How Courtroom Layouts Are Biased (feat Legal Eagle)

Geez, this LegalEagle guy is everywhere these days... Even the best architecture channel on YouTube!

In the last 10 or 15 years, I've had go to court twice, both for traffic tickets, and both in new(ish) municipal court buildings where it was evident that budget trumped absolutely every other consideration. Dim, soul-killing fluorescent troffer lights in a dropped ceiling. Cheap, low pile carpet with black rubber base at the wall. Textured drywall. Millwork that qualified as about a 1/2 step above a cubicle. Woodwork that was obviously little more than off-the-shelf 1x pine from Team Orange slathered with cheap urethane stain. If they'd had some plastic plants and a couple of tables with outdated magazines, you would have had a hard time distinguishing the space from a large doctor's office waiting room or any other low-rent public-facing commercial space. Though it must be said that the spaces were well-designed for the purpose of channeling the stream of defendants from gallery to judge to prosecutor back to judge to clerk to cashier. (ATM conveniently located right outside the courtroom on your way to the cashier's window.) Pretty tough to summon up any sense of reverence or respect for the judicial process when the built environment conspires with procedure to turn justice into a crass commercial transaction.

As an acoustical consultant who has worked on multiple courthouses mentioning crosstalk (hvac being a weak point for sound isolation) is a good touch even if you didn't call it by its name haha

This video is a great conversation starter. I was however hoping it would contain more alternative settings. I understand that technology has to be facilitated but I wish that the topic of plaintiff's sense of safety could also have been addressed. I had to testify in criminal court and I am currently in the midst of a legal battle at the housing tribunal, when dealing with bullies the traditional set up can make "the victim" feel extra vulnerable.

It’s not just sidebars that are an issue with the Jeffersonian arrangement. In modern times, a camera on the judge might expose the identities of the jurors to television viewers. In some cases, the juries identities might need to be protected. An ideal architecture would both allow the jurors to be in front of the judge, and also allow the jury box to be moved to the side for some cases.

Designing a court house is the only project I remember well from my architecture school days. I had gone full "form follows function" where the design was more or less circular with center and up being the judiciary, center and down being the police/cells/etc, and finally the outside being the public. With each having their completely separate system of corridors feeding into the courtrooms. Quite clever I thought. But alas, it wasn't rewarded that way.

Just a quick note. I work for HMCTS (which runs the courts of England and Wales). We still use docks with protective glass/plastic. The ECtHR ruling did not ban the use of the dock in UK courts, but rather urged the UK to reconsider its use and to apply it only when necessary. However, since then, there has been little change in the UK’s policy or practice regarding the dock. According to a report by JUSTICE, a law reform organisation, most defendants in UK courts are still routinely placed in secure docks, regardless of their personal characteristics or the nature of their offence. This happens in both Magistrates and Crown courts.

Wow, this is actually a clever collaboration. The choice to combine the disciplines of architecture and law made for an interesting mixture I didn't expect. Good job, Stewart.

So that turned out to be incredibly interesting. Thank you for making this video. On a related note while watching I thought about the all the symbols. At first I thought them frivolous but as I reflected on them, and was presented with them in the video, I started considering them integral to the courtroom itself. Symbols hold power. The power to remind us of our values I beleive is the most important. The scales of justice in a courtroom reminds everyone in the room, especially the judge and the jury, that justice requires impartiality. Having the symbol front and centre, makes it hard to ignore and hopefully people take that reminder to heart.

@11:16 The courtrooms I've been to have been suffocating and claustrophobic, unfortunately. Had a panic attack in one and had to ask to escort myself out. The spaces themselves are large and double height, and the woodwork is all lovely, but the small windows (or even lack of), people packed into benches, not to mention tension in the air with all the authoritative figures and those directly involved in the hearing, doesn't make the best environment to be in during the long dragging hours of the jury selection process. Loved the neoclassical exterior and atrium, though!

