Journal of Criminal Justice Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

The Power of Experiential Learning in Emotional

Courtroom Spaces

Esther Nir & Jennifer Musial

To cite this article: Esther Nir & Jennifer Musial (2020): The Power of Experiential
Learning in Emotional Courtroom Spaces, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, DOI:
10.1080/10511253.2020.1817515

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1817515

Published online: 16 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcje20
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2020.1817515

The Power of Experiential Learning in Emotional

Courtroom Spaces
Esther Nira and Jennifer Musialb
a
Department of Criminal Justice, New Jersey City University, Jersey City, NJ, USA; bDepartment of
Women’s and Gender Studies, New Jersey City University, Jersey City, NJ, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Courtrooms are dynamic and emotionally imbued spaces. In these Received 4 June 2020
environments, case processing challenges, shortcomings, suc- Accepted 25 August 2020
cesses, and power struggles impact court actors, defendants, and
victims. We asked: What happens when you immerse a group of KEYWORDS
students with limited interest in court systems into this environ- Civic engagement; courts;
criminal procedure;
ment to witness, take notes, and reflect on their experiences? Can emotions;
this experiential learning opportunity spark interest and enhance experiential learning
understanding of criminal court processes? A qualitative analysis
of 42 journals reveals that students had strong emotional
responses to what they saw; through journaling, students
described not only their own reactions but also a myriad of emo-
tions they perceived in court actors and participants. Further,
many students personally related to processes observed, espe-
cially when they were attentive to the backgrounds of defend-
ants, victims, and their families. Whether positive or negative, our
data demonstrate that these experiences lead students to critic-
ally analyze system processes on a more macro level.

“Emotion is the moving and cementing force. It selects what is congruous and dyes what it
selected with its color, thereby giving qualitative unity to material externally disparate and
dissimilar.” (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 42) .

The criminal courtroom is an emotional space. It is a place where witnesses, judges,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, defendants, victims, and family members congregate
in the aftermath of a criminal event. In this space, emotions often run high; among
the myraid of feelings circulating at different points in time, victims may display
trauma and sadness, defendants may exhibit frustration or fear, and family members
may express outrage or despair. Beyond these emotional reactions, the adversarial
nature of court proceedings is such that prosecutors and defense attorneys often
deliver emotionally charged arguments to persuade juries or judges to decide in their
favor. The substantive issues addressed can result in devastating life altering conse-
quences (e.g. a defendant’s loss of freedom and the cascading repercussions to his or
her family) that conjure strong feelings. Additionally, the court community is a

CONTACT Esther Nir [email protected]

ß 2020 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
2 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

professional workplace where power dynamics, personality conflicts, and every day
human interactions and reactions take place between court actors (e.g. judges, prose-
cutors, defense attorneys, and court personnel). People who work in these spaces also
bring their own emotional lives to the courtroom.
So, what happens when you assign students who may be reluctant, minimally inter-
ested, or even disinterested to observe courtroom proceedings and journal their expe-
riences? Do these observations trigger emotional responses in students? Do students
personally relate to these experiences? Can providing experiential learning opportuni-
ties in courtroom spaces spark student interest in court systems and processes that
are central to criminal justice education? If students become emotionally engaged, is
this engagement a catalyst to a more nuanced and sophisticated comprehension of
the judicial system? Using two separate sections of an honors course titled “Trial
Advocacy and the American Legal System,” we placed our students in courtrooms to
observe criminal court processes (such as arraignments, hearings, trials, and sentenc-
ing) and to create field notes (in a journal) describing their experiences, perceptions,
feelings, and opinions regarding their observations. We then analyzed the journals to
evaluate how students responded (both emotionally and intellectually) and whether
the experiences led to productive learning outcomes. In this article, we begin with a
description of our institution, participating student demographics, and the compo-
nents of our course. After a brief literature review, we share our methodology and
results from our qualitative analyses of student journals. The article culminates in a
discussion on the value of engaging criminal justice students in emotional court-
room spaces.

Institutional description
New Jersey City University is a Minority-Serving, Hispanic-Serving public liberal arts
institution located in a diverse corridor in the urban Northeast. The campus draws
over 6,000 primarily commuter undergraduate students from surrounding counties.
New Jersey City University advertises itself as an affordable institution so it appeals to
working class and working poor students who can continue their employment while
attending class. About 57% of students are the first in their families to go to college
(Gerber, S., Personal Communication, October 23, 2018). New Jersey City University
does not collect data on immigration status or experience, but as professors at the
institution we know that most students are either immigrants themselves or come
from immigrant families. Nursing, psychology, and criminal justice are the largest
majors at New Jersey City University.

Study demographics
Student demographics were collected through optional, anonymous pre- and post-
learning surveys. Of the 47 students who enrolled in HON 102, 44 voluntarily provided
demographic information through our pre-learning survey and 41 completed the post-
learning survey at the end of the semester. We learned that 61% (27) of the students
are cisgender women and 39% (17) are cisgender men. Given the ability to choose
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 3

from multiple racial/ethnic identifiers, the majority of students at 59.1% (26) selected
Latinx/Hispanic while 6.8% (3) selected Another Category Not Identified. About 4.5%
(2) of students chose each of the following: Bi-/Multi-racial, Black/Afro-Caribbean/
African American; Indigenous/Native American/Pacific Islander/Alaskan Native; and
Non-Latinx/Hispanic White or Euro-American. About 2.3% (1) opted for each of the fol-
lowing: East Asian; Latinx/Hispanic, Black/Afro-Caribbean/African American; Latinx/
Hispanic, Indigenous/Native American/Pacific Islander/Alaskan Native; Latinx/Hispanic,
Non-Latinx/Hispanic White or Euro-American; Middle Eastern or Arab; Non-Latinx/
Hispanic White or Euro-American; and South Asian. All of the students were under the
age of 25. Only 39% (17) reported they were First Generation to College. Briefly, 27%
(12) of students said they were immigrants, while 47% (21) said one or more of their
parents was an immigrant. Many students held a job: over a third of the class (14)
works between 21 and 30 hours a week while a quarter of the class works 11 to
20 hours a week (11). About 11.4% (5) said they look after at least 1 child, 4.5% (5)
take care of at least one elder/senior that requires assistance, and 4.5% (5) care for at
least one person with a disability.

