Court Observation Paper
Name Sarah Agnew
Directions: Complete Parts I and II for each court visit you summarized in III and critiqued in IV.
Expand Parts III and IV as needed to complete your paper.
I. Fulton County Courthouse: (2 points)
Presiding Judge
Judge McBurney
Date, time, and length of observation
October 8, 2013. 1:30pm-4:30pm
II. Description of court visit(s) (8 points):
Case name
Darren Smith vs. Adrian Haddock
Type of proceeding
Civil Case (personal injury). Jury selection and opening
statements.
Class issues discussed Burden of proof, expert witnesses, jury selection
_
III. Write about your observations. Reread my instructions. In this section of the paper, I
encourage you to relate what you see in the courtroom to what we covered in class. Here you
can compare and contrast, give examples, etc. (You may write creatively!) [This section is
worth 45 points!]
Although this was not the business case in which I hoped to observe, it turned out to be an
enticing personal injury case in which the plaintiff, Darren Smith, was suing the defendant, Adrian
Haddock, for an allegedly avoidable car accident in which the defendant had rear-ended the
plaintiff.
Arriving in the courtroom at the end of jury selection allowed us the opportunity to assess the
demographics of the chosen jury; comprised of three African American females, two Caucasian
males, an Indian male, and an African American male, none the chosen jury looked pleased to be
selected. It was evident that the majority of the young Caucasian males as well as all older
citizens from the jury pool were not selected for the final jury. Because both the plaintiff and
defendant were young African American males, it is unsurprising that the chosen jurors tended
to follow the same description.
Once the jury was chosen and the remaining jury pool was dismissed, Judge McBurney swore in
the selected group of seven jurors, and then proceeded to explain the court process in a
surprisingly informal manner. During his explanation he discussed the court procedures,
explained the facets of the burden of proof, reiterated the importance of refraining from
conducting outside research, and their duty as a jury (to apply the law to the presented facts).
Once the preliminary instructions were complete, opening statements began. As expected, the
plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Elsner, went first. The plaintiff himself was a nicely dressed and well puttogether young African American male, probably in his late 20s. His attorney was an older
Caucasian male, possibly in his mid 70s. Mr. Elsner repeated numerous times that he “would
keep it short and simple”, but did just the opposite. He explained the court procedures that the
judge had already discussed in grave detail, and did not keep his argument concise or direct.
Mr. Elsner then discussed the prospective witnesses; most of the witnesses that would be
examined had not observed the accident, but would rather give testimony of the differences in
Mr. Smith before and after the accident, as well as provide expert testimonials for the altered
mental and physical state of the plaintiff post-accident. His reasoning for calling these witnesses
was to illustrate the negative effects that the accident had caused his client. The attorney stated
that Mr. Smith had to see a chiropractor for back issues, as well as a psychologist for developed
mental anxieties, both as a result of the accident.
Mr. Elsner then proceeded to describe the incident itself. Using a white board to draw a diagram
of the road layout, he described where Mr. Smith was stopped, waiting to turn into a gas station,
when Mr. Haddock rear ended his client. The marker he used was almost out of ink, and it was
very difficult to see what the attorney was actually drawing, so this took some of the
effectiveness away from his explanation.
Mr. Elsner asked the jury to “allow adequate relief for Mr. Smith for out-of-pocket expenses”,
essentially asking to award his client a sufficient amount of money to cover the chiropractor and
psychologist visits. Watching the jury, they did not seem impressed or even convinced of the
argument in which they had just been presented.
The defendant, an African American male in his mid 30s, and his attorney, a Caucasian woman in
her early 50s, were not nearly as well put-together as their opponents. But Mr. Haddock’s
lawyer, Mrs. Allen, seemed much more prepared when she began her argument. She emphasized
the dispute in evidence, and insisted that the plaintiff’s chiropractic and psychologist visits were
unnecessary. She proved that Mr. Smith had hired a lawyer before he ever went to the doctor,
and then did not even follow up with the hospital once he had finally gone in for an examination.
