Queen’s County Courtroom Ethnography
Courtroom Ethnography Assignment Part I:
Physical Setting
The New York Queens county Civil court building is in 89-17 Sutphin Blvd in Jamaica. The building that hosts the courthouse is vast and imposing, giving an aura of superiority and dominance. From outside, one can see the words “Civil Court” written on the front entrance of the building, a symbol of the critical nature of the court. There are guards and several mandatory security checkups at the front access of the building. These security checks comprise of metal detectors, x-rays machines, and body searches. A newcomer into the building may feel a sense of intimidation and inferiority from these security measures. Next to the main door are neatly stacked posters that warn the public against using their cameras in the courtroom.
Many doors serve different purposes in the courtroom. The public gets into the courtroom using the front door. The judge, jurors, and defendants, however, have their particular entrance points around the courtroom. The judge’s door, for instance, has an entrance point on the right-hand side of the courtroom, next to her panel. The door signifies that the judge holds more power than other people in the courthouse, thus must not mingle with them.
On the left side of this door is another entrance that serves all jurors. Farcasiu (2013) asserts that the juror’s entry using a different door from the judge reflects on their non-relationship with the legal bench. Court workers escort defendants using a different door and are seated in special boxes.
The judge’s desk is at the front center of the courthouse, a show of power and authority. The desk is in a raised platform and more intimidating than the other seats. Below the judge’s desk is the court reporters, smaller desk, and opposite it is the witness’ stand. The witness’s position is similar to a box, and being below the judge’s signifies that the judge holds power and has the wisdom to understand the authenticity of the witness’s confession. The jury in Queen’s Civil Court seats next to the witness’s stand and opposite the defendants. According to Farcasiu (2013), the jury’s position gives them a better view of all the participants and their expressions. The prosecution and defense teams’ seats on the same level, below the judge, but on opposite sides. Such an arrangement, although daunting and complicated, symbolizes that their words and arguments have the same equal effects to the judge and jury. Queen’s civil court also has a bailiff who sits or stands on one side of the wall in the courtroom (NYCourts.gov, 2012). The bailiff ensures order in the courtroom when the parties involved become too emotional or aggressive.
Moreover, the courtroom has an imaginary division line, the bar, that signifies the different duties of the people on each side. The judge, witness, court reporter, and jury sit on one side of the bar. Only lawyers can cross or pass the bar when defending their clients. The term ‘pass the bar,’ has gained significant meaning over the years, as all lawyers need to pass the bar (examinations) to acquire professional licenses. Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant’s family and support teams, as well as layman watchers, must not cross the bar, as this would be a courtroom violation.
The Queen’s civil court has a specific dress code, as do all other courts (NYCourts.gov, 2012). The judge dresses in black robes, with official clothing underneath. These robes signify power, knowledge, and wisdom. In many instances, learned people wear celebratory robes when graduating. Therefore, gowns on any occasion are a show of wisdom. Lawyers often adorn formal respectful suits, a symbol of submissiveness towards the authority of the judge. Both the plaintiff and defendants also dress in formal attire. The rules are, however, less stringent for the public as they can dress casually but decently.
Moreover, the lawyers used verbal communications that showed the utmost respect for the judge even in instances where they disagreed with their rulings. They used words like ‘Your Honor’ when communicating with the judge, holding them in high esteem. Although linguistic utterances were essential, non-verbal cues like fidgeting, gaze aversions, and facial expressions helped the judge and jury reach to verdicts on the case. The lawyers and judges also used emblems like nodding in communication. In two of the cases I witnessed, the defendants did not plead guilty to the property crimes listed. The judge also made no direct interactions with these defendants, leaving all the questioning to the prosecutor and defendants’ lawyer. Due to a lack of credible evidence, the judge decided to push the arraignment to another date.
In my visits to the Queen’s civil courtroom, I realized that the court rituals vary from case to case. The underlying reason for this variance is the difference in complexity and communication techniques used by the defense lawyers, prosecutor, judge, and even defendants. Just like every other field, the courtroom has its jargons and linguistic uniqueness. A person who is not well-established in courtroom activities might find it hard to understand the court’s proceedings. Also, factors like environmental noises may make it challenging for a person to notice the minute details in communication. Such sounds are inevitable and include rustling of papers, coughing, consultations between the defendant and the defense attorney, yawning, and even crying in extreme circumstances.
