The Psychology of Letting Go

by caroothers

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Exploring the second concept of the courtroom as a block volume led to some interesting discovery.  This scheme would have led to a successful courthouse, but the concept of the line or ribbon courthouse developed a more successful form.  The conceptual model study was worth while and created an nice schematic study of program and asymmetric pairing for a court room.  These studies may lead to a different design decision further along in the full process of the courthouse.

Changing Preconceived Notions

by workbymariahroth

So like many people who aren’t entirely familiar with the courthouse system I had a certain stereotype in my head while walking in the door.  That quickly went away after about two minutes in the courthouse.  When first entering the Mecklenburg County Courthouse I was automatically directed towards security along with most everyone else.  I expected security to be there, just wasn’t sure as to how close to the main entrance it would be.  From there I proceeded to find the clerk of court to find information about the trails going on that day.  Come to find out that many of the clerks are located in different places throughout the courthouse, which made it very difficult to find out useful information.  Once I figured out which courtrooms were holding what type of trails I decided to sit in on three courtroom proceedings; each different from the next and showing me great insight.

The first courtroom was a magistrate courtroom and to me was very similar to a “cattle call”.  When I first arrived I noticed the judge was seated at his bench with three clerks to his left and a TV screen mounted on the wall to his right.  It was fairly quite in the courtroom except for the noise of multiple piles of papers being shuffled about.  A few minutes later a video feed came on the TV and sound came through the speaker/microphone system.  On the TV screen were prisoners in what I presumed to be a nearby jail holding area.  Then in a very quick manner the judge began assigning court dates, bail amounts, and pleas front prisoners.  The judge even had the privilege of informing some inmates that their case was dripped and were free to go.  Surprising to me was how light hearted the judge seemed.  He even cracked a couple jokes during this process.  Two inmates were escorted into the courtroom for the setting of court dates and bail amounts.  This was interesting because I began to wonder why some were physically there and other had to be video conferenced in.

The courtroom itself was what I had expected it to be housing a judge, clerks, attorney tables, an unused jury section, and public seating.  The circulation of the courtroom was directed towards the exterior, mainly because the “bar” extended all the way across the length of the courtroom.  The ceiling was pronounced downward around the judge and attorneys much like a traditional courtroom, this is turn made the courtroom feel more intimate with the lower ceilings.

The second courtroom was another magistrate courtroom, however this courtroom was different in many ways compared to the previous one.  One of the major differences was there was more people.  There were more lawyers, more bailiffs, more public, and Mecklenburg police officers in the jury section (the arresting officers). One of the first things that I noticed was that the judge was not at his bench; therefore I assumed court was not in session, wrong assumption.  A bailiff politely asked my colleague and I too not talk.  As court went about many lawyers were briskly walking around, speaking to their clients and going into private meetings wherever they could find space.

The design of this courtroom was slightly different.  The circulation proceeded along a main centered axis; the “bar” was broken in the middle.  There was no TV monitor, however there was a chalkboard and a mounted retractable projection screen (above a high window).  The ceiling was pronounced in the same manner, however the entire ceiling was higher.  The higher ceiling made the volume seem narrow and high.  With the amount of people in the room, lawyers, officers, public, defendants, the space seemed to fill out quite quickly.  With the amount of people and the higher volume voices and noises began to echo more and therefore was difficult to comprehend all the different activities at once.

The third courtroom was an arraignment courtroom.  As I was walking in (court was already in session) I automatically saw the defendant in full shackles connecting their wrists to their ankles.  This was a first for me.  The emotions I felt are difficult to describe.  Soon this prisoner was escorted out.  I then witnessed two other proceedings of arraignment for cocaine related charges.  There were not many people in this courtroom; the judge, the DA, two clerks, one/two bailiffs, defendants, their attorney and very few public visitors.  Many of the public visitors were relatives of the defendant to support them.  The courtroom was volumetric similar to the second on.  However, this time it was much easier to understand because communication was more along the lines of a conversation between the judge and the defendant.

The layout of the third courtroom was quite similar to the second one, a repeating layout they used.  However, with there were more doors leading to different areas of security for defendants.  This courtroom felt more intimate even though it had high ceilings.

Overall, my court observations gave me great insight into the workings of a courtroom and how this can play into my design for the rest of my semester.  Also, the concept of security and privacy and how they play a role in the overall design of the courtroom and courthouse.

Emotional Response to Crime & Punishment

by davidgilmanking

I visited the Mecklenburg County Courthouse on Tuesday, September 25^th.  I was able to sit in on both civil and criminal proceedings, with and without jury trials.  It was the first time I have ever just visited the courthouse to watch trials, simply as a spectator.  I have watched high profile trials on television before but never taken the time to go down to the courthouse and publicly witness law in process.  The experience is tangibly different.  I will just briefly sum up two major observances that are related to my project and research

First, walking into the courtroom is a little intimidating.  You have no idea what is on the other side of the door, whether you are in the right spot, if court is in session, or if you are even ‘supposed’ to be there.  The doors are massive and it was intimidating opening and crossing through the threshold.   The sound lock had very thin windows that were slightly opaque so seeing what you were walking into was next to impossible.   What I found most interesting was the reception that you are given upon entering, a mix of ‘who are you and what are you doing here’ to ‘are you in the right place’ types of attention.  It makes you feel slightly intrusive.  This is an interesting response to a ‘public’ trial.  After the initial response, you are mostly ignored, but I did find that sense of not belonging fascinating – I am obviously not the only one that does not go often to publically view trials.