Rather than following the typical standard of visiting certified doctors when truly injured, Mr.
Smith had instead made his own decision to visit a friend’s chiropractor. Additionally, she
proved that the plaintiff had stopped going to the psychologist before his sessions had ended,
and had not been back in multiple months. These assertions clouded the plaintiff’s credibility and
undoubtedly caused the jury to question his motives.
Ms. Allen then presented an alternative account of the accident. She stated that Mr. Smith was
not stopped and patiently waiting to turn into the gas station as Mr. Elsner had described, but
rather had slammed on his breaks with no warning or turn signal after he had missed the first
entrance to the gas station. She argued that her client had no time to prevent hitting the back of
the plaintiff’s car because it was such a sudden and unexpected motion. She also affirmed that
when the officer at the accident site had asked Mr. Smith if he was ok after being hit, Mr. Smith
said that he was fine, and that he was experiencing no physical trouble.
After presenting this part of her argument, the jury seemed convinced. The faces of the seven
diverse members of the jury seemed to be in favor of the defendant, and the attorney only
strengthened their reactions in her last few sentences. She reiterated that the plaintiff did not
need any of the treatment he had pursued, that Mr. Smith had not used a turn signal, and that he
had missed the first entrance into the gas station so he had quickly tried to turn into the second
entrance. She also reminded the jury that Mr. Smith’s first step after the accident was to hire a
lawyer, not to seek medical help. She then closed her opening argument by simply telling the
jury to use common sense, because there were no x-rays or actual documentations of any
injuries.
After both the plaintiff and the defendant’s lawyers had presented their opening statements, the
judge concluded the case for the day, stating that they would reconvene the next morning. He
went over procedures for the next morning, but no other information was presented about the
case.
IV. Critique your experience! Again, reread my instructions. [This section is worth 45 points]
Stumbling upon this case after learning that the preferred case (a business case per Dr.
Mansfield’s suggestion) had been settled left my expectations very low. But, I truly enjoyed
sitting in on this court case. Aside from what I have seen on television, I had no prior
experience in a courtroom so I did not know what to expect. I had an idea in my head of a very
formal procedure, but the formality I expected did not prevail. Judge McBurney was surprisingly
laid back; he joked, took breaks, and seemed to make an effort to lighten the mood. It was
nothing like the court procedures shown on television (like in Judge Judy or Law and Order). He
made a conscious effort to keep the process moving and to avoid unnecessary delays, which
made the case much more pleasant and bearable.
The plaintiff and his attorney appeared, at first glance, much more prepared than the defendant
and his lawyer. My initial expectation was that this duo would present a sophisticated and
bulletproof case, based simply on their appearances. But, Mr. Smith’s attorney was surprisingly
poor-spoken; Mr. Elsner was quiet, hard to understand, and his opening statement seemed to
drag on needlessly. His arguments and explanations were relatively hard to follow, and were
even harder to pay attention to. The attorney’s slow, mundane voice made it hard to fully
engage in their opening statement.
The defendant and his attorney did not appear as well put-together at first sight, but turned out
to be much more well-spoken and to-the-point. Mrs. Allen presented a refined opening
statement, setting the stage for what I expect to be a successful defense. She used simple jargon
to connect with the jury, and relied on basic common sense and logic to prove that the
argument presented by Mr. Elsner was erroneous. This approach seemed to be much more
successful than the rigidly old-fashioned style of Mr. Elsner.
Overall, it was interesting to experience first hand what we have been learning in class. I found
that I knew everything that Judge McBurney explained in his preliminary instructions, and I know
I would not have been able to fully grasp concepts such as the burden of proof without my
background knowledge.
V. I certify that I attended the court event described and completed this assignment in the
manner intended. I also certify that this paper is my work in compliance with the GSU Policy on
Academic Honesty.
Name
Date