However, Trim-State Construction made a counterclaim stating that Schism did not did his job properly, thus does not deserve the compensation agreed upon previously. As a result, the burden of proof now shifts to the plaintiff, Schism, to roof that he actually did his job properly not as what Trim-State Construction stated. The general trial proceeding was carried out as the following: the afternoon session of the trial started by Judge Schubert, plaintiffs attorney and defendant’s attorney discussing the approval of new evidences provided to the trial and other information that either side doesn’t want the juries to know before any discussion.
When everything is settled Judge Ken brought the juries back to the courtroom “To honor the juries, Please stand up. ” Everyone in the courtroom stood up to welcome the juries back and then the actual trial began. There are 15 juries composed of different races, ages and gender. Each holding a pen and a notebook, taking down notes to aid them made their decision. Already half through the trail, a witness was brought back to the court to continue questioning by the plaintiffs attorney for the remaining of the trial.
First of all, before the juries returned, the defendant brought an email asking approval to add new evidence, which was objected due to character evidence, and being out of touch with the argument. The email was argued irrelevant, as it is just a general series of email that does not provide a solid understanding of the issue. However it is relevant because it shows that the plaintiff is acting against the interest of the company. In the end, the argument of emails was ruled as irrelevant. Thus, it will not be presented to the juries.
Waiting on the benches outside the courtroom, witness Kristin Middleton finally entered the courtroom after the juries settled down and was brought in by Schism’s attorney Lindsay to testify for the plaintiff. Kristin Middleton is the Chief Financial Officer of Trim-State Construction; she did not participate in the agreement of compensation between Mr.. Schism and Mr.. Ronald. However, as a Chief financial officer Mr.. Ronald sent email to made her aware that Mr.. Schism was willing to wait for the compensation until it is available due to the difficult financial position that the company was in.
Thus, Middleton kept the record among other compensation files. The defendant stated that, Mr.. Schism was acting for the interest of the company; instead it continued to show a pattern that he was at the stake of himself. For example, in an agreement in 2010, car expenses were promised to be covered by Trim-State Construction but Mr.. Schism turned in all personal expenses stating as “car” expenses. It is stated that the initial agreement is made upon express interact, however, when the company is suffering with financial crisis, Ronald Agitations, president of Trim-State Construction, sent a letter to Mr..
Schism offering another promise: “I am very sympathetic It’s current cash availability is such that I don’t expect any accrued bonus. You can get paid until next year, initial this memo to Kristin. ” In the end, the amount actually paid to Mr.. Schism was not the $50,000 agreed, instead, it’s $40,000. It is interesting to note that when a memorandum is shown to the Ms. Kristin, she didn’t recognize the handwriting immediately with some hesitation and thus attorney Gillian called out “Objection! Lack of personal knowledge! And thus, the memorandum is ruled out. Witness Kristin also brought up a Canada project in 2011 that Mr.. Schism was in charged to be responsible with. The project was scheduled to be substantially complete in Spring 2012. The client that Mr.. Schism was dealing with “did not have a really good reputation” and is “extremely difficult to dealt with. ” Mr.. Schism worked extremely hard 7 days a week. And in October 2011 the client threatened to stop paying and hold the project. Mr.. Schism then had a negotiation of preventing the project going into default.
In the end, Mr.. Schism’s negotiation was successful. The defendant’s Attorney argued that this just showed Ms. Kristin sympathy towards Mr.. Schism but not evidence showing that he isn’t an average employee. “But did the company appreciated Schism’s work? ” questioned by attorney Lindsay. In the end, although Ms. Kristin did not provide a very solid evidence to defend against the defendant’s statement, she has a high profile and I am sure that her testify will at least raise some sympathy of the juries towards the plaintiff: Schism.
Unfortunately, by the end of the day no judgment is decided yet, and by listening room the middle of the trail, there are still some aspects of the case that I have the lack of understanding with. Thus, I cannot make a fair judgment from my personal opinion. The courtroom itself has not much difference between what I expected and what it actually looks like. Wooden benches, white wall and judge wearing a court robe with national and state flags sitting at the middle back of the room.
However, the atmosphere in the courtroom is a lot different than what was expecting. It is less formal in general. Teacups, water bottles, reference document needed for the trial were all scattered on the desk in the middle of the oratorio with attorneys on both sides sharing the same L-shaped desk. When the trial started I didn’t even notice it. One jury even took her shoe off during the trial. Also, there’s more technical support in actual court than those showed in television series, such as projector and computers. Suits” is my favorite US drama, which focus mostly on civil law unlike most other drama such as Law and Order that focuses on criminal law. However, compared to what I observed in the King County Superior Court, would say that the television does not provide an accurate picture of the US legal system. In a real courtroom, the attorneys onto shout out loud their argument like they did in a television show, and in fact it is so hard to hear that I have to pay a lot of attention and sat in the first row in order to hear what the attorneys and judge are discussing about.
Also, the testimony of a witness is never longer than 5 minutes in a television show; yet, in the trial observed the attorney questioned the witness Kristin for the entire afternoon session, which is about 3 to 4 hours. The process of the questioning isn’t as dramatic as it is shown in a drama, in fact, it is quite boring and dull that several observers fell asleep during the testimony including myself. I don’t know how to tell whether the juries are good or bad, however, they all did pay a lot of attention writing down arguments of both sides and testimony of Kristin Middleton, completing the duty as a citizen of the Washington State.
In my opinion, I think the trial was fair and effective. Judge Schubert is fair in making judgment on objections raised by the attorneys. Also, I think the plaintiffs attorney Lindsey Hall did a good job in her direct examination of the witness in raising sympathy towards the plaintiff from the juries as well as establishing credibility of the witness. By hearing how Mr.. Schism completed the cough Canada project, I tend to be more biased towards him by the end of the day.
On the other hand, although the defendant’s attorney Gillian Barron did not get a chance to cross examine the witness, she also did a great job in showing the aspect of the adversarial system, by trying to discredit the witness, advocating her client. This visit to the King County Superior Court absolutely changed my thought of how a trail is conducted in a court. Instead of imagining all the trial process by myself, court observation really helped me solidified a lot of concepts and knowledge we learned in class in my mind.