Course description
Our students were drawn from two sections of a course titled “Trial Advocacy and the
American Legal System” during the Fall 2018 semester. In that semester, 25 students
were enrolled in one section of the course while 22 students were enrolled in a
second section. This required course is offered exclusively to sophomores in the uni-
versity’s honors program. The honors program draws a wide array of students; while a
handful of students in the course major in criminal justice, other majors include biol-
ogy, chemistry, business, political science, and national security, among several other
majors. The course explores the roles played by various court actors including judges,
defense attorneys, prosecutors, victims, defendants, witnesses, experts, and juries.
There are several components to this course. First, the course teaches students about
criminal case processing, trial stages, and related constitutional issues. Partly skills
focused, students assume the roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys and simulate
jury selections, opening statements, witness preparation, expert examinations, cross
examination, and closing statements. The course culminates in a full mock trial in a
state superior court, with a Superior Court judge presiding.
The course is a community engaged learning course requiring students to travel to
a courthouse of their choosing to observe criminal court proceedings for a minimum
of 10 hours over the course of the semester. Students were given the option of
attending the Jersey City Superior Court or another courthouse in their own commun-
ities. Some students chose to travel to the Jersey City Courthouse from campus in
small groups, while others preferred to attend proceedings closer to their homes.
Assistance in locating and traveling to courthouses was provided to students and stu-
dents were given the flexibility to attend court at their convenience. Further, Jersey
City Superior Court’s supervising judge provided students with hearing and trial
updates (via email) on ongoing cases to assist students in deciding which proceedings
to attend; students were permitted to attend any criminal proceeding (e.g.
4 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

arraignments, hearings, trials, sentencing proceedings, among others). With the excep-
tion of one class period, observations took place on the students’ own time. Students
journaled their observations and created field notes, documenting not only what they
saw, but also their opinions and reactions to their observations. Students were encour-
aged to provide as much detail as possible. After their hours were completed, stu-
dents had additional opportunities to meet with judges to ask questions and to
express their perceptions and responses to their observations. At the conclusion of the
course, students formed groups of three or four, discussed their individual experien-
ces, and collaborated to draft a letter to the judiciary providing comments and con-
structive suggestions. Each group presented their letter to the class and received
feedback from their classmates and professors.

Literature review
Community engaged learning
Civic engagement in higher education is influenced by John Dewey’s approach. In
Education and Experience, Dewey argued against rote memorization while advocating
for hands-on activities to deepen a student’s understanding of subject matter (Dewey,
1938/1997). In addition, Dewey posited that teachers should create pro-social opportu-
nities for students that cement personal growth and, ultimately, improve citizenship
outcomes. Today, civic engagement is an umbrella term that encompasses teaching
civic knowledge (i.e. the foundation of democratic governance), civic skills (i.e. critical
thinking, problem solving, collective action, community organizing), and civic values
(i.e. justice, inclusion, social participation) (Saltmarsh, 2005). Some civic engagement
courses are more provider-centric (i.e. field education, internships) while others are
more recipient-centric (i.e. volunteerism, community service); service-learning is the
balance between these polarities (Furco, 1996). Civic engagement may also include
community-based research or experiential education. Through faculty consultation, our
campus at ABC University has adopted the phrase Community Engaged Learning (CEL)
to refer to any course that pairs students with community actors or sites to study a
social problem outside the classroom. The goals of a CEL course include personal
growth, a sense of belonging, deeper understanding of the course content, an ability
to transfer knowledge from the classroom to a community context, an ability to
reframe complex social issues, heightened compassion and empathy, being able to
see an issue from another person’s perspective, preparedness to work in multicultural
environments, reduction in likelihood to stereotype a marginalized person or social
group, and an enhanced sense of social responsibility and commitment to future civic
participation (see Eyler & Giles, 1999; Naud
e, 2015).
Criminal justice courses use civic engagement techniques to achieve these goals.
More criminal justice/civic engagement scholarship has focused on students working
with currently or formerly incarcerated individuals than other wings of the field (e.g.
policing or courts), and it is especially common to pair students in a juvenile delin-
quency course with justice-involved youth (Hirschinger-Blank & Markowitz, 2006;
Starks, Harrison, & Denhardt, 2011; VanderPyl, 2018). These courses aim to reduce stu-
dents’ stereotypes about justice-involved youth in exchange for a deeper
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 5

understanding of systemic issues. Additionally, the Inside-Out program that co-edu-

cates college students with currently incarcerated adults is a popular experiential
learning opportunity in criminal justice programs (Wyant & Lockwood, 2018). Other
examples include prison tours (Long & Utley, 2018; Payne, Sumter, & Sun, 2003) and,
less frequently, matching students with police officers on activities such as ride-alongs
(Payne et al., 2003). By far, the most under-represented type of civic engagement in
criminal justice programs is one that connects students to legal environments/actors.
Courtroom observation excursions appear in the civic engagement literature, but these
tend to happen in law classes with law students (Higgins, Dewhurst, & Watkins, 2012;
Mangan, 2018) or political science classes, (McLauchlan, 2011) not criminal justice
classes (see exception, Hartmus, Cauthen, & Levine, 2006).
Attending court and witnessing proceedings first-hand may benefit criminal justice
students in profound ways. As we have argued elsewhere, courtroom observations
demystify court actors and processes, allows students to see political elites (i.e. judges,
lawyers) in action, deepens their understanding of governance, and can even inspire
students to consider a career or volunteer position in local governance. Courtroom
observations further allow students to witness court community dynamics and power
differentials between various court actors; seeing the interactions between prosecu-
tors, judges, defense attorneys, and even police can provide students with front row
seats to informal relationships formed through the “community grapevine” that play
an important role in how court actors perform formal job functions (Eisenstein,
Flemming, & Nardulli, 1988, p. 25; see also Nardulli, 1986; Rosett & Cressey, 1976).

Civic engagement and emotional reactivity

Civic engagement is meaningful when students are emotionally engaged in the
course. An emotional connection leads to “intrinsic motivation, adaptive strategies,
resiliency, and intensity of behavior,” which may improve student success and reten-
tion (Simonet, 2008, p. 6). Notably, Dewey said emotion “serves to catalyze scientific
thought” (Felten, Gilchrist, & Darby, 2006, p. 39). Despite its benefits, emotion is
under-theorized in civic engagement literature because logic and critical thinking are
prioritized as learning outcomes (Carson & Domangue, 2013; Darby, Perry, & Maureen,
2015; Felten et al., 2006; Grain & Lund, 2016; Langstraat & Bowdon, 2011; Larsen,
2017; Noyes, Darby & Leupold, 2015; Priesmeyer et al., 2016). To rectify this gap, some
emphasize reflection as the bridge between experience, emotion, and theory-making
(Eyler & Giles, 1999; Felten et al., 2006; Naud
e, 2015; Noyes et al., 2015). Larsen (2017)
goes further by arguing that emotions themselves are indicative of learning, and
should be valued in their own right.
This research tells us that students will feel something by taking a community
engaged learning class. The experience of border crossing – or meeting the Other, a
common learning outcome in CEL – is likely to cause dissonance, which is “the psy-
chological reaction to inconsistency in two or more thoughts, beliefs, or events”
(Taylor & Baker, 2019, p. 173). Dissonance shows up as uncertainty, fear, skepticism,
lack of confidence, feeling overwhelmed, anger, frustration, or sadness (Naude
, 2015,
p. 92; Noyes et al., 2015, pp. 76–79). In a CEL class where students encounter injustice
6 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