Rituals
One of the cases I witnessed was fraud. The defendant had taken advantage of the current Corona Virus crisis and created a website that provided people with information on the disease. The defendant (John Doe) claimed to have the Corona Virus vaccination kits, released by the World Health Organization. He sold these fraudulent kits to desperate individuals who later came to realize that they did not work. Some individuals also complained that the website provided wrong information on safety and sanitary measures to combat the illness. The prosecutor had enough evidence to prove that the site was only a way to take people’s money without enough information on the pandemic. The prosecutor, therefore, filed the case under the anti-fraud injunction. Since there was no money trail to prove the fraud, the judge pushed the case to a later date while the lawyers gathered more evidence.
In this case, I noticed the use of words like deposition (sworn evidence), fines, convict, charge, appeal, accuse, advocate, arrest, and case. Denault and Dunbar (2017) asset that these vocabularies used in the courtroom are part of legal English, a ritual necessary in trails. While defending their clients, or raising arguments, the defense attorney and prosecutor would use different paralinguistic cues like intonation, syntax, lexemes, and phonemes to attract the judge’s and juror’s attention. For instance, the prosecutor used a soft tone to try and sway the jury into a decision on the John Doe defendant. While trying to appeal to the emotions of both the judge and jurors, the prosecutor succeeded in matching his speech patterns, facial impression, body posture, and dress code. The language between the defense lawyers and the prosecutor was highly antagonistic as they would use elements such as sarcastic and aggressive tones to reduce each other’s confidence. Also, the fluency of speech and the speech rate matter in explaining the weight of the issue at hand. Lawyers often talk fast and exhibit confidence in their address. However, they must moderate their speech in a courtroom to facilitate understanding, especially in the judge and jurors.
Other gestures, such as the defense attorney’s and prosecutor’s facial expressions and overall body language, was crucial in determining their confidence levels. Also, when the defendant or witnesses were on the stand, their gazes and rapport helped the judge and jurors analyze the perception of guilt or innocence. According to Denault and Dubar (2017), judges have excellent character perception. However, as much as non-verbal cues may serve as evidence of guilt or innocence, they tend to be misleading. For instance, the defendant may gaze away from the prosecutor while answering questions due to a myriad of reasons. These include guilt, nervousness, embarrassment, emotional pain, or vulnerability. Judges and juries may take these cues as affirmations of blame, sentencing an innocent person to jail. Also, gestures such as eye contact used to question witnesses or defendants helped increase the chances of accuracy, and in many instances, helped the judge notice essential non-verbal cues.
The judge’s demeanor in John Doe’s civil case was impartial. Her body language was calm except for the few instances where she had to call the court to order by using the ceremonial gavel. In such cases, one would only notice expressions of mere annoyance. Denault and Dubar (2017) assert that a judge’s impartiality is critical in reaching a fair verdict. In some cases, however, the judge may get emotionally involved, a factor that helps his or her ruling to lean on either the prosecutor or defense attorney’s case. Even in such cases, the judge communicates their feelings to the jury or lawyers through very discretely using the body posture and general impressions. Queen’s court ruled over another case concerning property rights a day later. Similarities in legal language facial expressions, dress codes, and poses occurred between these two cases. Nonetheless, although the rituals paralleled, the courtroom’s intensity changed with the change in situations.
Courtroom Ethnography Assignment Part II:
Interaction Session
Case of Samuel Sherman vs. the United States Government.
The primary crimes in the case were a breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff, who has is in an annual contract with Sherman’s company, argued that the defendant took advantage of the upcoming coronavirus pandemic and increased the prices of goods in a governmental food supply company. The defendant was the manager on duty that month and sold these goods at over a 100% margin markup.
- R: All rise. (everyone in the courtroom rises as the judge enters through her unique door).
J: (slightly nods giving the court permission to sit)
C.R: The case of Samuel Sherman vs. the United States government with the charges of fraud and breach of contract.
