Case: Rivera Vs.

Olson (Commercial)

Judge: Steve G. Rosen

After experiencing the first time visiting court for my life, I feel that there

are a lot of things that I need to express in this paper. First of all, it is a little bit

hard to get to the court because I need to go there in the weekdays since court

doesn’t work on Saturday or Sunday, second I know that Professor Osborn

advised us to go to the court using public transportation instead of our own

transportation, but since I’m in a rush and for time wise I prefer to use my own

transportation and I think it cost a lot to park there; it cost around $25 to park there

just for around two hours in weekday. Before I went to the court, I checked the

website on which cases look interesting and I found this case Krueger vs. Cook

which is a tort case on motor vehicle case. I didn’t know until I went to the court

and ask where is the room of this trial to one of the officers in the entrance of the

court, he said the word KNT explain to me this means Kent but luckily I’m

prepared for this in case it got cancelled and in the end I went to a case between

Rivera vs. Olson. When I entered the courthouse, I needed to empty my pockets

and go through metal detecting machine and they have this x ray machine for bags

you’re carrying which surprises me because I never think that court is as strict as

airport at first. The court has this big screen like airport that shows flights and

status of flights, only in court it shows name of cases, status, and where is it

located. When I entered the room, it’s quite far from what I thought at first; I
thought it’s going to be very serious and have people who attend the court and

juries but it’s quite relaxing and not that very serious, but I think it’s because I’m

just an observer and not the one who’s in the case. I saw like three or four people

who come for I think observing like me and I even saw one of my Legal

Environment classmate and I think her purpose is the same as mine. There were no

juries in this case because I think both side didn’t request for juries in this case.

I’m scared when I entered the court because I’ve never visited a court before. The

Judge, Steve G. Rosen were wearing the judge outfit but I think it’s a more casual,

he’s just wearing this judge outfit with long sleeve shirt underneath without tie and

he seems nice to everyone. The room is quite small from what I expected and it

looks old and had a lot of wood for its furniture’s like for the chairs, book racks,

and the chair for observers is not comfortable because there is no cushion and it’s

formed to make people sit straight, so for me it’s a little bit uncomfortable. The

judge announced that there were pre-conference on Friday, which is usual to

happen before a court trial. The court seems to be more high tech than court in

Indonesia since the judge here uses computer to review documents and there is

person who’s recording the trial and I think typing on what each person saying in

this trial. The plaintiff, Rivera brought one witness and for some reason the

witness were asked to wait outside until she was being called again to testify later

in the trial. Right before the trial, each attorney is called to talk with the judge in

the back of the court before heading outside and proceeding the trial. This case

that I’m observing I think is a business tort because throughout the trial it’s
discussing on fraud that resulted in plaintiff losing money. From what I

understand, the plaintiff gave her money to the defendant to open a new restaurant

and the plaintiff never get the money back from the defendant. The lawyer of the

plaintiff mentioned that the reason behind Rivera giving her money to Olson was

because of love and her trust to Olson since he specializes in cook. Rivera’s sister

testified in court as witness and told Judge Steve that Olson made $200K working

as a chef which surprises me because I don’t know whether to trust it if I were

Judge Steven since it seems unrealistic for a chef working in casino. The opposing

lawyer which is Mr. Olson’s attorney made a lot of objections during Rivera’s

attorney examination to witness saying that the answer from the question that

Rivera’s attorney asking is not within capability of Marsha Rivera (witness) since

she only have a degree as doctor’s assistant, so Rivera’s attorney shouldn’t ask

what is the function of a drug that the name I couldn’t recall because it’s

unfamiliar. The funny thing was the judge got irritated by Olson’s attorney that

kept on objecting and Judge Steven stop the examination and said “before you

continue this long objections, let me explain you what is fundamental questions”

and he went on by explaining what fundamental questions is and it was the

funniest moment when I observed the trial. During the trial, sometimes I felt bored

because I never thought that they were just doing cross examination and

examination one witness for two hours of the trial. I think that Olson’s attorney is

a type of bulldog lawyers from the way he kept objecting opposing attorney, but

from what I learnt during this class, sometimes hiring bulldog lawyer is not helpful
in court because it makes people in court like judge and juries have less sympathy

towards you (I got this from research during homework on type of lawyers).

Rivera’s attorney however is a calm lawyer because I don’t see her objecting when

Olson’s attorney cross examined the witness. If I was Judge Steven, I would also

be irritated by Olson’s attorney because he kept on objecting when plaintiff’s

attorney examining witness, and because Olson’s attorney was missing some

documents and didn’t try to bring it to the trial. Another interesting thing that

surprised me during the trial was the motion to allow telephonic testimony.

Rivera’s attorney tried to give this suggestion because the witness live in

Wenatchee which makes it difficult for that witness to go back and forth for this

trial. Rivera’s attorney argued that it can be done considering that the phone

number has been there forever under the witness’ name, but the judge dismissed

this request. The elements that I saw in court that we have discussed in the class is

motion, which was used by Rivera’s lawyer to suggest judge to use telephonic

testimony for a witness. Another one is pre-conference that we discussed which is

a meeting between judge and attorneys of two side before the trial and the cross

examination which is questioning a witness or party during a trial or deposition by

opposing party. I think that what we’ve learnt in class has helped me a lot in

understanding litigations and type of it; for instance, the one that I watched is a

civil tort and this class also helped me identified things that happen in court like

motions, objections, and pre-conference. I’m sure I wouldn’t understand those

things without being in this class and learn about all those things. Unfortunately, I
have limited amount of time and cannot attend the next day of this trial and

therefore I cannot see other things like the presenting of evidence and testimony of

another witness of Rivera’s side.