Blog #3 - First Week Summary - 12/2-12/4

 The first week of my Hawken Project has been an amazing experience so far.

Although I was unable to spend my second day in person due to a snow day, I was still able to observe hearings remotely through one judge’s YouTube livestream. During this observation, I watched multiple hearings and was introduced to a particularly compelling situation involving a decision about whether a defendant should be subject to forced medication. Prior to this case, I had only read about forced medication and had never seen firsthand how such hearings are conducted. I found it especially interesting to learn about the procedures involved, as well as the judge’s role—not only as a mediator between the attorneys, but also as a safeguard for the defendant’s rights.

In this case, the defendant appeared remotely from the Northcoast Behavioral Health Facility alongside an expert witness. The expert, who worked at the facility, participated via live video conference with the court. This format was new to me, as I had previously assumed that expert testimony could only be delivered in person in the courtroom. I learned that many virtual components introduced during COVID have remained integrated into the court system’s daily operations. I observed a similar shift in Probate Court, where pretrial hearings presided over by magistrates are now held in the courtroom rather than in their offices, just as hearings presided over by judges are.

During the hearing, the defendant’s assigned psychiatrist from Northcoast Behavioral Health Facility testified on behalf of the state. He argued that forced medication was the most appropriate course of action given the defendant’s current mental health condition and past behavior. The basis for the hearing was that the defendant had repeatedly refused to take prescribed medication, prompting the state to file a motion requesting authorization for forced medication.

On my next in-person day at the Lake County Court system (12/3), I toured the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office and spent the day meeting staff and learning about their roles. I spent most of my time with the Appellate Division, where I was introduced to appellate courts and the appeals process. I was also fortunate to meet David Hackman, the Chief Assistant Prosecutor of the Civil Division. He has been with the office for many years and is widely respected for his experience and contributions. A picture with him is shown below.

Two of the most important takeaways from this visit were learning that appellate attorneys primarily serve as legal advisors and that the scope of an appeal is strictly limited to the facts and record established during the original trial. Appeals focus solely on whether the law was applied correctly, not on reexamining the facts of the case. One appellate attorney explained that “the only role of the trial attorneys is to make a record for us.” This perspective interested me because it highlighted the clear distinction between trial-level and appellate-level work. Trial attorneys focus on facts, witnesses, and establishing what happened, while appellate attorneys focus entirely on legal interpretation and identifying procedural or legal errors.

On my fourth official day (12/4), I visited the Willoughby Municipal Court, often referred to as a “people’s court.” Municipal courts earn this nickname because they handle cases involving everyday members of the community, such as traffic violations and lower-level misdemeanors. In contrast, more serious criminal cases are heard in the Court of Common Pleas. During my visit, I observed Judge Marisa Cornachio as she managed an extremely large caseload—large enough to typically require two judges. A picture with her and fellow Hawken student Elsa Maki is shown below.

Overall, my first week of the Hawken Project has been an incredibly valuable learning experience. I have gained meaningful insight into the public sector of the justice system, and I am excited to see what the next two weeks will bring.