J: (to the defendant) Are you aware of the indictment placed against you?
D: Yes, I am (shrugs).
P.L: I would like to call the plaintiff to the stand.
J: (nods)
The plaintiff makes his way to the witness’ stand.
P.L: (Pointing towards the defendant) Do you know this man?
P: Yes, I do (mimicking the prosecuting lawyer’s regal posture).
P.L: Could you explain to the court the nature of your relationship with Mr. Sherman?
P: I own three small grocery stores in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn. I have a contract for the supply of paper towels, trash bags, and cleaning equipment for Mr. Sherman’s company.
P.L: In the weeks after the annunciations of the Corona Virus outbreak in China, did you purchase some inventory from the defendant’s company?
P: I made my usual purchases of a hundred trash bags, 20 boxes of paper towels, and detergent.
P.L: Did Mr. Sherman charge a reasonable price for the inventory?
P: I usually pay for all my purchases at the end of the business month, which was last week. While making my deposit, I noticed a price markup of almost a hundred percent.
P.L: Thank you Mr. West. (turning to the judge) Your honor, it is clear that the defendant took the Coronavirus scare as a business opportunity, trying to benefit from it as much as he could without a care for the company’s clients. (the prosecutor hands one folder to the judge and one to the defense attorney). These documents have proof of the company’s charge irregularities that the owners of the supply company noticed after the end of their business month. That is all your honor.
D.L: You are claiming that my client breached your business contract by selling inventory at inflated prices. Am I correct?
P: Yes (looks irritated).
D.L: But you had no idea what the defendant intended to do with this money. Do you think it possible that he intended to help people in need using these profits? (creates eye contact with the plaintiff).
P.L: Objection! The question has no relevance to the crime.
J: Overruled. The information may be relevant to the reason for the crime.
D.L: Thank you, Your Honor. (turns to the plaintiff).
P: It is also possible that big corporations want to feed hungry children, but I think they only want to make money (the whole court bursts into laughter).
J: (bangs on the gavel) order!
D.L: (raking fingers through her hair in frustration) …Your honor, the prosecutor, is quick to show basic evidence without having a deeper understanding of the case. I would like to call the defendant to the stand.
J: All right.
D.L: Mr. Sherman, can you please tell the jury where you were on the 3rd of February 2020.
D: I was in the hospital with my neighbor’s thirteen-year-old daughter. Her mother and elder brother had encountered a hit and run and were severely injured (looks emotional and shrugs it off). I am not well-off financially, as I am still paying my student loans. My neighbor was a single mother with no insurance and needed the money. I was able to pay for her son’s surgery; he’s in recovery, but his mother did not make it.
P.L: Your honor, these are very tragic circumstances, but I am not sure how they are relevant to my client.
D.L: It is relevant as it helps the court understand the defendant’s state of mind and intentions while committing the crime. (defense lawyer looks at the prosecutor with hostility).
J: I’ll allow it, but let’s get to the point.
The court went to recess after the defendant admitted that he was guilty of fraud, but was not apologetic as he used the money to save his neighbor’s son’s life. Appealing to the jury’s emotions after recess, the defense lawyer stated the defendant only raised the inventory’s prices to save two innocent lives. The defendant did not keep any of the profits gained and even lost most of his money catering to his neighbor’s needs. The jury reached a unanimous verdict after another recession and ruled that the defendant was not guilty on count one of the indictments. However, the defendant had to make monetary compensations to the buyers whose prices were affected by the markup.
Queen’s civil court shows that the judge gives both the plaintiff and defendant enough time to raise their concerns and explain themselves. The courtroom ritual was charged and highly emotional for the prosecution and defense teams as seen in their verbal and non-verbal cues. The judge acted as the neutral and authoritative, ensuring order.
Cultural anthropology is the study of different human societies, their cultural practices and their developments. Courtrooms are societies with their unique cultural processes. In the courtroom, aspects such as dress, language (verbal and non-verbal), and the general ritual are a competition to show power and authority. Although the judge is the dominant party in the courtroom, the prosecution and defense teams use all the resources at their disposal to manifest authority. This essay is an analysis of the courtroom’s ethnography that exhibits the power play rituals among the parties involved.