I've actually worked on a few courthouses in my career as an electrical engineer. And just looking at the blueprints, you realize how much thought and consideration goes into keep different parties separate based upon their role and other factors. Most modern courthouses will even have a completely separate secure elevator for moving defendants. And most people who've never served on a jury don't realize that a properly designed jury suit will include a break area for coffee, water, snacks, etc that is separate from the staff break room.

I work for a court system at the state level. Something to also consider with court design is the type of court it is. If it's criminal court, they'll need officer access and holding cells. If it's Family court, they won't need a jury box. If it's civil court you'll likely need a lot more space due to the much larger case volume. Technology is also the current focus of many court systems and the primary challenge is, what else, money. The expense of retrofitting these grand and specially furnished rooms with proper A/V equipment is not small. And in an era of hightened information security another major limiting factor is network access. Sharing documentation is much harder when you need to maintain a strict firewall between staff and attorney/public access. And it all needs to happen without interrupting proceedings. You can't stop processing cases for renovation.

While you’re analyzing courtroom layouts, how do you think the Jeffersonian Revival style of courtroom would affect the people who are very anxious in front of an audience, or those who have subconsciously come to associate face-to-face viewing with confrontation? The lawyers would not have much problem with this, because they would address the jury anyway, but this may have a detrimental effect on some defendants.

Never thought about the cultural differences between courtrooms. Surpricingly interesting! In Danish courts procecusion and defence face each other. The judge faces the witness. The audience is behind the witness. We don't have a jury as such, but lay judges and they sit on the judge's sides. And now I'm off to look at courtroom layouts around the world 😊

What a great crossover! I hadn’t considered how much architecture impacts courtrooms.

My Uncle was a millwright in the mid 80’s and built the judge’s benches, jury box, and witness stand for the Chicago Mob Trials. That was one of the first instances where bulletproofing with hardboard was used. Behind the judge’s nameplate was a gun slot held up by magnets. Under his bench was an electric locking port for a sawed-off shotgun and 10 rounds of 12 gauge ammunition. Neat little setup.

A few weeks ago I was able to sit in on a jury selection/hearing at the Old Bailey in London. What fascinated me was what we in the public gallery could and couldn't see. The Judge and Barristers were visible, as was the defendant. The jury was visible once they were seated, but not when they were still being selected. The screens for digital evidence were visible to everyone BUT the public gallery, which I found odd, but probably just an issue of pragmatism. Something I found rather decent about the whole affair was that you couldn't see the family of the victim, as they were seated below the public gallery.

00:30 - Not all docks: 1) the ECtHR doesn't have jurisdiction beyond Europe and 2) even in Europe not all docks are banned - the vast majority of criminal courts in France and the UK still have a small box/pen (often surrounded by something, usually glass) in which defendants sit/stand. I know lawyers who have pointed out that "speaking into a dock microphone" should be a whole course with an official certificate at the end of it - that's how complicated talking and hearing can be in one. 7:45 - France normally uses a mix of the centre and "Jeffersonian" styles - the main witness box (the defendant, if detained awaiting trial never leaves the box so never uses it) is right in the centre between or in front of counsel tables (sometimes counsel tables are side by side facing the judge, sometimes at right angles), the defendants' box and jury areas are usually to the sides where applicable, the prosecutor is often on the raised judges' platform to one side, the clerk on the opposite side of the same. 9:37 - Over here in France apart from judges, prosecutors and clerks, most people get a very basic metal or wooden bench or, if you're lucky, independent seat, with at most a thin layer of padding.

Really liking the fact that a photo showed several times was of the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town, South Africa! In the criminal courts, cell blocks are usually in the basement with stairs going up into the dock. But the dock isn't fully walled in, just half walls.

For the Jeffersonian style, I wonder if the addition of a sidebar area would be viable. Basically, an area in the corner with slightly higher walls to reduce noise travel. It would mean that the judge and lawyers would have to walk off to the side to talk, but might work.