in their communities or sites of service, they may experience anger, frustration, sym-
pathy, inspiration, happiness, sadness, gratitude, excitement, shame, admiration, anx-
iety, or compassion (Carson & Domangue, 2013; Noyes et al., 2015). Carson and
Domangue (2013) observe that student emotions will fluctuate during their CEL
experience and students will not necessarily remain in whatever emotional state is ini-
tially triggered for them. As educators, we hope that students will move from
“negative” emotions to more “positive” ones where excitement, pride, joy, reward, or
inspiration live (Noyes et al., 2015, pp. 77–80). This will not happen in all cases. Some
students may feel powerless and choose distancing as a survival strategy (Bheekie &
van Huyssteen, 2015; Taylor & Baker, 2019), develop compassion fatigue (Gemignani,
2013), or, in the cases of students who are already marginalized by systems of power,
become re-traumatized or triggered by the experience (Taylor & Baker, 2019). In the
hands of a skilled educator, and armed with good reflection or debrief exercises, stu-
dents can productively work through discomfort to arrive at insightful analyses of
community spaces and “critical hope,” which is an ethical responsibility that embraces
the “necessary tension between criticality – of privilege, charity, hegemony, represen-
tation, history, and inequality – along with a hope that is neither naïve nor idealistic,
but that remains committed to ideals of justice, reflexivity, and solidarity” (Grain &
Lund, 2016, p. 51).
Scholarship on emotions and CEL focus on how feelings arise when students are in
civic spaces and/or interacting with members of a community. Little research recog-
nizes that some civic spaces are emotional environments and that by being in these
spaces, students are more likely to feel something or to be affected by what they wit-
ness. Sending students to observe court proceedings presents an opportunity to ask:
what happens when students bring their rich emotional lives into a high-stakes/high-
emotion environment like the local courtroom where lawyers, witnesses, families,
plaintiffs, defendants, juries, judges, and other courtroom actors (e.g. bailiffs, police
officers, stenographers, translators, etc.) contribute their own affective energies to
the space?

Emotions in the courtroom

Maroney (2006) summarizes that emotions are tied to types of legal environments:
in criminal law, one expects “fear, grief, and remorse” whereas “love and
attachment” show up more in family law (p. 120). Beyond the normative assump-
tions about proceeding types, a great deal of scholarship exists on the micro envir-
onment of a courtroom, such as how lawyers use emotion to convey their
arguments to the judge or jury (Flower, 2018; Pettys, 2007; Wettergren and Blix,
2016) and how jury members are swayed based on how they feel about lawyers,
evidence (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty, 2006), witnesses (Bell & Loftus, 1985;
Semmler & Brewer, 2002; Stroud, Cramer, & Miller, 2014), spectators (Lind, 2008),
defendants (Bandes, 2016; Estrada-Reynolds, Schweitzer, & Nunez, 2016; Thompson,
Merrifield, & Chinnery, 2011), and victims (Estrada-Reynolds et al., 2016; Rose, Nadler,
& Clark, 2006). Further research looks at how judges regulate their own emotions
(Maroney & Gross, 2014) as well as that of defendants and courtroom observers
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 7

(Scarduzio & Tracy, 2015). These studies indicate that each actor in the courtroom
plays an affective role, such as lawyers trying to elicit empathy from jury members
or judges trying to steady a courtroom.
The circulatory nature of emotions within a courtroom can be explained through
affect theory. In The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Ahmed (2014) draws on Marxist
thought to articulate an affective economy where emotions, feelings, desires, and
energies have value that accrue and/or depreciate through a circulatory system
defined by socio-relationality and histories of power. One of Ahmed’s famous contri-
butions is the theory of stickiness. She writes that emotions stick (or get stuck on/
with/by) “as an effect of the histories of contact between bodies, objects, and signs
… stickiness depends on histories of contact that have already impressed upon the
surface of an object” (p. 90). Take, for instance, a courtroom scene that features a
Black male defendant and a white female claimant. This scene is imbued with racial,
colonial, and gendered histories that render Black masculinity always-already criminal-
ized and white womanhood always-already victimizable. Given histories of white
supremacist violence in the United States, emotions, feelings, desires, and energies
are already stuck to these figures making an objective proceeding (or student wit-
nessing) nearly impossible, according to Ahmed. Atmospheres house affect too.
Bo€hme (2014) writes that atmospheres are social “mood conveying spaces” (p. 93).
Atmospheres can be detected through ingression (i.e. standing at the threshold to
get a sense of the mood of a space) or discrepancy (i.e. recognizing that one’s
mood does not match the space once you are already within it) (Bo €hme, 2014). For
the most part, courtrooms are austere atmospheres. Affective economies and court-
room moods are present before students enter the space. As observers, students ori-
ent themselves to the affective energies of the courtroom while engaging with their
affective attachments to the people and objects they encounter there. They contrib-
ute to the affective ecosystem with their presence: they become part of the sticky
scene while at the same time, certain moments (i.e. a comment, body language,
interactions, etc.) will stick with them. This resonance is not possible without physical
proximity to the scene.
By observing courtrooms, students witness the emotions, behavior, and body
language of court actors while monitoring their own emotional states. Then, they
must make sense of what they are seeing. Courtrooms are no different from class-
rooms in that students use their rich emotional lives to inform their analyses
(Carson & Domangue, 2013; Larsen, 2017). How they interpret affect – what they
see and personally feel – is informed by their emotional archive. This can lead to
distancing from, projection onto, relating with, or humanizing of an Other.
Productive facilitation helps students to align their reactions with critical thinking.
This is a rich learning opportunity when it leads to what Deborah Dunn (Dunn,
2014) calls “seeing for the sake of others” which is an act of bearing witness that
can prompt “building community with others … [through] the recognition of the
embodied human before us.” This is where the transformative potential of court-
room observations in criminal justice lies: by bearing witness, students can move
beyond externalizing the proceedings (i.e. this is happening to someone else) to
8 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

personalizing the events, where “we bear some responsibility for what we have
seen” (Dunn, 2014).