Farcasiu (2011) asserts that the spacing in the courtroom is a display of dominance. The bar that separates the judge and jury and defense teams sets these parties apart in terms of their power. As the prosecution and defense teams are only present in the courtroom to offer support to their friends, they have no power or sway on the final verdict. Further, the ethnography shows that the judge’s desk is on a raised platform, a symbol of his or her authority. Thee witness’s stand shows an adequate symbolism to the power play in the courtroom. The stand is a small box, below and opposite the judge’s desk. The judge can, therefore, exhibit their power by looking down upon the witness. Also, the fact that the stand is actually a box, signifies confinement, thus may conjure honesty from the witness, defendant, or plaintiff.
The forms of dress in a courtroom are formal and decent. Lawyers and their clients must make a good impression through their dressing on the judge and jury, a factor that plays an essential role in the final ruling (Flower, 2016). The fact that these parties struggle to dress formally to please the judge depicts the great power that he or she holds in a courtroom. Judges is also set aside from everyone else in the entire court by their form of dress. Their robes signify the elite and wise nature of their profession, making the entire courtroom believe in their credibility.
Further, rituals such as the difference entrance places for different people into the courtroom shows their respect for the judge. Farcasiu (2011) states that the public entrance faces the judge’s desk as a reminder of the power hierarchy in the courtroom. Also, the court report asks everyone to stand as the judge arrives to the room showing that his or her power supersedes that of the lawyers and jury. Moreover, the legal language used in the courtroom further exhibits its unique nature. These jargons, like the words indictment or arraign would sound strange if used in another setting.
The verbal stressors that the parties use in the courtroom allude to their emotion and urge to win. For instance, when one lawyer says ‘objection,’ it command’s the judge’s response. The judge shows impartiality as he ‘overrules’ or ‘sustains’ objections from the lawyers during an argument. Non-verbal communication is also imperative in this setting. Actions such as a simple shrug or eye roll from one party may be interpreted differently by the judge and jury (Farcasiu, 2013). Such actions may also demotivate or encourage the opposite party. Eye contact in a courtroom is also critical to show honesty and credibility.
The courtroom is, therefore, a very complicated and hierarchical structure with the judge at the top. For instance, the bailiff, a trained officer, serves the judge and only at the judge’s command to create order. Moreover, in a trial with a jury, the judge only plays the role of keeping peace since the jury gives the overall verdict. Regardless of this fact, the jury is still below the judge in the command chain. However, the jury is an independent, non-judicial entity whose rulings are not influenced by the judge (Wagner & Cheng, 2011). Finally, the power play is significantly evident in the interaction between the prosecution and defense lawyers. These parties use resources such as evidence, witnesses, and emotions to rise in power, and eventually win.
The study of the routines and processes in the courtroom helps anthropologist understand differences in cultural patterns. One can see the courtroom’s unique nature from its imposing buildings, emphasis on order and security, and the use of legal language. Nevertheless, the courtroom also parallels many other structures and societal cultures as it contains hierarchical roles and rituals that are in line with administrative policies.
References
Denault, V & Dunbar, N. (2017). Nonverbal communication in courtrooms: Scientific assessments or modern trials by ordeal? Researchgate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321069629_Nonverbal_communication_in_courtrooms_Scientific_assessments_or_modern_trials_by_ordeal.
Farcasiu, M. (2011). Language in the courtroom: a comparative study of American and Romanian criminal trials. The international journal of speech, language, and the law, 19 (1): 109-110. 10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.109
Farcasiu, M. (2013). The ethnography of the courtroom in American and Romanian criminal justice systems. International Journal of Education and Research, 1 (4): 1-8.
Flower, L. (2016). Doing Loyalty: Defence lawyers’ subtle dramas in the courtroom. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 1-29. 10.1177/0891241616646826
NYCourts.gov. (2012). New York City Civil Court. https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/civil/directionsQueens.shtml.
Wagner, A & Cheng, L. (2011). Language, power, and control in courtroom discourse. Ashgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332316273_Language_power_and_control_in_courtroom_discourse.