by cchlebda

On Wednesday, I visited Mecklenberg Country Courthouse to witness various types of courtrooms in action. The following is a summary of my observations and analyses.

Octagonal raised ceiling brings focus to litigation area

First, I sat in on a few criminal court cases. In the first courtroom I went to, a series of arraignments were being held for drug-related crimes. The first thing I noticed was how difficult it was to hear the lawyers argue their cases. This courtroom was a typical rectangular courtroom, so the counselors’ tables faced away from the spectators towards the judge at the front of the space. Because they were talking in front of the bar and towards the judge, the lawyers were difficult to hear as a spectator. Also, since the arraignment cases were scheduled nonstop, one right after the other, many people (lawyers, spectators, bailiffs) kept entering and leaving the space as the particular case they were interested in either started or ended. Already having trouble hearing, I noticed that the sound lock for the courtroom didn’t seem to be working well, since I kept hearing a lot of hallway noise whenever the door was opened. I believe this is because the two doors of the sound lock were within easy reach of each other, so the previous door would still be open as the person was opening the next.

The next courtroom I went to was also in use for criminal court. This one was being used for arraignments for parole violations. While I was in this courtroom, I looked at the way the architecture affected the use of the space. For instance, the doors to the in-custody holding area were placed on a diagonal so that they faced towards the judge, rather than towards the spectators. The in-custody defendant was never part of the public space of the courtroom, but always in front of the bar, in the litigation space. I also noticed that all of the Mecklenberg County courtrooms had a raised, octagonal ceiling above the litigation space, to emphasize and draw attention towards the action of the courtroom. The architectural focus on the litigation space, combined with the physical barrier of the bar, made me feel like I was watching a play on stage. I felt distant and disconnected from the trials, like what was happening wasn’t real. It wasn’t until the judge decided to send one defendant to prison and he was taken away in handcuffs that I consciously realized that these were real people, and I was witnessing their real lives being altered in mere seconds.

Courtroom Layout Comparison

After observing criminal court for about an hour, I moved upstairs to family court. The case I witnessed was a custody trial where the defendant was representing himself. This case felt the most “real” to me as I observed. Emotional tension was high in this courtroom, and you could hear the defendant’s voice breaking as he called to the stand and questioned his friends and neighbors as witnesses to his character and paternal abilities.

One thing I noticed about the family courtroom was that it was very easy to hear the proceedings. I believe this had a lot to do with the quiet, private nature of the case as well as with the layout of the room. The spectator seating was located fairly close behind each of the counselors’ tables, which were also rounded, forming a kind of circle with the Judge and the witness stand. This setup made this court seem more like a “round-table” discussion than a trial. I thought this was appropriate, since, though the judge and the witnesses would contribute their insight and opinions, their real purpose was to mediate as a third, unbiased party to work out an appropriate solution to a personal, more or less “private” problem between the defendant and the prosecutor.

Family Courtroom Layout as a “Round Table” Discussion Space

The last type of court I observed consisted of civil court proceedings for rental agencies bringing cases against renters who violated their lease agreements. This was certainly the most boring set of court proceedings to sit through–even the judge was obviously bored and aggravated! Overall, the judge moved through the cases (about 10-15 in 40 minutes) fairly quickly, and I noticed that this type of courtroom really required more spectator seating than any other one, since that is where both the defendant renters and prosecuting leasing agents waited their turn to state their case and have the judge review the content of their leases.

Daylighting Section (Natural Light blocked by Shades)

After visiting all three types of court, I made note of some general things that I noticed throughout the day. (1) The central atrium space in Mecklenberg County Courthouse made the building feel very open and public on the interior and also made it pretty easy to orient yourself within the large building. (2) Opaque shades were always drawn over the windows in the courtroom, so, though it may have been designed to be naturally lit, daylight really did not ever enter the courtroom. (3) As an observer, I found it very distracting when other observers, counselors, or bailiffs would get up and leave while court was in session (especially because of noise); it would be nice if there were side aisles or some other way for observers to “sneak out” of the courtroom when they wish to leave.

Communication Studies

by caroothers

The overwhelming experience that I had at the Mecklenburg County Court was the feeling of emotion.  It was an interesting meeting of emotions in a place that requires the suppression of emotion in making a decision.  In almost every court case that I witnessed, emotion played  a major role in my judgement of the case as an outsider.

