an aside…

Posted on Thursday 12 January 2012

I haven’t spent a lot of time in courtrooms, some depositions, a few testimonies, jury duty [they never pick people like me, my friend says – professional people are too likely to be "know-it-alls"]. But I always have the same reaction I had yesterday. The room is filled with people – mere people just living their lives. It’s all focused on the Jury. The judge works for the Jury. The lawyers talk for the Jury. The witnesses don’t seem to know it, but the only thing about what they say that matters is what the Jury thinks. The lawyers "dumb down" some things to keep the Jury from being confused, "complexify" other things to confuse the Jury. Cross examinations are aimed at discrediting witnesses – in the eyes of the Jury. People talk about "courtroom drama" as if it’s like the scenes in our films, but that’s not quite right. That’s melodrama. The real drama is watching the people involved in the trial react to this abnormal place called a courtroom.

For most of the witnesses and observers, it seems like a strange place indeed, but the "veterans" seem at ease with the place though they’re hypervigilant to all the comings and goings. The remarkable thing in a case like this is the obvious amount of time and research behind every little question or comment – in this trial evidenced by the boxes of documents, the over-filled briefcases [and suitcases], and the collage of media equipment strewn throughout the courtroom. The older lawyers look almost "crumpled" but the younger lawyers and staff are crisp fashion plates, a contrast to the blue-jeaned Jurors.

Some seemingly inconsequential interactions take on a heightened valence. When the psychiatrist was asked if Dr. Shon had ever visited his mental health clinic, he shot back, "Never!" It was an unexpected question, at least to me, but after just hearing about Dr. Shon’s frequent trips around the country pushing TMAP,  that he’d never visited this clinic in his own system took on a heightened significance. Even though the cross examiner established that Shon’s predecessor had never visited either, the spontaneous and immediate "Never!" had an emotional nuance that would likely linger long in the minds of the Jurors. It has  obviously lingered with me.

I said I always have the same reaction in courtrooms. I feel like I’m in some place important, and for all the antics and posturing, it makes me feel kind of patriotic – as in "of the people, by the people."

  1.  
    jamzo
    January 12, 2012 | 11:54 AM
     

    a fellow trial watcher

    The Risperdal trial in Texas, cont’d: Establishing not just facts, but the yardstick by which facts are to be measured, and other matters” (jan 12, 2012)

    http://somatosphere.net/2012/01/the-risperdal-trial-in-texas-cont%E2%80%99d-establishing-not-just-facts-but-the-yardstick-by-which-facts-are-to-be-measured-and-other-matters.html

    A collaborative website covering the intersections of medical anthropology, science and technology studies, cultural psychiatry, psychology and bioethics.

  2.  
    Carl
    January 12, 2012 | 11:29 PM
     

    “Some seemingly inconsequential interactions take on a heightened valence.”

    What a beautiful sentence – I’m recommending it to O.E.D. as exemplary of the word valence. Hope you and Sharon are deriving abundant pleasures from the proceedings in Austin. fcm

  3.  
    January 12, 2012 | 11:58 PM
     

    Thank you thank you thank you. I have never been in a courtroom (so far!).

  4.  
    January 20, 2012 | 11:41 AM
     

    thanks for writing this series, 1BOM. I ran across your blog from the Suzy Chapman affair, and now from the trial. I didn’t quite get the issues when I read the series at Somatosphere.net, but now, reading your posts, I do.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.