FIGHTING THE TIDE THAT WOULD SWEEP AWAY DECORUM

August 23, 2012 § 4 Comments

UCCR 1.01 says that “All proceedings in the Chancery Court … shall be conducted with due formality and in an orderly and dignified manner … The dignity and respect of the Court shall be preserved at all times.” The rule also bans ” … drinks, food, gum or smoking …” and “Bickering or wrangling … Applause or demonstration … and the use of profane or indecent language.”

Courtroom decorum is one of those things that varies widely from district to district, depending on the personality of the chancellor and his or her tolerance level for various forms of behavior.

In my district, I try to make sure that the formality of the courtroom is preserved, that all proceedings are conducted with the attention and gravity that they deserve so that litigants can see that we take their business seriously.

Despite our best efforts, though, philistinism encroaches even into our courtrooms. A few examples:

  • The woman who dropped the “f-bomb” repeatedly in the course of a Clarke County hearing until I had her dragged off in handcuffs to do 30 days in jail. This was after she had assaulted another witness in the hall before court was convened, resulting in her having to sit through her trial in manacles between 2 burly deputies.
  • The man in the same trial who flipped off the judge. That cost him 5 days in jail.  
  • The woman who appeared for a hearing in my courtroom in Meridian who wore a t-shirt that read “If you f-ing think I am f’ing going to do what you tell me, m’f”er, you are f’ing crazy.” I sent her home with instructions not to return to the courthouse property until she changed her attire. (By the way … all the f-words cited here were spelled out fully … you can fill in the spelling for yourself).
  • Judge Mason had a hearing recently in which a matronly grandmother appeared wearing a t-shirt with a similar message, although not as graphic as mine.
  • The man who enters the courtroom in the middle of a trial and calls out loudly to some witnesses, “Lawyer said y’all can come sit out in the hall; y’all come on out here with me.”
  • The select few (all women) who came to court for child support enforcement cases wearing pajamas, and in one case pajamas with fluffy slippers. I don’t know about where you live, but it’s not that uncommon to see folks traipsing about in pajamas in this outpost on the edge of civilization, but I think wearing them to court crosses some kind of line.

Of course, the foregoing are merely a few more blatant examples. We have all seen and heard cell phones blaring, courtroom observers blurting out answers to questions or other “helpful” information, and other disruptions by laypeople who I guess don’t know any better. But the problem is not limited to laypeople. 

Lawyers can be insensitive to the demands of decorum, too. Shortly after I took the bench, before I banned beverages from my courtroom altogether, I had to ask a lawyer to stop repeatedly shaking a large (2-liter?) convenience-store mug of ice while counsel opposite argued a motion. On another occasion I asked a lawyer to set aside a Dr. Pepper she swigged out of through her cross-examination of a witness.

Those are fairly obvious assaults on decorum. A less obvious example is when several lawyers highjack the hearing with banter and joviality to the extent that the sense of the proceeding is lost completely. Everyone enjoys an injection of a soupçon of  humor into a tense trial every now and then, but I reviewed a record once for a trial conducted by another chancellor where the banter and kidding went on for 22 pages. That’s too much, and it sends the message to the parties that their business is trivial.

When I practiced, I always advised my clients to come to court dressed appropriately. And I instructed them in how to behave: no displays of dismay or approval; never interrupt a question or the judge speaking; no gum; no hats; no beverages; show respect for opposing counsel and the judge; and so on and so forth. I think most attorneys do the same, but it’s obvious that the thought has still not occurred to some.

I think preserving decorum in our courts is important. For one thing, it keeps emotion-charged proceedings from getting out of hand. For another, it conveys the message that what is transpiring is serious and taken seriously by the bench and bar. And it sets the courtroom experience apart from the living room where everyone speaks at the same time over the cacophony of the tv.

AN OBJECTIONABLE OBJECTION

September 14, 2011 § 4 Comments

One of the most baffling objections is “Object to the form of the question.” It’s baffling because it doesn’t tell the judge what the real problem is.

It’s actually a lazy objection because it is several objections in one. Problems with the form of the question arise from nine distinct sources, each of which is a separate objection in its own right.

These are the real objections to the form of the question:

  • Leading. MRE 611(c) says that “Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be used to develop his testimony.” Which means that the judge may grant some leeway in order to ensure that testimony is developed. Leading is, of course, permitted on cross examination, for hostile or adverse witnesses, and for preliminary matters.
  • Compound question. You can ask only one question at a time. Often the witness answers only one of multiple questions, not always making it clear which one she is answering.
  • Argumentative and Harrassing. This is really two different things. A question is argumentative when it is merely a comment on the evidence, or a legal argument, or an attempt to get the witness to adjudge his own credibility. A question is harassing when the probative weight of the information sought is outweighed by the embarassment to the witness or its outrageous nature. UCCR 1.01 states that “The counsel, parties, and witnesses must be respectful to the court and to each other,” and “Bickering or wrangling between counsel or between counsel and witness will not be tolerated.”
  • Asked and answered. You enjoyed the answer so much the first time that you just can’t resist doing it again.
  • Assumes facts not in evidence. You have broad scope within the bounds of relevance to develop new facts, but not by framing your questions in such a way that they take as true facts that have not been established. In chancery, with no jury, this is a touch-and-feel objection that the judge may overrule and then disregard the answer.
  • Ambiguous and confusing. A question is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation. A question is confusing when it is phrased in such a way that it can be misunderstood.
  • Misleading. Misstatement of the witness’s or another witness’s prior testimony.
  • Narrative. The question calls for a recitation of the whole story, which may or may not include objectionable material.
  • Repetitious. You already made that point. Move on to something else.

Unless you’re objecting just to hear yourself talk, you want your objections to accomplish something for the benefit of your client. General objections like “Object to the form of the question” are an objectionable waste of time. Your chances of getting your objection sustained go up when you make a specific objection.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with UCCR 1.01 at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.