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.