The following student report was submitted by Ambassador League Agent Kayla M. during the 2009-2010 League.
Mission: Observe a Local Judicial Trial
On November 30, I attended an Oakland County Circuit Court trial, an interesting demonstration of how the U.S. Court system works. In the case, Tatro vs. Forbes, a citizen who had fallen and been injured at the handicap door of the local Somerset shopping mall was suing the door supplier. The plaintiff, Ms. Tatro, had hired an attorney to represent her case against the Forbes Company. Judge Andrews, a retired Oakland County Circuit Court judge, presided over the weeklong trial. A six-member jury with one alternate juror sat along one side of the courtroom.
When I first walked in, the clerk, attorneys and witness were going through exhibits about what Somerset Mall’s security cameras showed on the day of Ms. Tatro’s injury. The witness was part of Somerset’s executive management, testifying in their defense. He mentioned that no other shoppers have been injured at the handicap door since its installation five years ago. He also described the guards that watch the door and the engineers that review its maintenance log. At this point the defense lawyer moved to show an exhibit, but the plaintiff attorney objected and Judge Andrews sustained his objection. Then tension filled the room as the plaintiff attorney questioned the defense witness. The plaintiff attorney pointed out that after Ms. Tatro’s fall, forty minutes elapsed when Somerset’s dispatcher could have zoomed in and checked the situation, yet no record remains on the cameras of her incident. In defense of Somerset, the witness explained that the mall has to record over its security tapes every few months, and thus the tape had been lost.
Next the defense called an expert witness, a well established architect. The defense attorney established his credibility by asking him to describe his education and work experience. Since the witness was familiar with Michigan building codes, he was able to testify that the handicap door complied with ANSI and ADA structural requirements. Once again, however, the case grew ambiguous when the plaintiff attorney questioned the witness. Through his questions the attorney brought up several points that could incriminate the Forbes Company. He postulated that the warning signs on handicap doors at Somerset do not comply with federal code, and he mentioned that doors could legally have no more than fifteen pounds of closing force. When the architect had measured the door’s closing force, it did exceed fifteen pounds. As the plaintiff attorney made these points, the defense attorney made several foundation objections and relevance objections that the judge often sustained. The defense attorney demonstrated the power that objections can have on a trial’s direction.
I was not the only observer of Tatro vs. Forbes that morning; three retired men sat in on the trial as well. Every week they attend a court case together, acting as watchdogs to keep American society just and free. This court case was a clear example of the verbal and ideological conflicts that arise in a courtroom. To maintain justice, it is crucial for each side to get a fair hearing, because as Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward and questions him."
