Court Watching Paper

Matt Triest Business Law I Professor Cotter

April 26th 10am 1pm
Norfolk Superior Court

1
 The court I attended was Norfolk Superior Court. Driving from Curry College to

the court was only about a 10 minute drive. When I arrived I parked around back of the

district courthouse across the street. I was expecting to have to pay for parking, but it

was surprisingly free. I walked into the courthouse and right away you are greeted by

the courthouse security. I was instructed to take everything out of my pockets and place

it on the belt and walk through the metal detector. Once I made it through security I

asked the court security officers what cases were going on today. They instructed me

that there were a few cases today. One was a murder case, one that the jury is being

selected and they talked about a few other cases. They told me to take the door on my

right. I proceeded up the stairs and walked into the courtroom (I thought It was the

murder trial courtroom until about 1 hour into observing the case). The main room was

beautiful. They had paintings on the wall of judges (I assume past judges) and a nice

set of books behind the judge. The detail of the woodwork was outstanding. To me, it

looked like a fake movie set up, but I had not been to many nicer courtrooms. I had only

been to one court before for jury duty and it was not as elaborate as this courtroom was.

I went to the Wrentham district court for jury duty and the two court main rooms are

totally different.

2
 Once I entered the court I could hear a pin drop. Everyone in the room turned

and looked at me. I sat quietly in the back row. For about 15 minutes there was not a

word spoken. Finally, the defendants lawyers (counsel) stood up and went to speak to

the judge on the sidebar. The lawyer then turned to the jury and started asking them

questions by their seat number. She started with asking everyone to raise their hand if

they had a pet. 13 of the jury members did. She then started asking what kind of pet, its

name, etc. She then asked would you be partial in your decision against the defendant if

you saw photos of dead animals. She explained how there might be some disturbing

photos in this trial. Some explained how they could and some said no way. It was a mix

between the jury. The lawyer said thank you and then proceed to go and talk with the

judge at the sidebar. One by one, some of the jury members were called up to the

sidebar and spoke with the judge. Some sat back down and some walked out of the

back of the court. At first, I was confused as to what was happening then I realized that

they were being dismissed. They dismissed one, then two, then three, four, etc. There

were about 4 jury members left the remaining were told to go to the jury deliberation

room and to not talk about the case to anyone. The court security then read jury

numbers one by one. The counsel talked to the judge and with the lawyers standing

next to the jury member. The jury members either sat in the jury seat, sat in a seat

inside the bar, or got to leave the courtroom. This process took around 20 minutes.

3
Then, one of the bailiff officers came over and asked if I was here for a class. I told him

yes and he told me a great murder case might be interesting to see rather than watching

this boring part of the trial. He then showed me the way to the courtroom and I thanked

him.

The courtroom that I walked into was totally different than the previous

courtroom. This one was small, dirty and worn. The carpet was bumpy and stained. The

seats were worn and dirty. The paint on the ceiling was peeling and stained. When I

walked in, only the defense attorney was in the room. I talked to one of the lawyers

about the case. He told me that the case had been going on about 4 weeks and should

go another 2 weeks. He asked me what class I was there for and I said business law.

Shortly, others came in, including judge Raymond Brassard, the court clerk, and court

stenographer. Next, a few bailiff officers came in with the defendant who was in

handcuffs and leg cuffs. He was un-cuffed then leaned to his lawyer who looked back at

me. It almost seemed like the defendant was asking something about me. The jury

shortly arrived and filed into the court. You heard the word all rise when the jury came

into the room. The judge then told everyone to please be seated.

A little background on the case. John Rooney is accused of the murder of

Georgios Kontsas who was stabbed to death. Georgios gave his life to save his wifes

life. His wife only suffered a laceration to her next. There was a six-week trial back in

4
2014 but it was declared a mistrial after the jury was hung. This type of case that I

observed was a criminal case based on the facts and observations that I heard when

observing the trial. The case was being charged as a felony as it involved a murder of

an individual.

