Judging the judges: Volunteer observers play unsung role in criminal justice system

PALMER -- From her seat in the back of the courtroom, JoHanna Hawthorne sometimes sees a trial more as theater than anything else.

She's fascinated by the real life emotions of defendants and plaintiffs, along with the gamesmanship between opposing attorneys.

"I have a theater background and I can pick up the theatrics going into it," she said. "There is a certain amount of scene setting, and different personalities do it differently. You get a feeling for the different attorneys."

The Wasilla woman isn't looking for cheap entertainment when she shows up at Palmer or Anchorage courthouses. She's there to judge the judges and attorneys, although she doesn't say it in those words. Hawthorne is one of five Valley residents who volunteer for Alaska Judicial Observers Inc., a nonprofit group that monitors courtroom proceedings.

"It's just a rating," Hawthorne said. "We have such stringent guidelines to go by that it is really very simple."

Executive Director Kathleen Rice of Anchorage organized Judicial Observers almost two years ago. She's the only paid staff member, and oversees 33 volunteers from Palmer to the Kenai Peninsula. Besides Hawthorne, those from the Mat-Su include Carol Jensen, Thomas and Mary and John Wolfe.

There's 40 hours of training, during which new volunteers attend court sessions with Rice to learn the ropes. They also receive presentations from judges, district attorneys and public defenders.

"They don't go into a courtroom until I'm sure I'm going to get a clean evaluation," Rice said.

Then volunteers are given evaluation forms and asked to attend 20 hours of court per month. The forms pose such questions as:

Did the defense attorney and prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney demonstrate preparedness? Did they speak in a manner that was easy to understand? Did they treat all participants fairly and professionally?

Did the judge/magistrate pay attention to the proceedings and participants? Did they maintain control? Did they favor either side?

Each of 26 questions is evaluated on a scale of one, or poor, to five, or excellent. There's also a list of evaluation criteria, such as:

Did the judge watch for restless or napping jurors? Are disruptions or outbursts of emotion controlled? Did you understand the judge's explanations/decisions or did you leave feeling confused?

The completed evaluations go to the Alaska Judicial Council, which uses the information for several purposes, including information in the voter's pamphlet. Rice says most judges and attorneys welcome the feedback.

"They look at us kind of like a jury," she said.

Each volunteer has a list of district and superior court judges. Hawthorne's goal is to see a different judge each month.

She began volunteering in January, soon after moving to Alaska to live with her son and daughter-in-law. Hawthorne thought it would be a good way to meet people, and contribute something valuable.

She's semi-retired with a master's degree in adult education. She worked as a professional hypnotherapist, as well as for a food bank in California.

Hawthorne quickly noticed one major difference between courts in Anchorage and Palmer -- the Valley's are much more relaxed.

"In Anchorage nobody talks to you," she said. "Their courtrooms are never really empty, and it's much more formal."

In Valley courts, a judge is likely to ask her name between sessions and ask why she's there. Hawthorne said most ask if there's any particular information she wants, or how they can help.

During sessions, she takes a familiar seat out of the spotlight.

"I sit in the back and watch everything," Hawthorne said.

Besides the difference in atmosphere from Anchorage to Palmer, something else became apparent after only a few hours in court. Real court proceedings have little similarity to television shows, she said with a laugh.

"In the real life setting there's 15 minutes of testimony, then a 15-minute break," Hawthorne said. "Then you go back in and hear somebody else talk. It feels like it moves a lot slower than on TV because they only have an hour."

She and the other volunteers agree that the observer program is valuable because it helps increase the public's awareness of the judicial system. John Wolfe says the experience has been extremely educational for him.

"I just had a general concept of how the legal system worked," the retired Wasilla man said. "Now I've seen the difficulty that the judges and prosecutors and public defenders have because of the tremendous work load. They have to handle that work load and be fair with everyone, and come up with something that works for our society."

Wolfe doesn't follow any trial to its conclusion, and the program isn't designed for its volunteers to do that. Instead, he tries to see shorter sessions in lots of courtrooms.

"They want a snapshot," he said of Alaska Judicial Observers' goal.

Often, the snapshot Wolfe captures is a bit blurred. For example, he's seen defendants come back repeatedly for driving while intoxicated and driving with a revoked license. For some reason, they always get back onto the roads, he said.

"You cannot have enough policemen to make sure that everyone who is told not to drive, doesn't drive," Wolfe said. "In a lot of cases, the ramifications are just ignored by the participants."

The biggest eye-opener of all, though, is seeing how many times drugs and alcohol play a role in criminal behavior, Wolfe said.

"I did not realize just how much drugs and alcohol are involved in a vast majority of the cases. It's just amazing. Alcohol dulls people's senses to what is right or wrong, I guess, or allows them to substitute bad judgment instead of having control of their faculties.

"The legal system hasn't figured out how to deal with the problems. Doing this has given me quite an appreciation of the judges, and the difficult dilemma they face trying to be Solomons every day."