The second was my emotional response to locking up guilty defendants.  Specifically, this occurred when a 53 year old woman on trial for the sale of a third of an ounce of cocaine.  She had obviously had a tumultuous life and one that involved many run-ins with the law, as she was a level 4 defendant.  She was 30 days from being released from probation and was holding down a job as a truck driver, despite not being able to drive out of state.  She sold the cocaine to an undercover officer for $20, which was paid to her in a marked bill.  It seemed like the situation was opportunistic as opposed to well thought out.  Never-the-less, she clearly had no case, had committed a crime, but I actually felt sorry for her and her mother that was sitting in front of me.  It was emotional as the judge read through the litany of rights she had available to her, sentenced her to 15-24 months, and then finally as she was handcuffed.  I wanted to reach out and give her a hug and say ‘hang in there’ and’ turn your life around’.  I wanted to give her mother a hug and say ‘it will be alright’.  The judge even extended a personal measure to her admonishing her to stop – the only person he really did this with during my observation.  As I left the courtroom I had a feeling that she would be back again, that the time spent in prison would not help.  It was a response to crime and punishment that I did not expect to have and one that I do not believe that I would have had sitting at home on the couch watching it on TV.

Cascading

by Anna Raines

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The addition of topography opened new avenues for exploring the various facets of “slipping” developed in earlier ideation models. Four “court-sets” cascade from the street down a hill, looking toward the Charlotte skyline. Oriented North, this aggregation of court-sets aims to utilize the courtroom thresholds generated previously with the path of the sun to highlight the passage of time during the court experience. Glimpses and reveals between and through the massing model blocks articulate the quality of “spaces between”; the sense of successive frames simultaneously separating and connecting each space.

“Do you Plead Guilty to Being a Jerk?” An insight to courtrooms

by workbymichelletodd

To be completely honest, I had no clue what to really expect when I went to the Mecklenburg County Courthouse to observe trials. Maybe this uncertainty was fueled by the romanticized situations perpetuated by t.v., in which I had convinced myself, that cannot be real life. While the cases were not as dramatic as a show, say “Judge Judy,” there was still quite a bit of interesting events that ensued in court.

Let me begin with the general scheduling of a courthouse. Everyone, well almost everyone, goes on lunch between noon and 2 p.m. Within these hours, everything seems to seize and desist in the courthouse. What was remaining were the lawyers scrambling to balance getting lunch, with getting facts, and finding that one more person to represent. There were a few security officers roaming around keeping the place in check, but all in all, things became rather stagnant during those hours. Once lunch was over, there was an influx of people entering the courthouse, waiting outside the courtrooms, and an urgency to get trials moving.

The second general observation: security at the courthouse is almost more rigid than at the airport. It seems as though their detectors are a little more sensitive to metal. The organization of security was very clear, escorting the different types of populations and sorting them by signs, leading the public one way and workers through another. There is a definite variance of the number of officers present in each type of court. The greater the crime, the greater the presence of security, and typically the higher the floor you are on (in acceptance to family court).

On to the court cases. The first set of cases that I observed were what I was originally informed was going to be traffic court. Soon to find out, this was erroneous information (the clerk of court didn’t really seem connected to the proceedings of the building). It turns out that they were hearings to set court dates as well bail amounts for suspects already in jail. All suspects, but two, were shown on t.v., in which the judge spoke through a monitor, rapidly going through paper, handing down court dates, asking for pleas, and assigning bail amounts. Most of the criminals seemed to be in their situation because of probation violations. Within this courtroom, there was a rapid set pace. To keep up with the vast quantity of paper work to be filtered, there were 3 clerks to help. There were numerous lawyers standing around waiting for their clients papers to surface in the stack just to make a brief statement. Within this set of proceedings, the judge also decided if suspects/criminals should be appointed a lawyer, an interpreter, or both. The scale of this courtroom was smaller, the ceilings were lower, and the circulation seemed to be controlled to the periphery of the courtroom rather than the center. The volume in this court seemed to be greater than all of the others, but because of its smaller size, it was still easy to discern what the judge was communicating (which, by the way, he had the greatest sense of humor. He even asked if someone plead guilty to being a jerk).

The next set of proceedings that I sat in on were misdemeanor drug charges. The first thing that I happened to notice when I walked in was that all of the arresting officers were present where you would think a jury would be present. The layout of this courtroom seemed a little different than the previous courtroom. Instead of the judge’s bench being centered in the room, it was off to the side. Also, there was a witness stand included in the room, unlike in the first room. The circulation was directed differently, bisecting the center of the room, controlling the circulation to be down the center. This courtroom also included a greater amount of doors leading into the courtroom, varying in function from judge’s entrance to emergency exit. The security was more rigorous in this courtroom with a greater amount of bailiffs present. These bailiffs actually seemed interested in the happenings of the public observants. I was even questioned about why I was drawing plans in my sketchbook. I then proceeded to explain my purpose and apparently the bailiff was joking, but he had me going. The manner in which court was conducted in this room was a little difficult to follow. It seemed as though lawyers were making deals and submitting them the clerk instead of proceeding through a judge. There was a lot of chattering, which made it difficult to hear what exactly was happening. Combine that with the larger space and higher ceilings, there was a poor reverberation of sound.

The last set of cases that I observed were federal drug cases, including crimes such as distributing cocaine. The layout of this courtroom was the most elaborate. There was a larger amount of doors to control the circulation of those in the trial. There were fewer people present from the public. Most of the people who were sitting behind the bar were family there as leverage to persuade the judge to assign a lesser sentence. While both the defendant and the public prosecutor (in this case the District Attorney) were present, they were not their to present evidence for conviction, but evidence to determine the sentencing. The criminals were put into shackles to be processed immediately following their arraignment. Because the courtroom seemed to be used for arraignments, there was no fixed jury seating.

Overall, the general synopsis of how the courthouse is organized is in the following way: the higher the floor, the fewer the public observants, but the larger the  courtroom, the greater the security.