Data and methods

This study was approved by our university’s Internal Review Board. Data were drawn
from post-learning surveys (n ¼ 41) and student journals (n ¼ 42) documenting their
observations of criminal court proceedings, including related opinions, perceptions,
and feelings. The post-learning survey was adapted from the Longhorn Center’s (The
University of Texas-Austin) Community Engagement Pre-Course Survey and Gelmon,
Holland, Driscoll, and Kerrigan’s (2001) Assessing Service-Learning and Civic
Engagement: Principles and Techniques. This study is part of a larger research project
that looks at community engaged learning across two classes – Diversity and
Difference in Women’s and Gender Studies and Trial Advocacy and the American
Legal System in the Honors Program – at our institution. Data for the larger project
was gathered using pre- (n ¼ 100) and post-learning (n ¼ 77) surveys, student journals
(n ¼ 80), and semi-structured interviews (n ¼ 20). For this article, we isolated out the
students in Trial Advocacy and the American Legal System: 44 students took the pre-
learning survey, 41 students completed the post-learning survey, and 42 students
allowed us to analyze their journals. We used select data from the surveys for our ana-
lysis here. Specifically, we drew demographic data from our pre-learning survey
(n ¼ 44) and we took one response from the post-learning survey (n ¼ 41) relating to
the question “the community participation aspect of this course helped me to see
how the subject matter (i.e. lectures, readings, in-class material) appears in everyday
life” because we wanted to see if students’ educational experience was enhanced by
the experiential learning component.
Prior to the start of data collection, students were presented with a consent form,
which informed them that participation in the study was voluntary; they were also
informed that if they chose to participate and then changed their mind, they were
free to drop out of the study at any time and that their decision to participate or
decline participation would not affect their grade in their community engaged learn-
ing class or any other class. Signing the consent form was a prerequisite to participa-
tion in the study. Forty-two of the 47 honors students consented to have their
journals included in this study.
Journal data were coded by researchers by hand. Among various codes utilized, we
employed codes that described emotions experienced by the students, including
“sad,” “happy,” “devastated,” “heartbroken,” “shocked,” and “angry,” among a myriad
of other emotions. We used an inductive, grounded theory approach in an iterative
process throughout data analyses to develop theoretical categories that “place the
data into a more general or abstract framework” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 97). Numerous
themes emerged during data analysis including the triggering of emotional responses
in students, students personally relating to events observed in court, critical analyses
of nuanced criminal court processes, among other themes. Data from each journal
analyzed was compared with the next journal and themes were regularly refined to
reflect the complete body of data collected.
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 9

Results
Courtroom observations trigger a wide range of emotional responses
in students
Virtually all of our students experienced emotional reactions in response to their court-
room observations. Reported emotions encompass both positive and negative reac-
tions and range in degree (e.g. moderate, extreme); types of emotions include “upset,”
“discouraged/disappointed,” “worried,” “pity,” “unnerved,” “disgusted,” “scared,”
“angry,” “heartbroken/sad,” “intrigued,” “shocked/surprised,” “happy,” “surreal,” “eye-
opening,” and “repulsed.”

Sad emotions
Almost half of the students reported feeling upset, disappointed, pity, heartbroken, or
sad during the course of their observations. For example, one student was upset by
the prevalence of African American defendants in the system: “I started feeling upset
by the second case I saw. Seeing too many young, African American males getting
arrested made me very emotional” (J18). Another student was disappointed that the
defense attorney agreed to defend a particular defendant: “I had been so disappointed
that she [the defense attorney] would even attempt to defend a man who had done
such disgusting things” (J4). Several students described feeling pity for defendants
and their families: “The prisoner nodded to someone in the public benches, possibly a
relative, who seemed extremely upset. I felt bad for her, and I imagined how hard it
must be to see someone who you are related to in a prisoner’s jumpsuit but not be
able to talk to them, or be near them” (J13). Finally, a handful of students described
extreme sad feelings, such as being heartbroken:
This moment was so impactful. To hear the pain of the victim as she described what she
endured, with the visual representation to support it was heartbreaking. She could not
even look at the pictures without wanting to cry. Her almost unruly tone in the
beginning was removed completely at this point. Words cannot begin to describe how
bad I felt. (J17)

Feelings of disgust
Slightly more than a third of the students expressed feeling “disgusted” or “repulsed”
at some point in their journals. Some students were repulsed by the behavior of wit-
nesses: “I was honestly repulsed that the witness claimed to love the defendant. The
defendant molested a child – yet she still supported him at the trial” (J17). A couple
of students experienced delayed feelings of disgust once the events that they
observed had a chance to penetrate:
As I was transcribing notes for this case, I slowly discovered what the accusation had
been. I genuinely felt my heart drop to my stomach. The woman had been the
defendant’s romantic partner and she was being questioned about his interaction with a
young girl that she babysat on the Fourth of July last year. I was deep into my notes
when I heard these words: “Did you see the defendant stick his hands up the victim’s
skirt?” At this moment, I found the defendant detestable. A moment later the witness was
asked: “Did you see the defendant lick his fingers?” I put down my pencil and took a
moment to collect myself. (J4)
10 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

Unsettled feelings
Approximately a quarter of our students reported feeling worried, scared, or unnerved
in response to their observations. A handful of students were scared by the courtroom
environment: “Around 10 people in handcuffs passed by right behind me. I made eye
contact with a few of them and they looked emotionless to me. It scared me a little”
(J15). A few students were worried about the safety of their communities: “It makes
me worried and fearful to think that my town is not as safe as I originally thought it
to be” (J12). Finally, two students were unnerved by the victim’s response to criminal
events: “It was very unnerving and disgusting and sad how the little girl who knew
something wrong had happened to her suddenly burst into tears once she began
speaking of her assault” (J2).

Feelings associated with surprise

About half of the students expressed feeling surprised, intrigued, shocked, or
described the case they observed as surreal: “It was really shocking to hear about
what was going on. This is something you hear about on the news often but it does
not really seem real” (J12). Over a third of the students were shocked by the behavior
of court actors: “I was slightly in shock with the idea that the judge explicitly cursed
in the courtroom, because judges depicted on TV are usually so poised and respected.
I would have never expected for the judge to use the word bullshit in the courtroom”
(J13). A few students used the word surreal in describing their courtroom observa-
tions: “Going to the courthouse and seeing all these people in handcuffs being taken
in and out by police officers just felt too surreal. I am fortunate enough that this is
not my reality nor a loved one’s reality. I felt like I had entered a whole new world. Of
course, I knew how the law works and of course I’ve watched the shows but just wit-
nessing it in real life is a whole other experience” (J15).

Perceived emotional impact on courtroom actors and observers

In addition to noting their personal emotional reactions in their journals, students
wrote about the emotions of others in the courtroom, including various courtroom
actors and observers. For purposes of this article, we refer to judges, defendants,
juries, attorneys (i.e. prosecutors and defense attorneys), witnesses and victims as
court actors and victims’ and defendants’ families and friends as court observers.
Observing court proceedings place students in a position to witness the emotional
impact that these proceedings have on courtroom actors and observers (e.g.
judges, defendants, juries, attorneys, witnesses, and family members). While student
perceptions of these reactions are based on subjective assessments and cannot
conclusively establish that the perceived emotion was actually experienced by the
court actor or observer, our data clearly demonstrate that students actively evaluate
body language and behavior to interpret emotions and that some students even
analyze the likely cause(s) of the perceived emotional states of the individu-
als observed.
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 11

