair and appropriate procedures. In criminal court, it is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and need to go to court due to your arrest, a criminal case is now open against you. The court is also the place where a fair, equitable and impartial trial can take place so that it does not cause any disadvantage to any of the parties involved in the dispute. Parties have the option of representing themselves or choosing to have a legal representative, which is generally preferred by many. In this courtroom observation paper, I will form two articles and classroom knowledge to show the relevance they play within the courts today. First, local legal culture, in the concept of "judicial culture", is based on dimensions of solidarity and sociability, the intersections of which create four cultures with associated types of case management: hierarchical culture (case management oriented towards rules); network culture (judicial consensus); autonomous culture (self-management); and municipal (flexible case management). The second being, the court guidelines and the sentencing structure, how it works and why different areas that deviate from Kalamazoo and southwest Michigan constitute a hole. In particular, Gallas—himself a former court administrator—believes that what judges and administrators do within courts is not enough to explain differences in how cases are handled; as he puts it, "local legal culture permeates law practice and case processing...... middle of paper...... around individual offender needs and management concerns and organization of courtrooms. Although the reliance of courtroom actors on different central concerns is theoretically uniform across jurisdictions, the relative importance and subjective interpretation of these considerations are likely to vary across judicial communities (Ulmer and Johnson, 2004) because “meaning, relative importance and priority and situation”. Their interpretations are anchored in the community culture of local courts, in the organizational and political contexts” which vary between courts (Kramer and Ulmer, 2002: 903). From this perspective, judicial deviations can be understood as the result of the complex interplay between formally rational decisions of guideline recommendations and essentially rational sentencing concerns, based on various interpretations of different concerns. central in the courtrooms.