Law Experience Blog

I found the time to do my court experience over the Thanksgiving weekend. I looked online to find the court times for both the federal and state courts. The state courts looked really hurried . The schedule for the state court looked like a case was given only five minutes before the next case came up. I decided that that was not conducive to my learning experience since I would not know what was going on before the next case came up. I then looked at the federal court schedules. They looked like they were longer and actually had something interesting going on. I printed out the docket entry order for the case I was going to see.

I a little trouble finding the U.S. District Courthouse on Fort Street. A guard met me at the entrance to the parking lot. He asked me what my business was and if I had identification on me. I showed him my ID and told him that I came to see a case. The guard told me to ask the people inside for information on where the case would be taking place. Inside the building I had to go through security just like at the airports. The guards inside X-rayed my purse and I went through a metal detector. It was surprising at first the security measures that were the apparent standard. My mom enlightened me to the reasons for the strict security. Apparently a few disgruntled parties have felt that justice had not been served to their satisfaction and decided to take matters into their own hands. The results were disastrous and a few people were injured. I know see that the tight security is reasonable and preventative.

I was a few minutes early to the courtroom where the case was to be in. There were a few people outside the courtroom talking to each other. They asked me my purpose and I told them that I came to observe the law in action. They informed me that the case I had decided to see wouldn't be very interesting since the case would be moved into the council chambers where the public was not allowed to watch. The people told me of the bankruptcy courtroom downstairs. I went to that courtroom instead.

Upon entering the courtroom I found that I was the worst dressed person in the room. Everyone else was in suits or business attire. I was wearing jeans and a Old Navy sweater. When the judge entered the room, a secretary of some sort called out "All rise for Honorable Terry L. Meyers!" It was only when the judge sat that everyone else sat down. It was a little intimidating and I guess it is an example of charismatic authority though not for the Supreme Court. There was no jury.

The first case to be heard was between the Internal Revenue Service and a construction company. It was an emergency motion to move back the date of the next hearing. The defendant was ill and could not be there but knew of what was going on. The company had their payroll taxes in a lump sum and did not have specific details that the IRS wanted. There was also a representative from Wells Fargo there who said that the bank did not have any objections to the motion. The judge granted the motion right then and there.

The second case was quite a bit longer than the first which probably took ten minutes. It was apparent to me that this was not the first time the judge had seen this case before and the basic details had already been gone over. This time they were just going over every excruciating detail. It was confusing since I hadn't read the affidavits that the defense and prosecutors had submitted to the judge. The judge had problems with the affidavits submitted. He did not like that the case was because he wanted specific details not summarizations of the case. I liked the judge from the beginning because of the language he used. He stated, "I know both sides have had some trippage at the beginning." The defense said they had not known that a new law that had been introduced. The judge said he would not award fines for the mistakes.

The defense lawyer looked real young and showed his inexperience with his choice of words. He specifically said "You can basically kinda conceive that the defendant was insolvent at the time of payment." The judge called him on that statement. "It is either is or it isn't. There is no basically kinda." I liked this comment a lot.

Before the case began a guard came in and closed the doors. He wasn't young and looked quite old. He had an earpiece in as well. He was replaced by another guard who was about the same age as the first. I would think that if a confrontation started a stronger, younger man would be needed to stop the fighting not a man who looks like he should be in retirement.

It was really boring and confusing. I did not know what the problem was and there was no one to ask without being rude. I recognized a few words that sounded like they were legal terms. "Reasonable equivalent value," "indirect v. direct benefit," and "but for __ actions no harm would have been done." I think the case was talking about whether someone got paid for their services and if it was enough. There was also a complication of the significant passage of time. Apparently the plaintiff got paid by a different person than the person who owed him. I also noticed the prosecution went first, then the defense but there wasn't any cross examination of witnesses. I think I heard it called a summary judgment hearing. I don't know what that is. In the end I think I could done without the boredom, the cold, and the cold. I don't think I will go to court again unless it is something really interesting that deals with civil rights.