Tuesday was the second day of hearings in the trial of Anthony Maio, New Haven Police Officer accused of sexually assaulting two college students. I was at the UNESCO conference at University of Connecticut yesterday, so I could not attend the first day. On Tuesday, I dropped my daughter off at summer camp and headed down to the New Haven Superior Court building. I found a good place to park and headed in a little bit early. Initially, I sat outside the court room and did a little writing on my laptop.

One of the lawyers on the case recognized me from the Voir Dire and joked about how they had changed their minds and that they wanted to make a switch and put me on the jury. We talked briefly and I asked if he had read any of my blog posts about the case so far. He said he had read the first one, and I encouraged him to read more of my blog posts. We talked about the importance of people reading and understanding the details of jury selection and jury trials.

The courtroom filled up with spectators and I worked on a different blog post as I waited for the trial to begin. One spectator contacted a Marshall and asked about the permissibility of using a laptop in the courtroom. He told me that it was not allowed without express permission from the judge. I noted that this had not been the case in other courtrooms I had worked in.

Nonetheless, Judge William Holden came in and stated that electronic devices, including laptops, would not be allowed in his courtroom. He also complained that he thought he had heard a cell phone vibrating the day before and he wanted cellphones turned off, not simply set to vibrate.

While I recognize the desire to minimize distractions in the court room, it seems to me as if Judge Holden’s views are a bit extreme and that he is doing a disservice to judicial system by making it harder for people to give a fair recounting of the events in the courtroom. Perhaps he is insecure about his ability to run a fair trial.

I had already turned off the laptop before the Judge entered the courtroom following the discussion with the Marshall and had resorted to talking hand written notes. Nonetheless, the Marshall kept a wary eye on me throughout the beginning of the trial.

The first witness on the stand was one of the alleged victims and a roommate of the other alleged victim. According to an article in the New Haven Independent, she admitted to having entered the bar with a false identification and having had several drinks, but still being aware of her surroundings. The defense continued to place doubt on the witness’ testimony. She was a criminal justice major at Quinnipiac. She wrote her senior thesis on sexual assault cases. She contacted the lawyers in the case about the case for her thesis, which none of them responded to.

She admitted to willingly going upstairs at BAR in hopes of getting free drinks. She admitted that the other alleged victim kissed the police officer for an extended period and slipped her tongue into his mouth. She admitted to having not fled and ultimately, walking calmly down the stairs away from the event.

The defense lawyer portrayed her testimony as getting more and more graphic over time. Her first report was that the officer had touched her breast. Later, she provided more detail about him cupping her breast. Likewise she initially reported that he had attempted to touch her thigh, which she repulsed. Later, she claimed he had in fact touched her inner thigh. She repeatedly qualified her testimony talking about how long ago it was and how she did not remember the details clearly.

When asked about why she had filed the complaint she spoke about expecting better behavior from a police officer and her fear of his gun and baton, even though she admitted that he never threatened the women. I thought back to my experience during jury selection. I was asked if I could treat police officers the same as any other person. I said that I believed I could. With respect to the law, there is not a different law for police officers than there is for everyone else. The fact that Officer Maio is a police officer should have no effect on whether or not a criminal complaint is brought. It may provide grounds for disciplinary action within the police force, but that is a very different issue.

After several rounds of questions from both sides the questioning was finished and a new witness was called. This was the other alleged victim and the roommate of the previous witness. She admitted to having gotten together with the other witness but said she had not discussed details of the case. She said that she used her own identification to get into the bar since she could drink legally. She admitted to having had three shots before going to the bar, and then three or four beers at the bar.

Afterwards, I read some of the other coverage of the trial. The New Haven Independent is providing good coverage of the trial and it is interesting to read the discussions about the trial in the comments. Many opinions are being expressed about the rights of sexual assault victims and the responsibility of police officers to act professionally. Yet my mind goes back to the underlying question that all the jurors were asked. Would they be able to provide a fair decision, not about socially acceptable behavior, not about what the laws ought to say, but about the specific laws in question and if there is reasonable doubt that Officer Maio in fact violated them.

From what I saw in the court room on Tuesday morning, I believe it is very reasonable to have doubts about all the charges against Officer Maio. It does seem clear that he behaved inappropriately. Yet that inappropriate behavior seems to be more of an issue that should have been handled by internal affairs at the police department and not a criminal case. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the case proceeds and the reaction to whatever verdict is issued.