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.

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).

by pdgaither

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This past week I have been developing several things. I began with further courtroom organization and developed a set of rules for myself while designing the court space, i.e. the jury box will always be in line with the witness stand, making the counsel always in line with the judge. I also looked at how the different parties of the courtroom move within the space. This set of diagrams informed a development of support spaces for the courtroom. I also looked at the overall design and look of the building. Very basic facade studies were done and a quick model showed how the building will reside within the landscape.