Students perceive that court actors experience a myriad of emotions

The vast majority of our students (over 85%) perceive that court actors become emo-
tional during courtroom proceedings. Students described a wide array of emotions in
their journals. Most students focused particular attention on the emotional state of
defendants. Descriptions relating to defendants include “nervous,” “hopeless,” “rowdy,”
and “stressed.” For example, one student noted: “The prisoner seemed flustered and
slightly hopeless” (J13) while another concluded, “the defendant came out with his
head down and it was clear that he was stressed” (J37). About a quarter of the stu-
dents scanned the audience in the courtroom and evaluated the emotional impact
that the proceeding had on defendants’ family members. For example, one student
noted: “The moms of the defendants in handcuffs were uneasy. It’s as if they knew
this was bound to happen but couldn’t believe it did” (J18).
On the other side of the courtroom, virtually all students provided detailed descrip-
tions of their perceptions of the emotional states of testifying prosecution witnesses.
Victims took a particularly prominent position in the journals, especially in sex abuse
and assault cases. Common language used by students to describe the emotional
state of victims include “distressed,” “somber,” “defeated,” “traumatized,” “in pain,”
“worn down,” and “beaten,” among others. For example, one student described the
victim in an assault case this way: “Ms. [X] seems truly traumatized after the incident.
She visibly almost fell back after starting to watch the security footage of her assault.
As if her knees almost gave out” (J12).
In addition to victims and defendants, students analyzed the emotional state of trial
participants, including professional witnesses. For example, one student described the
reactions of a detective as he was cross-examined by the defense attorney: “The
detective on the stand looked scared, mad, uneasy, embarrassed and sad.” (J18).
Students also focused on the courtroom dynamics and professional squabbles
between prosecutors and defense attorneys: “The defense attorney seemed to be get-
ting angry by the many objections of the prosecutor.” (J26). Interestingly, over a third
of the students noted situations where they were surprised by the lack of displayed
emotion by court actors: “I took a glance at the jury and they all looked completely
stone-faced. They must have seen or heard everything they needed to hear before.”
(J17). Finally, more than half of the students were focused on the “interest level” or
“emotional investment” of the presiding judge. While some students observed court-
room proceedings in which they found the judge to be “engaged” or “emotional,” a
majority of students described the presiding judge as “bored,” “tired,” or “numb” in at
least one of their observations: “The judge had an expression on her face of
boredom” (J12).

Students interpret feelings based on behaviors and body language

The vast majority of students paid close attention to the body language displayed by
court actors (approximately 80% referred to body language in their journals) and used
body language to interpret how the court actor “must” be feeling:
The judge seemed like she was not having any of the attorney’s shenanigans. She was
very sassy with her hand smushed against her cheek and elbow placed on the desk. She
had an expression on her face of boredom but also tiredness.” (J12)
12 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

Another student interpreted the defendant’s body language:

The defendant’s head was constantly lowered throughout the case, possibly showing
shame or potentially not wanting to show emotion at all. He had only spoke when
spoken to and refrained from anything else.” (J39)

A major recurring theme among students relating to the body language of attor-
neys was disinterest:
The attorney’s tone was monotone, and she gave off the impression that she was not
content or excited about what she was doing. In my original notes I wrote “upset,” “sad,”
and “bothered.” Also, neither her movement nor body language displayed any type of
engagement in what she was doing.” (J5)

In this case, the student continued to think about the body language which he
observed even after the courtroom proceeding ended and made the effort to modify
his interpretation in his journal after giving the observation more thought.
In addition to body language, students sometimes analyzed the court actor’s
behavior or activities in interpreting his or her emotional state. Among all of the
behaviors recorded, the action that received the most attention among our students is
the use of cell phones by court actors and observers. One student interpreted the use
of cell phones by the defendant’s friends (who were sitting in the audience): “I feel
like they [defendants’ friends] do not really care about the outcome of the case
because throughout the whole time the prosecution was presenting they were on
their phones and talking to each other as if it were a regular day for them” (J6).

Students interpret the cause for the perceived emotions

Students sometimes attempted to discern the cause for the observed emotional reac-
tion. For example, in explaining why a judge who “looked like he was lacking
emotions” might be feeling “numb,” a student stated: “Making decisions that impact
people’s lives every day must drain the judges – they must get numb” (J2). Several
students reasoned why the jury appeared apathetic in a case that the students found
to be highly upsetting and emotional: “It was a truly heartbreaking case and I don’t
know how the jury could hear a case like this and not show any emotions. They must
have some serious poker faces” (J1). In another case, a student interpreted the cause
of the prosecutor’s anger at the defense attorney: “The prosecutor seemed to be get-
ting angry by the objections of the defense attorney. In one instance, the defense
attorney objected when the prosecutor was only half way through her question” (J26).

Students relate their own experiences or personal backgrounds to

events observed
For some of our students, an affective response and sensitivity toward the affect of
others in the courtroom may be due to their emotional biography; said differently,
past experiences and emotional histories inform students’ reactions to events
observed. In our sample, approximately 20% of our students related to some aspect of
their courtroom observations. While a few students related the observation to a prior
experience, others personally identified with a court actor or participant in some other
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 13

way. These connections influenced the manner in which students absorbed and proc-
essed the events observed.

Relating observation to a former event experienced

A few students had former experiences with the criminal justice system and were
reminded of those encounters during their observations. Whether positive or negative,
these experiences played a role in how students analyzed the court proceeding:
I felt a rush of emotions while watching how the court functions. I never really entered
the court other than when I came to watch my brother’s pre-trial that was later on not
pursued. When I was watching the interview of the defendant, I was imagining my older
brother in that interview room and I created a scenario of him answering these questions
when he was detained. Every time the detective would say that she knows that he is not
a monster, it broke my heart because regardless of whether they did make a mistake or
not, there will be other people that think that the person is a monster. (J1)

In this situation, the student observed a video recording of a defendant’s confes-

sion and related that situation to her brother’s pre-trial hearing. Watching the detect-
ive employ psychological tactics during the interrogation of the defendant (i.e. telling
defendant that she knows that he is not a monster) reminded her of her brother’s
ordeal and enhanced her concern that defendants may erroneously be labeled as
“monsters.” Another student, who was a criminal defendant on a misdemeanor case a
year earlier, observed a trial with a judge that the student perceived as “reasonable”
and “considerate,” in sharp contrast to his perception of the judge that presided in his
case: “I have attended this court previously for my own violations and Judge [X]’s atti-
tude truly took me by surprise. I left that court in a wonderful mood” (J23). A handful
of students associated their observations with simulations of legal proceedings that
were part of their academic experience. For example, a student from the mock trial
team connected her role as an expert witness with events unfolding in the courtroom:
It was very exciting to see an expert witness testify, especially because I was assigned a
role as an expert witness for mock trial. It really did help me build my witness’s character.
I felt excited while watching how the court functions. (J11)

Personally relating to events observed

In approximately 20% of the journals, students related to a criminal proceeding on a
personal level, partially based on a shared characteristic with the defendant or other
connection to the case. For example, a student majoring in education was particularly
concerned about an acquittal in a case in which the defendant was a teacher:
I was shocked that they let the teacher go. Yes, it may be bias, but since I am becoming
a teacher that to me seems incredibly wrong and if there is even the slightest chance
that she did the crime, she should be punished for it. (J20)

