OBSERVATION PAPER

Observation Paper
Carolina Cepeda
University of Central Florida
Fall 2015

OBSERVATION PAPER

2
Abstract

On Wednesday, September 30th, 2015, five of my classmates and I attended a

civil lawsuit trial at the Seminole County Court. This paper will be a portrayal
of my experiences and observations as a communications student when it
comes to conflict solving and the various aspects of interaction amongst a
judge and one of the lawyers and how non-verbal communication can be one
of the most impacting forms of divergence in a courtroom.
I will focus on the idea of using mutual gain as an emphasis when it comes to
solving disagreements, how to search for a single answer, active listening,
and the use of non-verbal communication in a court room session.

Keywords: Judge, Lawyer A, courtroom, conflict, third party involvement.

OBSERVATION PAPER

Introduction
Conflict is a central and enduring feature of human existence. It occurs
whenever two or more individuals or groups perceive their interests as
mutually incompatible and act on the basis of this perception (Levinger, pg.
1)
What I have learned throughout life experiences and case studies via my
class work is that conflict is impossible to avoid. It comes from within
ourselves to react a certain way when we feel threatened by another person
(or more than one) and to immediately let our minds take action whether it is
in a defensive or non-defensive way. It is also important to know that conflict
comes and goes no matter the cause or with whom it is with. For example,
there is going to be times where there is a problem between siblings, parents,
spouses, friendships, etc. but it does not have to be necessarily between
complete strangers that [somehow] want to achieve the same goal and
because of that similar desire, they clash until there is a winner and there is a
loser. So, what to do when we are faced in the middle of a situation where we
might think that the only solution is to be aggressive, yell, scream, threaten?
Not all issues are solved by who is going to scream louder, or who is going to
punch the hardest, and I think that is one of the reasons why the word
conflict comes with such a negative association. Truth is, conflict usually
comes with a negative situation because it creates some sort of tension and
unsettlement amongst two or more people, but does it have to get
unpleasant for it to be resolved?
Subjects and Methods

OBSERVATION PAPER

It was a gloomy and cold Wednesday morning when I woke up ready to

attend a courtroom session for a case I had no idea what it was about, who it
involved, or who were the main players. It was scary for me for various
reasons: what if this case is not interesting enough? Or what if it turns into a
screaming match or fistfight in the middle of the session? Obviously, none of
these scenarios created by my very imaginative and stressful brain were the
case. What I learned, though, was the importance of communication when it
comes to solving an issue, especially when there is a third party involved that
has no other interest than to make sure there is a fair settlement amongst
the two parties involved.
About twenty minutes into the session: Your honor, this is an improper way
to ask questions. All I kept thinking is: Oh Oh, here comes the fight! But no,
it was still a creation in my mind about foolishness breaking out inside a
courtroom.
Other than watching a couple of episodes of Law and Order and a whole
bunch of low-budget and terrible acting Lifetime movies, I had no possible or
accurate knowledge about how a court case would go. This case was no very
over the top exciting, but I still got to learn some sort of techniques used in
the room.
A Home Owners Association (HOA) in a nearby neighborhood was suing one
of the residents due to suspicious businesses going on inside her property
and for building a cardboard in her garage. The session could have been very
bland if the judge and Lawyer A didnt interact the way they did between
each otherit reminded me of a brother and sister bickering at each other in
some sort of way. The Judge, who seemed to have more than one experience

OBSERVATION PAPER

working with Lawyer A, knew his way of handling situations and it seemed
like she was ready to take his reactions and blow them off. It was exactly
what happened.
Observations and Analysis
What I first noticed as soon as the session was about to begin was that
Lawyer A was not in the roomhe decided to take a phone call last minute.
The judges reaction was: Of course he would take a phone call right before
the session begins. My classmates and I looked at each other a smiled a bit;
we already knew that those two were going to get into it later during the
session. I believe we were there from 9:00 a.m. until 11:15 p.m., we would
have wanted to know how the trial ended, but it was a five day trial and the
decision was going to be made a couple days from then. By the time we left,
the Judge said it was not absolutely necessary to stay for the rest of the day
because they were showing images taken by a private investigator that was
going to be long and exhausting and was not going to show any type of
conflict or resolution about the case.
On one side, (side A) there was an older woman (early to mid 70s) with
Lawyer A, (about the same age.) It was clear they knew each other from
before, possibly close friends by the way they communicated with each other.
On the other side (side B) there was an Asian woman being represented by
Lawyer B, who seemed to be a bit lost and confused about his paperworkit
was clear they did not have an interpersonal relationship prior to the trial.
The trial had officially begun and the first witness was called insidehe was
an 80-something year old man that happened to be a resident of the
neighborhood, he had a hearing aid and could barely see the images being