In Civil Court, the domestic abuse trials were focused on convincing the judge that the person in custody was really a good person, and messed up one time.  The majority of the trial involved background on the convicted party proving how good of a person and citizen they are normally.  It resulted in each of the people that I witnessed (all were up for a removal of bail and release) being freed of their bail and released back into society.  I agreed with most of these decisions, but there was one case in which the judge seemed undecided.  The ominous words to end the trial were ‘Don’t make me regret this.’  This decision seemed like the back story on the plaintiff won the judge over emotionally.  With the criminal cases, the most striking thing was the representative of the state.  He was charged with prosecuting many people, and was not well versed in the background of the case, however, he had very little motivation and seemed to not be representative of the state.  It was a very emotionless plea that did not work even once through my observation.

The Family Court Trial was the most emotionally charged.  The case I witnessed involved a separated Father and Mother arguing over child support payments.  The father lost most of the arguments, and had to be told several times to be respectful and quiet.  It was overwhelmingly obvious that the judge did not like the Father, but to see his disgust with the man, and then side for him on certain aspects was very interesting.  The ability of the law to put motion aside and make a decision was clearly executed here, and sent that point home with me.  The Father’s failure to have proper representation hurt him in the trial, as he was not as well versed in the nuances of the law.  He would have won all of the aspects of the trial if he did not refuse to be witness to questioning.  It was very difficult for me to witness this case, as there was so much emotion and tension in the room.  It was obviously wearing on the judge over the course of the day.

The Family Courts have an entirely different spacial feeling than the other court rooms.  The common areas are all very soft and playful.  The walls are decorated with art, there are different color schemes throughout, and there were a lot of people and children milling about.  It came across as a much more informal area that respected the children and tried its best to not be imposing.

The Criminal Court trials featured several people pleading guilty and not guilty drug use/distribution.  To see a mother of two get convicted of Cocaine Possession was very interesting.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to get a reduced sentence.  This worked for her, and she was sentenced to the minimum jail sentence.  The family was distraught and inconsolable.  I was also able to speak with the judge about something I noticed about how the space functioned.  That was the amount of movement, people in and out of the room.  The constant movement was very distracting to me in the audience.  The judge said that in most cases it did not effect him, but he does get distracted on occasion.  He said that the respect for the courtroom has really changed over time, and he does not understand why people behave inappropriately and without respect.  He suggested trying to create a solution for the constant movement.

I was also witness to a trial by jury, in the case of a rape accusation.  This was much more typical to what I understand as a court room trial.  I was able to witness most of the witness questioning for the day, and felt the emotion leave the room in the trial.  This was a very by the book trial, as most of it was listening to lawyers.  The lawyers were very precise in their language and actions, which seemed to emulate the intentions of the law.  It was very interesting to see the lawyers take over and run the court room.  The amount of information that they had to get out of each witness was immense.  Very basic facts had to be repeated several times in order for the court to fully understand.  The Jury can be easily swayed by the emotional aspects, and it is interesting to see the lawyers try to control that aspect, in order to get sympathy toward their client, and anger toward to other party.

In all of these cases, it really boils down to someone not telling the truth.  I do not understand how it can get this far into the trial process, on a lie.  I am glad that the court system is there to interpret this, but it should never get this far in the first place.  I was disappointed with how most of the court rooms functioned, in that a mass of people were on trial for only a few minutes and then convicted.  I was expecting more of this.  However, all of the cases proved interesting and it was very nice to see the interaction of emotion and law, and how that affected the judges and the people on trial.

Intertwining Public and Private

by cchlebda

As I continue to develop study models and examine the courthouse program, I am becoming increasingly interested in blending or interweaving public and private spaces of the courthouse in order to make court and the law seem more accessible to the public. Though the private spaces of the courthouse (judge/staff/in-custody/etc.) have to be completely separated from public spaces for functional and security reasons, I am interested in finding ways to weave public spaces through the private spaces. One way I have experiemented with is to insert public spaces “in-between” private floor levels. Another way is to think about the courtrooms as nodes/bridges between private and public, since it is the only space in the courthouse where all parties (judge, jury, counselors, defendants, and spectators) are present together at any given time.