In this situation, the student was cognizant of her potential bias against the defend-
ant, who she held to a higher standard because of their shared profession as educa-
tors. While this student had recently received an A on an essay exam in which she
defended the high burden of proof in a criminal case (i.e. proof beyond a reasonable
doubt), the emotion of seeing the case in person and associating with the defendant’s
profession led to a reaction that the student herself characterized as “biased.” Almost
14 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

20% of students related to defendants based on shared sociodemographic characteris-

tics such as race, ethnicity or age:
The proceeding made me uncomfortable because the defendant was my age and it is
hard to think of how much time he will have to spend in jail when he has barely started
his adult life. In urban communities, minorities – especially men – are more likely to
spend the rest of their lives in jail than their White counterparts. (J37)

A few students were focused on crimes that occurred in close proximity to their
homes: “The defendant in this case lived in my hometown, only 8 blocks from my
home! It felt almost personal to be observing a case on a crime that occurred in my
hometown” (J16). One student took particular offense to a defense attorney who
attempted to impeach the credibility of a testifying police officer during cross-
examination:
I didn’t appreciate that the defense attorney attacked the credibility of the police officer
when he was responding to a critical scene where a victim had faced gunshot wounds to
his abdomen. I have many professors who are former cops who I respect a lot. If one of
those officer’s credibility was questioned, I would be upset. So I felt like the defendant’s
argument was weak because he had no substantial proof to be able to undermine the
officer’s credibility. (J13)

Students take note of specific personal circumstances of system participants

Students demonstrated empathy and the ability to humanize defendants in their jour-
nals. About 60% of our students took note of the defendant’s life circumstances and
background that preceded the crime. In certain cases, students were sympathetic to
particular defendant challenges: “The defendant didn’t have a father, dropped out of
high school, and has a young daughter that needs to be taken care of” (J17). Some
students searched for the defendant’s family members in the audience and tried to
assess the nature of the defendant’s family situation: “I think the defendant is African
American and his family is here. He seems to have two younger sisters and a little
brother; his mother – I am also assuming – must be devastated” (J11). Sometimes stu-
dents analyzed how the defendant’s life circumstances may have contributed to his or
her commission of the crime charged: “His mother was an addict, he grew up in the
foster system, lived on the bad side of town and at the time of his arrest he was men-
tally incapable of making a good decision” (J12). These journals show that students
looked beyond superficial explanations of defendant behavior; instead, they consid-
ered how family histories, interpersonal dynamics, and systemic inequities may have
shaped a defendant’s life.

Whether positive or negative, these first-hand experiences lead many students

to think analytically about system processes
Finally, students critically analyzed the courtroom scene by evaluating judges, victims,
defendants, and juries. Students were able to take a step back and consider macro
issues such as the power that judges have in the courtroom, the complexities of
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 15

victimhood, the treatment of incarcerated individuals, and the crucial role that attor-
neys play in ensuring a person has access to a fair trial.

Examples
Analyses on judging. Perhaps due to their prominent position in the courtroom, cri-
tiques of the judicial function and behaviors of individual judges was the most com-
mon area of student focus. About a quarter of the students analyzed differences they
observed between judges and the roles that these distinctions play in case outcomes.
For example, one student noted:
The judge was really unmoved and I really thought about what caused him to be this
way. Does he not believe in second chances? Or does he simply not believe in this
specific prisoner’s ability to reform? It is interesting to see how cases differ from judge to
judge. Some are heavily swayed by their emotions, such as Judge [X], and some are very
unbiased such as Judge [Y]. (J13)

Interestingly, this student associated emotion with bias in evaluating judi-

cial behaviors.
Several students demonstrated a deep appreciation for the potential mitigating fac-
tors that are relevant at sentencing and the difficulty judges face in crafting appropri-
ate punishment for criminal defendants with limited information:
I think there’s not a significant way to be fair as a judge. For instance, the woman in case
#4 charged with heroin possession is going to jail. The judge had the evidence and chose
her fate. However, no one knows what she has been through in her lifetime. Knowing
that she only went to school until 5th grade shows she didn’t have the capacity to
continue her education and make a better living. No one knows why this is so. No one
knows the reasoning behind her possession of heroin. Perhaps the only way she could
support herself and her family is through this business. Perhaps she was covering up for
her son’s business. However, that doesn’t matter in court. The only way to be fair is to
see the evidence that’s presented and punish accordingly. (J18)

For at least a third of our students, justice demands the analyses of unique case
and defendant characteristics and other holistic considerations; indeed, our students
discussed case intricacies and nuances in their journals.

Analyses of victim predicaments. Students analyzed the difficult predicaments that

some crime victims face and how these situations render certain behaviors (of victims)
more understandable: “The victim said something that stuck with me. She was asked
why she hadn’t attempted to fight back. She replied with, “I don’t believe that anyone
in this court could have fought him off. He used to be a boxer.” The way she had
delivered this carried a very somber and defeated tone.” Several students attempted
to find an explanation for a victim’s refusal to cooperate in the prosecution of a
defendant who shot him: “This man would rather spend more years in jail/prison than
testify against the man that allegedly shot him 8 years ago. Could it be because he
was threatened or that he refuses to be labeled as a snitch?” (J21). Indeed, trying to
understand victims’ behaviors by evaluating their stated or possible (though unex-
pressed) thought processes was an area of analysis for almost a quarter of
our students.
16 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

Analyses of treatment of defendants. Slightly more than half of our students expressed
concern about the treatment of defendants. Several students focused on correctional
procedures: “Even though he was going to be released until his trial he still had to
remain shackled to the other detainees and go back to the jail to get his belongings. I
see the purpose in this, but it also feels like there could be a better system in place
for individuals who are going to be released” (J8). Over 70% of students took notice
of the races of the defendants appearing in the courthouse and were concerned about
the overwhelming number of minority defendants: “Most people being processed are
middle-aged black males. Most are being sent to state penitentiaries to serve more
than 100 day average sentences” (J2).

Analyses of attorney effectiveness. Over 90% of students critically evaluated the skill
level and effectiveness of attorneys at least once during the course of their observa-
tions. Analyses include evaluations of individual attorneys, comments on technique,
professionalism, preparedness, among a host of other critiques: “The defense attorney
seemed more prepared for the examinations compared to the prosecutors. The
defense attorney’s questions were well thought out and formulated to receive the
responses that he was looking for to defend his case. The prosecutors often took very
long pauses between the witness’s response and the following question which indi-
cated a lack of thought or preparation. The prosecutors often became caught up in
the questions asked and had many questions by the defense attorneys called upon
them sustained.” (J16)
Post-learning survey results show that courtroom observations deepened student
comprehension of the curriculum too. We used a likert scale to query whether: “The
community participation aspect of this course helped me to see how the subject mat-
ter (i.e. lectures, readings, in-class material) appears in everyday life.” The results were
overwhelming: 39% strongly agreed (n ¼ 16), 56.1% agreed (n ¼ 23), while 2.4% (n ¼ 1)
were netural or 2.4% (n ¼ 1) strongly disagreed. With 95% of the class responding
affirmatively, it is clear that observing courtrooms enhances classroom learning. These
analyses establish that students process their emotional reactions, respond to affective
dynamics in the courtroom, find ways to relate to courtroom actors, and emerge with
strong critical analyses about the criminal justice system.

