America 1982-Chapter 205 - 75: Judgment
The Supreme Court building in Washington, the scene of the trial.
Inside the courtroom, there was none of the intense confrontation that the media and public waiting outside might have imagined. At this moment, the representatives of the friends of the court seated in the gallery were like statues carved in stone, expressionlessly looking towards the judges on the bench.
The scenes of lawyers seen on TV spitting rhetoric, impassioned speeches, and judges constantly banging their gavels for silence are completely absent in the Supreme Court.
The legal teams on both sides were very rational, and their emotions always remained calm. Often without waiting for the judge to speak, a mere gesture was enough for the lawyers to understand the judge’s intent, whether to immediately cease questioning a witness or adjust their questions as requested by the judge to inquire about issues more closely related to the case at hand.
Because this is the Supreme Court, showing the slightest dissatisfaction with the justices or being slow to react could easily be construed as contempt of court by the opposition, and being expelled from the courtroom would be the lightest of punishments. If one really upset them, it was even possible to be penalized by the bar association.
As for why behavior in court could be punished by the bar association, of course, all the big figures in the American legal community have legal licenses and are members of the bar association, including the presiding justice on the bench.
In the American legal community, the roles of lawyer and judge are always interchangeable, without a clear divide.
The Supreme Court does not have the jury one might find in other courts. There are a total of five judges on the bench, one chief justice, and four associate justices. And it’s well known that when the trial concludes, there is no jury vote to decide the winner. Instead, the final verdict is given through voting by all nine justices of the Supreme Court during their conference.
"I feel like America could operate just fine without any laws, don’t you think, Holly?" Jason White whispered to Holly seated next to him in the plaintiff’s seat:
"What I mean is, after nearly a year of time, Actor Corporation has finally reached its third trial. The judges’ verdicts are all decided by voting. The first two times, it was the jury, and this time it’s the judges. If that’s the case, what’s the use of law? We might as well simply have the plaintiff and defendant play rock-paper-scissors in the eyes of the public, best two out of three, representing the three-tier court system of the United States."
Holly glanced at the bench to make sure the judges hadn’t noticed Jason: "Shut up, Jason, prepare the emotion you’re supposed to have. If you mess it up, you know what Tommy is capable of; he’ll definitely make you pay a steep price."
At this moment, Jon Meyer, the lead attorney for the plaintiff Lotus Corporation and a partner at the Serta Law Firm, was inquiring into professional matters with Dan Bricklin, the chief executive officer of Software Arts Company, who was an expert witness summoned by the defendant, Actor Corporation.
Expert witnesses, unlike fact witnesses, refer to individuals with professional experience in the field relevant to the case. Their testimony in court represents the opinions of industry professionals rather than factual evidence of events. 𝙛𝓻𝒆𝒆𝒘𝙚𝓫𝙣𝙤𝒗𝙚𝓵.𝙘𝙤𝙢
Actor Corporation had prepared several of these expert witnesses, which are similar in nature to friends of the court. One provides professional written opinions to the court, the other summons professionals to the scene to advise the court, all in an effort to increase the chance of persuading the judges to side with Actor Corporation.
Before speaking, expert witnesses often have to undergo screening questions from the opposing lawyers to establish their expertise. If the expert witness’s responses reveal issues raised by the lawyers, they might not even get the chance to formally speak. They could be dismissed on the spot for their expertise being questioned and replaced by another witness.
Dan Bricklin, thirty-three years old, sat in the witness stand, nodding to the judge to indicate he was ready.
Once the judge announced the start of the questioning, Jon Meyer rose from his lawyer’s seat and walked to a position about five meters away from Dan Bricklin. He looked down at Dan Bricklin with a penetrating gaze, as if ready to surge forward and grab Dan by the collar at any moment.
This made Dan Bricklin, the high-IQ engineer recognized as the "father of electronic spreadsheets" for developing the VisiCalc software, subconsciously retract his body slightly backward.
Delia Case watched Jon Meyer’s movements and looked at her colleague for confirmation. As soon as her colleague gave the affirmative, she would immediately intervene to stop Jon Meyer’s actions. Unfortunately, no one provided her with a positive response.
The court rules stipulate that unless permitted by the judge, lawyers may not approach witnesses within five meters to avoid creating a sense of oppression on the witness and causing negligence in their testimony.
If Jon Meyer stepped within five meters, Delia Case’s intervention could reduce Lotus Corporation’s impression in the court. Conversely, if Jon Meyer didn’t violate the rules and she spoke out rashly, it could lead the judge to question her professionalism.
In the stage of the Supreme Court, lawyers are constantly looking for weapons to attack their opponents in any aspect, be it subtle movements, ambiguous phrases or even the tone of voice, because understanding the law isn’t important here. In fact, what happens during the trial might not be crucial, as the justices may already have their preferred answers in mind, just waiting for the trial to finish so they can vote.
This is the curious nature of American justice; everyone outside is waiting for the outcome, but those inside, the lawyers, know all too well that most of it is a formality, unless there is extremely dramatic evidence that could influence the verdict. Otherwise, the result is unlikely to change.