I developed a series of plans and models resulting in a kind of “finger” scheme, a series of alternating public and private wedges. I then took this a step further and started to look at how to bring the park/nature into the building. I also thought about the unique position of the jury (a combined public and private entity) and how their spaces might be positioned in the courthouse. In my plans, sections, and diagrams, I have been using blue to represent private spaces, yellow to represent public spaces, and green to represent outdoor, potentially vegetated spaces. The green is present in areas (in plan) where the public and private spaces start to intersect (coincidentally, blue + yellow = green); in other words, the building starts to open up exterior spaces where public and private spaces intertwine.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Court visit

by JP Mays

On Tuesday afternoon I was able to attend several courts at the Mecklenburg County Courthouse; domestic violence, drug crimes arraignment, and a rape jury trial.

Domestic Violence/Magistrate

During this court there were multiple defendants and plaintiffs, separated in the spectator seating by gender.  I assume this to be in order to more effectively keep the peace in the courtroom, to prevent outbursts or even more assault.  The prosecuting table was set up with a computer and multiple files for all the defendants.  The DAs cycled through the cases, but it seemed very informal.  Whenever they began addressing the judge I was always surprised, because they’d just be sitting there, shuffling through papers, different attorneys coming and going, then apparently randomly they’d call a defendant up, and present the charges to the judge.  Most were pleading for reduced sentences or bail.  They also were very typically casually dressed, and showed little respect for the proceedings.

Drug Court/Arraignment

Here it seemed a bit more orderly, but there was still a lot of coming and going at the counsel tables and in the spectator area.  Many defendants pleaded for more time, and got their trials postponed for a month or so, for various reasons including more time to develop their case.  Some contested their trial since the plaintiff was not present, and either had that delayed or dismissed.  One defendant was not present, and then the bailiff had an interesting, proscribed, almost archaic speech he had to make, in a raised voice, calling the person to court.  When he did not present himself the judge issued a warrant for his arrest.   Several defendants were convicted and sentenced, handcuffed by the bailiff and taken away through a side door.  I found it interesting that any money seized during their arrest was donated to the Public School System.

Adam happened to come in also, and we stayed until the end.   After we left, we lingered awhile in the corridor discussing the cases, and then the DA came out and wanted to know a little about what we were doing, and if we wanted to meet the judge.  Naturally we accepted, and got to talk to the Honorable Judge Foust about our project, and our research so far.  He shared some insights on the increasing lack of respect in the courtroom and some of the distractions he is faced with daily.  He also tipped us off to a juried rape trial that was going on, so we thanked him for his time and headed that way.

Rape Trial

To sum up the trial, the plaintiff was allegedly held at gunpoint and forced into a vehicle by the defendant, who drove her to a semi-isolated street and raped her.  We came in during the cross examination of the plaintiff, where the defense attorney was trying to solicit testimony to support his client’s not guilty claim.  That was a very surreal experience, to watch her respond to his questions in a deadpan voice, giving many monosyllabic answers … “Yes,” “No,” etc.  She did not show much emotion, or cry, or seem angry.  Afterwards the prosecutors brought in two other witnesses to help flesh out what happened prior to and after the alleged rape.

This was the first courtroom I attended that actually had a jury (the others didn’t even have a place for one).  This trial was exponentially more formal than the others.  The defendant was dressed to the nines, very clean cut, and the attorneys addressed the judge very formally.  The jury was quite varied, but not all seemed completely engaged in the process, often being distracted by the spectators.  There also was an actual court reporter, which I did not notice in the other courts.

Impressions

Overall I had a pleasant interaction with MCC.  It is a very light and airy space, with all courtrooms publicly accessible from a corridor which wraps a large atrium.  It was easy to just pop into a courtroom, and I did not feel like an intruder.  While the security at the entrance was smooth to get through, I had to detour off the main procession.  It diminished the approach of the building, but since it was painless I did not mind it so much.  The navigation also was detractive, in that it was not clear which types of court are on which floor.  I wandered around for a while before I could determine which courtrooms held the types of court I wanted to attend.  In general, however, I feel that I have a better understanding of the courthouse and the courtroom, and would be more comfortable if I ever needed to return (hopefully not as a defendant).