Discussion and conclusion

Placing students in emotional courtroom spaces provides a unique experiential learn-
ing opportunity that exposes students to the dynamism of the judicial system in ways
that traditional classroom instruction cannot possibly provide. By being immersed in
the courtroom scene, students cannot help but see how court actors function on a
daily basis. Our data establish that students experience the power dynamics in the
courtroom first-hand by noticing the exchanges between prosecutors, defense attor-
neys, and judges. They perceive system flaws and are critical of the processes they
observe; they conclude that attorneys are not always effective, judges are sometimes
unfair, and tempers of court actors are not always under control. They notice skill
level, energy brought to the job, and variations in attorney preparation. They see the
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 17

demographics of the defendants in the courtroom with their own eyes, hear the
impact of criminal acts on victims, and witness how justice is meted out in ordinary
cases that are not featured on the news. They sit among families of victims and
defendants and take note of their body language, facial expressions, and overall affect.
They analyze why judges act the way they do, what juries are thinking, and the effect-
iveness of advocacy techniques, among a host of other issues. They are engaged in
their surroundings and document their experiences with detail. As described by our
students, participating in observations and journal writing in this pro-social environ-
ment is the type of active learning advocated by Dewey (1938/1997) that enhances
civic knowledge (e.g. governance in court), civic values (e.g. justice) and civic skills
(e.g. critical thinking) (Saltmarsh, 2005).
Our students are moved by their observations and experience a host of emotions
(e.g. happy, sad, heartbroken, surprised, pity, disgusted); they are also tuned into the
emotions experienced by others (i.e. court actors and participants) and actively inter-
pret what they see. In this emotional space, some students “feel” the pain of others;
many students describe feelings of empathy in their journals. Indeed, being able to
view issues from another’s perspective, and develop compassion and empathy for
others, are important objectives of community engaged learning classes that were
documented in our students’ journals (see Eyler & Giles, 1999; Naud
e, 2015). Our data
also demonstrates that the feelings triggered in our students, and the emotions they
perceived in others, acted as catalysts to analyses of judicial system processes; feeling
sympathy for a defendant standing in shackles despite being told that he would soon
be released was followed by analyses of correctional procedures. Feeling upset by the
number of Black defendants in court led to critical thinking about racial disparities.
Seeing the jury appear stoic during an emotional case led students to speculate about
the circumstances that might have led to this perceived reaction. As anticipated by
Dewey, our students’ emotional reactions to these courtroom spaces “serve[d] to cata-
lyze scientific thought” (Felten et al., 2006, p. 39).
Our data further demonstrates that students draw on their own personal experien-
ces to understand courtroom spaces. Many students described ways in which they
related to their observations and used – consciously or otherwise – their prior experi-
ences or connections to inform their analyses (e.g. comparing a students’ experience
with a judge when he was a criminal defendant to judicial behavior during the obser-
vations) (see Carson & Domangue, 2013; Larsen, 2017). Further, some students con-
nected to events or participants through a shared lens (e.g. shared profession,
common city of residence) that helped students move from externalizing the observa-
tion (e.g. it is happening to a court participant, not me) to personalizing it (e.g. this
happened in my town), where they “bear responsibility for what [they] have seen.”
(Dunn, 2014).
The level of engagement we observed in our students was especially encouraging
given the composition of the course. While a handful of our students are majoring in
criminal justice, students came from a variety of majors spanning the sciences, social
sciences, humanities, and business. As this course is a required honors course, students
were “forced” to enroll in order to meet core program demands. Some of our students
expressed their disinterest in this “legal” or “governance” focused class that (they
18 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

initially thought) did not apply to them. Others were irritated by being asked to travel
to the courthouse, arguing that they would prefer to learn the material solely in a
classroom. Despite this initial push and pull, students embraced the exercise quickly
and even initially resistant and disinterested students expressed high levels of engage-
ment, emotion, and understanding in their writings. Many came to understand the
relevance of these civic experiences to all of our lives. Student feedback in journals as
well as our survey results demonstrates that the vast majority embraced and grew
from this experience. Indeed, over 95% of our students admitted that “the community
participation aspect of this course helped me to see how the subject matter (i.e. lec-
tures, readings, in-class material) appears in everyday life” (post learning survey).

Recommendations
After reviewing our data, we recommend the following to instructors who would like
to incorporate courtroom observations into their criminal justice courses. First, our
study demonstrates the importance of allowing students to reflect on emotions. Often,
professors dismiss reflection as too “touchy feely” and lacking academic rigor. To coun-
ter this, we point to canonical works that argue reflection is central to community
engaged learning because it encourages students to interrogate their assumptions,
values, and past learning while evaluating and integrating new experiences into their
world-view, which is a higher-order thinking skill in Bloom’s taxonomy (Eyler, 2002;
Eyler & Giles, 1999). Like reflection, many professors avoid talking about affect in favor
of what is perceived to be “objective,” “rational,” and “value-neutral.” In line with civic
engagement scholarship, our study proves that inviting students to think with/through
their emotions intensifies their cognitive processing. Second, professors should use
structured reflection with specific prompts to increase their effectiveness. Eyler (2002)
contends that vague prompts undermine the reflective process. Moreover, some stu-
dents are not naturally introspective so clear instruction will help all students to suc-
ceed. Some prompts used in this class include “how did you feel about what you
observed?” “describe your surroundings,” “pay attention to audience members,” and
“did anything surprise you?,” among a host of other suggestions for points of focus.
Third, the opportunity to debrief is essential. Reflection can begin the debrief process,
but is even more valuable when professors create space to talk about observations,
emotions, and tentative analyses. Debriefing can happen one-on-one with the profes-
sor, peer groups, or the whole class. During the course of the semester, our students
routinely approached us to describe their experiences and receive feedback. In our
group presentations at the end of the course, students openly shared and compared
their experiences. Finally, professors should have resources on-hand for students who
need professional support to process what they see or feel. We cannot always know
which students are crime-survivors and/or have loved ones who have interacted with
the criminal justice system (i.e. police, judges, juries, courtrooms, etc.) It is good prac-
tice to assume that some students will be distressed or triggered by courtroom obser-
vations. Handing out local and campus resource lists to all students – and reinforcing/
normalizing through the semester that assistance is available – is crucial for those
who need an avenue to process their experience beyond classroom. In sum, while the
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 19

courtroom observation, as a form of community engaged learning, requires additional

