Trauma-Informed Court Processes: Part Three of a Four-Part Series
Author
More From This Series
Trauma-Informed Criminal Justice: Part One of a Four-Part Series
Trauma-Informed Policing: Part Two of a Four-Part Series
Media Contact
For general and media inquiries and to book our experts, please contact: [email protected]
Introduction
On Jan. 3, 2024, Clark County, Nevada District Judge Mary Kay Holthus was attacked by a defendant after rejecting his request to be sentenced to probation for felony battery (TW: courtroom violence). Courtroom attacks on judges are rare, but in 2021, U.S. federal judges were the target of 4,500 threats. Such incidents can be personally and vicariously traumatizing for the individual and other members of the bench. Trauma is conceptualized as the long-term consequences of experiencing an event or series of events perceived as physically or emotionally harmful or life-threatening. Unresolved trauma can impair executive functioning, planning, decision-making, communication, and memory—all important elements of the legal process for involved parties.
The traumatic experiences of perpetrators and victims of crime are well documented. Trauma experienced in the courtroom by witnesses, children, bystanders, and other court personnel is less documented, but having to testify; prosecute crimes of violence; preside over criminal and civil matters; listen to case details; and watch loved ones in the role of victim, witness, or perpetrator can undoubtedly take a physical or emotional toll. Owing to the substantial likelihood that many (if not all) people in the courtroom have experienced or are experiencing trauma as a result of entanglement in the legal process, implementing trauma-informed court policies and practices is critical to mitigate harm for all involved.
Read the rest of the report here.