On the witness stand was trooper Russell Patenaude. Russell was wearing a

suit, had brown/blonde hair and had a very red face throughout his time on the witness

stand. The witness was being questioned by the John Swomley, who is the defendants

attorney, about the knife that was found in the kitchen sink at the scene of the crime.

John Swomley was taller, wearing a suit, and had round glasses. They took out the knife

which was in a white box with evidence and a case number written on the box. It was a

12in knife with a wooden handle. The defense attorney confirms with trooper Russell

that this happened on February 27, 2010. The attorney asks if he saw Dorothea (who

was the wife of Georgios) at the hospital. The trooper says yes I talked to her at 12:00.

Defense attorney went on and on and said yesterday on the stand you said you talked to

her at 1:30 which is impossible because she had tubes and pipes in her and she was

not awake. The witness on the stand was mixing times up from yesterday and today

which was not good. The defense attorney was raising his voice and you could see the

frustration and confusion on the troopers face.

5
 The witness is saying he went to the hospital to interview Dorothea, but now he

says he did not conduct an interview as she had tubes in her and could not speak. He is

contradicting himself. Swomley references trooper Russells testimony that says he saw

her and spoke with her at 12:00pm but he is saying he spoke with her at 1:30pm. He

seems even more frustrated and the lawyer was confusing me almost like he was doing

this to Topper Russell on purpose. Swomley seemed to be beating up the witness and

wants the answers that he wants. The witness stops and takes a big deep breath and

says that he did not speak with her she got out of surgery at 1:23 and tried talking to

her at 1:30 but could not. There were tubes in her arms and could not speak. Swomley

was trying to get at how he got the description of the suspect. The witness goes on to

say that a Stoughton police officer Smith said that he told him the suspect was in his

40s with salt and pepper hair with a dark SUV. Swomley turns and shakes his heads

with his back to the witness. He raises his voice and says any new things you want to

share other than what you testified?!?!. The witness goes on and says he went back at

4:30 and talked with Dorothea. The doctors removed the tubes as they could safely

without harming her health. The attorney went on to say that was not mentioned in the

testimony and the trooper acknowledges that almost like he knows and messed up.

Swomley grills him and questions him about why he did not write down that you talked

with her. The judge interjects and says lets try and get this wrapped up. Swomley says I

6
agree, but I am just looking for the correct answers to my questions. He stops asking

questions and takes his seat. I look at the clock and notice that it is already 1:00 so I

exited the courtroom and drove back home.

My overall thoughts about observing the case was a positive experience. I did

once have to go to jury duty but never got picked for a trial so I have not experienced an

actual trial. I was surprised on a multitude of items about the court and law in general.

First, I was astonished on how the court was in disrepair. The outside of the building

looks like a classic city/town building. It was brick and cement. I could not believe how

much work needed to be done to inside the building. When I went to Wrentham District

Court for when I have jury duty, the waiting area for jury members was terrible. They

had old uncomfortable seats, no Wi-Fi, no TV for entertainment, etc. What surprised me

the most is that they did not even have a coffee machine/snack machine. This could be

a way for the courts to make money too!

Secondly, I was amazed to see how the trial process works. You see all of those

shows on TV that show Hollywood Court with beautiful courtrooms and that it takes

very little time to come up with a verdict. This is so not true. The amount of time it takes

for a case is amazing. There is so much time for preparation for the lawyers and then

once a trial gets started it could take days or months. The case I observed has been

going on 4 weeks.

7
 Lastly, I think the court system is fair. I think that everyone should be innocent

until proven guilty. In this trial that I observed, I think the lawyer for the defendant was

walking the line but I think some lawyers do use this as a tactic. He was trying to get the

witness that was on the stand to be confused and get in his head. Even when we the

lawyer was speaking to the witness I was getting confused and at one point, I could see

the look on some of the people on the jury who seemed confused as well.

Overall, it was a great experience. I am glad I was assigned this assignment to

explore the court system, see an actual courthouse and to watch and observe a current

case.