A temporary return to covering the courts impressed me with the dignity and decorum expected and mandated for all attendees.
Before entering courthouse I saw signs forbidding cell phones. I took mine to my car. The officer at the metal detector audited everyone for guns, handbags and cell phones. I could take in a notebook and pens but no recorder or computer for taking notes. No noisy electronics allowed to disrupt the proceedings.
To keep the jury from being disrupted during the trial, the judge said, “they can look at the evidence pictures later. I don’t want them looking at them during the testimony.” No multi-tasking with so much at stake.
The jury did pay attention. The 12 jurors and two alternates had shown up for jury duty with the expectation that they would drop in for the morning and then head out to work or play. The day of jury selection, people arrived wearing work clothes, t-shirts and more casual attire than they wore as jurors on the next day. That day every man had a collared shirt with at least a couple buttons and women wore dresses. I guess they saw that the man on trial, the attorneys and the judge wore suits.
In court, everything follows some guideline. Repeatedly through the trial, I watched the attorneys’ fingers quickly flick through pages of notes, procedures, filings and pre-written instructions or we heard “objection” ring out clear and concise.
We all, including the judge, stood every time that the jury entered or exited. It emphasized to me that these 12 had to make some serious decisions. After the trial ended, the judge thanked them for their attention, “I looked over from time to time and saw that you all were listening. No one fell asleep.” For four days they sat, listened, took notes and did not easily reach a verdict. They weighed the testimonies and potential verdicts for the man on trial.
I sat near a woman from the victim’s assistance who stayed near the family of the deceased. Throughout the trial, she quietly monitored them and offered her support. Others wandered in and out during the jury’s delibration, the family and victim’s assistance remained, simply waiting. The mother of the victim rarely moved or spoke.
The accused and his family far outnumbered them. His family listened to some testimonies and then left. All restrained themselves during the reading of the verdict but a few left shortly thereafter.
Towards the end I mentioned to the victim’s assistance rep, “I am always impressed with the respectful manner in which the Union County Sherrifs treat the prisoners.”
“I think a lot of it has to do with the one in charge,” she said. I thought a moment and agreed. In the past when I reported on first appearances as well as during this trial I saw no harshness or brusque mannerisms. I did note the increased number of officers present during potentially tense courtroom moments for those accused of murder and the reading of the verdict. During those times, the number of officers quietly multiplied to discourage any outbursts.
After loved ones make decisions that leave families and friends confused and in pain, the responding authorities play a major role in containing the issue.
Recognizing the immense changes to the lives of all the persons touched by crime requires an atmosphere of respectful control. The courtroom procedures allow a time and place for both to be heard. It can be done. Too bad we don’t see more of such decorum outside of the courtroom. It might reduce the actions that bring people there in the first place.