business law court paper

Court Paper Assignment What courthouse did you attend?

Seattle Courthouse.

What date(s) did you attend?

January 31, 2012

Judge’s name?

Michael Hayden – State v. Donald.
 What type of proceeding was it (criminal or civil)? 
 Criminal
 What was the subject of the case (e.g. murder, personal injury, divorce, assault, etc.)?

1. Unlawful possession of a fire arm in the 1st degree. State v. Hoston. 


2. Child Molestation in the 1st degree. Wallace v. Ocatvio Cabrera Velaseco. 


3. Assault, Robbery, and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. State v. Donald. 


What stage of the proceeding did you observe (direct testimony, cross examination, voir dire, etc.)?

1. Closing arguments. State v. Hoston. 


2. Motion in limine (preliminary motions). Wallace v. Velaseco. 


3. Direct and cross-examination. State v. Donald. 


Many people already have an opinion about how the legal system works and the roles played by different actors in the court. Watching court proceedings, however, lends a more nuanced perspective to the relationships between lawyers, judges, juries, and viewers. The opportunity to watch legal analysis firsthand helps me not only understand substantive arguments, but also the more subtle effects of presentation and communication. My father and my brother are lawyers and, as I watch them, I try to pick up their techniques for analyzing and presenting a perspective. In fact, I’ve learned a lot about the legal process by watching others in action. I recently took a trip to the Seattle Courthouse of the King County Superior Court to watch attorneys and judges in trials and hearings. I used this as an opportunity to learn about the court system and compare how people interact in different court settings. In one case, I saw how an attorney’s rehearsal and confidence before a jury can be critical to a case. In another matter, I saw how valuable it was to be adequately prepared. Finally, two cases I sat in on showed that organization is a key element to a persuasive presentation. After observing the attorneys, I plan on using my experience at the Seattle courthouse to improve my own skills. My experience in Superior Court has given me a better understanding of the realities of trial practice in both civil and criminal matters. Moreover, it gave me a chance to observe how people from different levels of the legal system interact with each other.

The first case I saw was State v. Dvontaveous Naaun Hoston, a criminal case charging unlawful possession of a firearm. In State v. Hoston, I had the privilege of viewing closing arguments before a jury. Closing arguments are statements made after the plaintiff and defendant

have made their cases, as a summary of the arguments for the jury to consider prior to 1

deliberation. A closing argument can uniquely color a case because it is the lawyer's final chance to convince the jury to vote in his or her client’s favor. This is particularly dramatic in a criminal case where the defendant’s freedom is at risk. For a closing argument to be effective, the attorney needs to be able to tell a good story. Storytellers are confident from start to finish, and their stories are concise and easy to understand. Most importantly, the stories need to be interesting to the listener. If the attorney cannot hold the jury's attention, the jury may forget the content of the statement altogether and may even be emotionally repelled by the attorney. Although the judge instructs juries to leave their prejudices at the

door, everyone recognizes that members of the jury are human beings who can be swayed by even the slightest passions.

In State v. Hoston, the attorneys had different levels of experience. The attorney for the State was confident in his closing argument: he made a claim, supported it, and used language the jury could understand. He summarized his argument in a Powerpoint presentation – an effective visual tool for an audience. It was clear that he engaged the jury in the closing argument and in the State’s view of the case. In contrast, the attorney for Dvontaveous Hoston seemed less experienced and less confident. She didn't appear entirely sold on her own argument and the jury’s behavior reflected this tension. It is daunting for anyone to speak before a jury, especially in a criminal case, but as the attorney stumbled across some of her speaking points, the jury seemed to get distracted. If I choose to be a trial lawyer I will have to master public speaking and persuasion.

Persuasion is of the utmost importance during any stage in case presentation. Whether in openings, closings, or witness testimony, the persuasive effect of an argument can be enhanced by creating a narrative. Like a storyteller, the first phrase must capture the audience's attention. All the arguments must flow together smoothly and coherently. The attorney needs to appear to

2

believe from the first moment that his or her story really is true. More importantly, he or she needs to convince the jury to believe their story. Establishing credibility is one of the key elements in persuasion. Before the jury even hears a word of the case they will already begin to form a first impression based on the attorney's body language and behavior. The attorney needs to have an excellent understanding of his audience. In an ideal world, the jury will be composed of a variety of individuals from varying backgrounds. It is crucial, then, that the attorney can present an argument in a manner that will appeal to the educated, 40-year-old male from Microsoft, the 70-year-old grandmother, and the 20-year-old high school dropout. Thus, it's not just the accused person's behavior that can make or break a case – it's also a heavy burden on the attorney to be a good communicator and an excellent orator to the jury, both during opening and closing statements.

