Many had only experienced a courtroom by watching it on television.
That’s one of the reasons the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has visited two or three public schools every year for the past seven years.
The court was empaneled to hear three cases at Brunswick High School on Wednesday, invited by Rep. Charlie Priest, D-Brunswick, who serves on the Judiciary Committee.
Students were provided copies of the briefs ahead of time and listened to oral arguments live, starting with the appeal of State of Maine v. Russell Townsend, centering around criminal forfeiture.
Townsend was found guilty of trafficking in marijuana. When he was arrested, he had $8,390 in his wallet — $6,000 of which was in a zippered pocket. The state got a judgment that all $8,390 be taken from Townsend, whose appeal claims that, other than $650, the money was from Social Security disability checks.
After the first hearing, teacher Rick Wilson told seven of his students: “I’m so thrilled about what we just saw that I feel like a nerd. I felt like we just witnessed a professional sporting event. That was really cool and really special.”
Gabriel Kunhardt, a Brunswick High School junior, said he expected to see a single judge, two lawyers and Townsend — who did not attend Wednesday’s hearing.
“Overall, I thought it was super interesting to see how that actually goes on,” he said. “I’ve never seen it before. It was a little fast. They were talking pretty fast.”
“I was nervous for them,” history teacher and event organizer Pam Wagner said of attorneys when they were asked questions by justices.
The students agreed TV colored their expectations.
“‘Judge Judy,’” senior Nathaniel Reny said.
Wilson, a former debate team coach, admired the justices, telling students: “You can’t help but respect the intelligence. … I mean they were just sharp. They had some real sophisticated interplay with law language — everything.”
When the state’s prosecuting attorney, Lea-Anne Sutton, got her turn to argue, junior Walter Wilgus said he wondered if justices would question her as rigorously as they did Townsend’s attorney, Seth Levy.
“It was like they almost grilled her harder,” said Wilgus, who tossed the appeal around in his mind afterward.
“Morally speaking,” he said, “you have to go with the state because the guy was selling a lot of marijuana and marijuana is illegal,” with some exception. “Morally you have to go with the state, but then you have to look with the reason, and they could be wrong.”
“If he has it in his wallet, I don’t think it’s right to say, ‘Well all that money probably is illegal.’ That’s not fair,” Wilgus said. “As much as you’d like to see him punished by having all the money taken away from him, it’s unjust.”
Asked about what his decision would be in the appeal, Wilgus said he had an opinion, but as a justice, “you have to talk to the rest of them and you have to be open to change.”
Kunhardt said it was definitely worth his time to sit in on the court hearings because, “I think it’s important to see what actually goes on in real life, instead of on TV.”
Wednesday’s hearings also included the appeal of a Portland man convicted of murder and sentenced to 38 years in the death of his roommate.
Before the first hearing, justices snacked and sipped coffee near the stage.
Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley said it is critical “for people to understand how important the independence and strength of the three separate branches of government are.”
The supreme court visits schools to give students “a view of adult life that they might not otherwise have,” Saufley said.
“Some of what they see on TV is not terribly realistic and they learn from what they’re seeing in these cases about different professions they may want to pursue,” and not just in the law.
The chief justice said: “We love to do this. We love the connections with the students. We have an opportunity to see schools in so many different kinds of communities.”
“I am constantly impressed with how attentive they are, and how interested they are in the variety of issues that get presented.”
dmoore@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less