OBSERVATION PAPER

presented by Lawyer B. Majority of the questions had to do with a fountain he

had built when he purchased his home more than ten years ago, and Lawyer
B was trying to question why the HOA allowed him to build a fountain in his
property and his client was not allowed to build a cardboard in her garage.
However, the case got interesting when Lawyer B asked the witness if he was
still upset about a dispute or accusation he had with his client that one time
he gave her children a ride from the school bus stop to their house in the
pouring rain over having molested the children. I say molested because
there was no clear statement as of what the accusation really was about, but
the charges had been dropped quick enough, probably because there was
either not enough evidence or it was simply a misunderstanding. It got even
more interesting when Lawyer A stepped into questioning and asked about
the dispute that had happened between the two neighbors and the children,
the judge immediately said: This is not relevant to the case and Lawyer A
said, Well, he brought it up! Now that type of answer coming from a lawyer
is not very polite, not professional, and that was when he lost all of his
credibility as a respected lawyer.
Here is where we have to use Fisher and Urys idea of separating the people
from the problem. The reason why we were all sitting there was because side
B was being accused of having illegal businesses inside her home inside her
neighborhood and the HOA did not agree with that happening under their
watch. What was the relationship between that and the 80-year-old man
giving her children a ride from the school bus stop to their front door? When
the people and the problem are then not separated, both sides react in a
defensive and negative way that starts with personal attacks, and that of

OBSERVATION PAPER

course, leads to no resolution. Like the Judge had said, the threat by side B to
the 80 year old man over giving the children a ride was absolutely irrelevant
to her conducting fishy business and building into her property without the
proper permission or jurisdiction of the HOA.
It wasnt until the second witness walked in that it was clear that Lawyer A
wanted to cause more problems than before. This witness was a private
investigator that took pictures of the properties in the neighborhood to prove
that some of them had trash and other unwanted materials outside their
homes, so why was side B being punished when other people were doing the
same? Lawyer A had an Objection for about every 4/5 statements that
Lawyer B asked. At one point, the Judge rolled her eyes and said: Sustained,
please start thinking with your legal basis rather than speaking your
objections. That type of communication entails that there is tension and
discomfort between one or both of the parties. It also showed some sort of
desperation coming from Lawyer Ait was just a picture being showed and
he was being asked the dates when they were taken and confirming the
neighborhood where they were taken.
Non-verbal communication was one of the factors that completely changed
the climate of the court. When the Judge rolled her eyes it showed the
amount of frustration she was going through when every single statement
was being called for an objection. Though, to think that there could have
been another way for her to react by using her words that could have come
out in such a negative way that it could have impacted the relationships in
the environment. The main issue with her reactions can also be that everyone
takes it differently, and some might be more upset or offended than others,

OBSERVATION PAPER

and because no direct words are being said, then it is up to the audience to
determine what that look meant (although, there so much we could assume
when she rolled her eyes, in this case it was pretty obvious she was very,
very annoyed and frustrated.)
Every negotiator wants to reach an agreement that satisfies his
substantive interests. This is why one negotiates. Beyond that, a
negotiator also has an interest in his relationship with the other
side. (Ury, pg. 22)
Having third party involvement means that the person that is there to help in
the mediation has no preference whatsoever. Although the Judge was going
to make the final and definitive decision and decide what, who, how it was
going to be settled, she has complete power on how it is going to be solved.
So then, what was the gain that Lawyer A would get out of playing around
with her patience and making every one else waste their time with all the
objections? It was a topic of talk once we were on our way back to campus,
we were entertained by it for sure, but we still did not understand what was
the need to waste breath and time complaining about irrelevant factors that
were not even affecting his client or the case for that matter.
It is very difficult to get into all of these substances and understand
specifically what they are thinking at all times, and even to understand the
real reason why they were fighting in the first place (Im not going to lie, it
took all of us some time and the Judge to explain what was actually going on,
since we got to the trial when it had been going on for a couple days already.)
We got out of there relieved that there was no serious and life changing issue
and that it could have been easily resolved. I wonder every time if there were

OBSERVATION PAPER

other situations that led to the problem to escalate in such a way for it to turn
into a lawsuit. Questions that I would have liked to ask directly to the
defendant were: Was there prior communication about the hesitation the HOA
had with you building your cardboard? Could you have gotten a permit prior
to building it and could this not be the situation right now? Was she really
conducting a mysterious business inside her house? If so, what was it? It
would have also been very interesting to witness how much
acknowledgement both parties would have taken if they were to confront
face to face again, and see how much recognition each one day into solving
this problem. The reason why I wanted the answer to these questions was
because I can think of so many ways in which this could have been
prevented. To take the time to go to a lawyer, file a lawsuit, go to court, etc. it
simply adds more stress and discomfort amongst everyone that is involved.
Conclusion
What can be easily created, cannot be as easily to solve. And that is what
conflicts cause once there is no turning back. Like I said before, it is
impossible to avoid conflict because it is a cause of nature that surrounds us
every single day of our lives. But, it is possible to get away from situations
without them escalating into a deeper and more intense issue, breaking
relationships of any type, and of course, even with strangers. It is important
to understand, though, that there are always techniques that are available
that can help prevent all of these settings.
What was the most valuable asset I got to witness while I was sitting there
was to see how little to no words can send such a powerful message, how
important gestures and face expressions are when it comes to solving an

OBSERVATION PAPER

10

argument and how listening, not hearing has to be constant in order to

understand why decisions are being made and why a problem was caused in
the beginning.
I do wish that we could have witnessed a trial that had more than a lawyer
yelling Objection! every two minutes, but it was still an experience to learn
how the dynamics work in a courtroom. Also, it would have been better to see
a complete trial from beginning to end to be able to understand the levels of
conflict a bit better, but we were able to work and share ideas with what we
had and learn more about what happens behind the scenes.

OBSERVATION PAPER

11

References
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to yes (3rd ed.) (B. Patton, Ed.). New York,
NY: Penguin Books.
Levinger, M. (2013). Conflict Analysis: Understanding Causes, Unlocking
Solutions. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.