After closing statements and rebuttals were made in the State v. Hoston case, the judge read through the directions for the jury and asked them to move to a separate room to proceed with jury deliberations. At this point, the court took a brief break during which I was able to approach the attorneys for the State and asked them a few questions. They agreed that exuding confidence is an important attribute for trial attorneys. We briefly discussed the case at hand, as well as their experience in court, and then I decided to move to a different court room to see another case.

The next case I observed was State v. Donald, a criminal case which ended up being more interesting. It concerned assault, robbery, and the possession of a stolen vehicle. I had stepped into the room just before the beginning of the plaintiff's cross-examination of an expert. The plaintiff called in a doctor who had arrived at the scene of the assault. The attorney asked him to describe what he saw and to give his expert opinion on the victim’s injuries (several

3

physical injuries on the body, as well as a brain injury). I noticed that each of the questions were specific and had a strong delivery. This was designed so that the plaintiff or defendant could clearly and efficiently present their case from their point of view. It was well-organized and the judge ensured that the questions were tangential to the matter. I could tell that the attorney had memorized these questions to exude confidence before the jury. Furthermore, each question was detailed and had a purpose. There were no vague questions that would have confused the doctor and, as a result, the attorney received succinct responses. Planning the questions in advance helped the trial flow smoothly. Furthermore, it makes the trial more interesting when the questions and answers are not only detailed, but also maintain a narrative. A story isn't compelling if the jury can’t follow the facts. A good story is composed of little details that form a bigger picture. Likewise, an interesting trial is full of little details that help put together the pieces.

These little details can also make the biggest impact on a case. The doctor behind the stand appeared nervous (as anyone might be during a serious trial). Since the doctor stumbled over his words and didn't always seem confident in what he was saying, the jury might be less inclined to believe him completely. From an outside perspective, it doesn't seem like much. He body was shifted slightly away from the jury, and more towards the

plaintiff. He liked to use his hands as he talked, but he would often take pauses to collect his thoughts. To be a good attorney, I need to have all my questions and arguments prepared ahead of time. To be a great attorney, I need to be able to work with the individual behind the stand in order to reflect my arguments in the best possible light. When the members of the jury deliberate the verdict, they not only take into consideration the substantive legal arguments, but the presentation and emotional effect as well.

4

In the final case I watched, the jury had not yet been selected. I viewed motions in limine, or preliminary motions, a type of procedural due process which is used to introduce or exclude evidence before a jury hears arguments. The case, Wallace v. Octavio Cabcera Velaseco, charged the defendant with child molestation in the first degree. This appeared a popular case because most of the viewing benches were filled. The preliminary evidentiary hearing highlighted the importance of an attorney's organization and clarity. I only watched briefly, but the attorneys for both sides had difficulty forming coherent arguments or answering the judge’s questions. This hearing was less interesting than the previous two matters. I noticed how the behavior of the attorneys changed everyone's attitude. Neither attorney had prepared appropriate cases to support their arguments, so both had trouble referencing caselaw to the judge. The attorney presenting the motions did not seem confident in her arguments. She didn't seem sure about her cases and the judge was visibly frustrated that neither side could clearly answer questions from the bench. The attorneys not only disrespected the court by wasting the judge’s time, they also hurt their credibility. Being on time, organized and making concise arguments is important. Although not everything is in the attorney's control, he or she should be aware of the effect of their behavior and presentation.

I feel like the trip to Seattle Courthouse was useful to me because I learned simply through observation. I enjoyed seeing the attorneys in action, and I saw how important elements of persuasion can improve an oral argument. Confidence, preparation and organization are fundamental for any lawyer, but it makes a particularly obvious difference with trial lawyers because they are evaluated on the spot by judges, juries and witnesses. This experience was especially valuable because I paid attention to the

attorneys’ techniques and their effect on the judge and jury. Trials are tough for everyone, but some attorneys were experienced and skillful

5

while others had room to improve. In State v. Hoston and State v. Donald, it was clear that confidence in public speaking was important. Watching the attorneys encouraged me to improve my public speaking and my presentation before an audience. I also saw the opposite effect of what can happen if I am unprepared; it can hurt a case and undermine an attorney’s efforts to convince a judge of the merits of their argument. I hope to develop the skills that promote a positive reaction from an audience and have a persuasive effect on a listener.