efforts from students and instructors, our data demonstrates that these investments
significantly enhance learning outcomes and the overall student experience.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Esther Nir is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at New Jersey City
University. Dr. Nir received her Juris Doctor from Fordham Law School and her Ph.D. in Criminal
Justice from Rutgers University. Her research interests include sentencing disparities, policing,
criminal procedure, and community engaged learning initiatives. Dr. Nir specializes in qualitative
research methods and interviews judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys in connection to
her research efforts. Her research can be found in various criminal justice and research method-
ology journals including The British Journal of Criminology, The International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, International Journal of Police Science and Management, and Criminal
Justice Policy Review.
Jennifer Musial is an Assistant Professor in Women’s and Gender Studies at New Jersey City
University in Jersey City, NJ. She earned her PhD in Women’s Studies from York University in
Toronto, ON. She publishes in three fields; (1) reproductive justice, racialization, and gender-
based violence; (2) critical yoga studies; and (3) Women’s and Gender Studies field formation.
Her major project-in-progress, Pregnant Pause: Reproduction, Death, and Media Culture, looks at
racialized grievability in media cases of fatal violence against pregnant women. Previous work
has been published in Sexualities, Feminist Formations, Social Identities, Atlantis, and Feminist
Teacher. She has forthcoming chapters in the edited collections Rethinking Women’s and
Gender Studies Volume II and Carcerality Locally and Globally: Feminist Critiques of States of
Violence. She is the managing editor for Race and Yoga, a peer-reviewed journal that looks at
the intersections of yoga, racialization, colonialism, capitalism, gender, sexuality, and disabil-
ity studies.

References
Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Routledge.
Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19. doi:10.1177/
1754073915601222
Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(6), 659–664. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4906_16
Bheekie, A., & van Huyssteen, M. (2015). Be mindful of your discomfort: An approach to contex-
tualized learning. International Journal on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 3(1),
1–13.
€hme, G. (2014). The theory of atmospheres and its applications (A.-C. Engels-Schwarzpaul,
Bo
Trans.). Interstices: Journal of Architecture and Related Arts, 15, 92–99. doi:10.24135/ijara.v0i0.
480
Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame,
and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-
9027-y
Carson, R. L., & Domangue, E. A. (2013). The emotional component of service-learning. Journal of
Experiential Education, 36(2), 139–154. doi:10.1177/1053825913487885
20 E. NIR AND J. MUSIAL

Darby, A., Perry, S., & Maureen, D. (2015). Students’ emotional experiences in direct versus indir-
ect academic service-learning courses. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning
and Community Engagement, 3(1), 1–9.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education (1st ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Dunn, D. (2014, August 20). Bearing witness: Seeing as a form of service. Association of American
Colleges & Universities. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2014/spring/
dunn
Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and
their courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Estrada-Reynolds, V., Schweitzer, K., & Nunez, N. (2016). The impact of emotions on juror judg-
ments and decision-making. Wyoming Law Review, 16(2), 343–358.
Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning – linking students and communities.
Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517–534. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00274
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Felten, P., Gilchrist, L. Z., & Darby, A. (2006). Emotion and learning: Feeling our way toward a
new theory of reflection in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
12(2), 38–46.
Flower, L. (2018). Doing loyalty: Defense lawyers’ subtle dramas in the courtroom. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 47(2), 226–254. doi:10.1177/0891241616646826
Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Taylor, B.
and Corporation for National Service (Eds.), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp.
2–6). Washington, DC: Corporation for National Service.
Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Driscoll, A., & Kerrigan, S. (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic
engagement: Principles and techniques. Lansing, MI: Campus Compact.
Gemignani, M. (2013). The fatigue of compassionate service-learning: A qualitative case study.
Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 4(1), 1–24.
Grain, K., & Lund, D. (2016). The social justice turn: Cultivating ‘critical hope’ in an age of des-
pair. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1), 45–59. doi:10.3998/mjcsloa.
3239521.0023.104
Hartmus, D. M., Cauthen, J. N. G., & Levine, J. P. (2006). Enriching student understanding of trial
courts through service learning. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1), 23–43. doi:10.
1080/10511250500082062
Higgins, N., Dewhurst, E., & Watkins, L. (2012). Field trips as teaching tools in the law curriculum.
Research in Education, 88(1), 102–106. doi:10.7227/RIE.88.1.10
Hirschinger-Blank, N., & Markowitz, M. W. (2006). An evaluation of a pilot service-learning Course
for Criminal Justice Undergraduate Students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(1),
69–86. doi:10.1080/10511250500336138
Langstraat, L., & Bowdon, M. (2011). Service-learning and critical emotion studies: On the perils
of empathy and thepolitics of compassion. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning,
17, 5–14.
Larsen, M. A. (2017). International service-learning: Rethinking the role of emotions. Journal of
Experiential Education, 40(3), 279–294. doi:10.1177/1053825917706379
Lind, M. E. (2008). Hearts on their sleeves: Symbolic displays of emotion by spectators in criminal
trials. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(3), 1147–1170.
Long, J. J., & Utley, M. E. (2018). An afternoon spent behind bars: The impact of touring a correc-
tional facility on student learning. Journal of Correctional Education (1974-), 69(3), 32–48.
Mangan, K. (2018). All rise: Welcome to law school. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(18),
A10–A12.
Maroney, T. A. (2006). Law and emotion: A proposed taxonomy of an emerging field. Law and
Human Behavior, 30(2), 119–142. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9029-9
Maroney, T. A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). The ideal of the dispassionate judge: An emotion regulation
perspective. Emotion Review, 6(2), 142–151. doi:10.1177/1754073913491989
 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION 21

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McLauchlan, J. S. (2011). The courtroom as classroom: Integrating civic engagement in public
law courses. The Journal for Civic Commitment, 17. Retrieved from http://ccncce.org/articles/
the-courtroom-as-classroom-integrating-civic-engagement-in-public-law-courses/
Nardulli, P. F. (1986). Insider justice: Defense attorneys and the handling of felony cases. The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), 77(2), 379–417. doi:10.2307/1143338
Naud
e, L. (2015). On (un)common ground: Transforming from dissonance to commitment in a
service learning class. Journal of College Student Development, 56(1), 84–102. doi:10.1353/csd.
2015.0002
Noyes, E., Darby, A., & Leupold, C. (2015). Students’ emotions in academic service-learning.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(4), 63–84.
Payne, B. K., Sumter, M., & Sun, I. (2003). Bringing the field into the criminal justice classroom:
Field trips, ride-alongs, and guest speakers. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 14(2),
327–344. doi:10.1080/10511250300085821
Pettys, T. E. (2007). The emotional juror. Fordham Law Review, 76(3), 1609–1640.
Priesmeyer, H. R., Mudge, S. D., & Ward, S. G. (2016). Emotional Responses to Service Learning:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 55–61.
Rose, M. R., Nadler, J., & Clark, J. (2006). Appropriately upset? Emotion norms and perceptions of
crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 203–219. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9030-3
Rosett, A. I., & Cressey, D. R. (1976). Justice by consent: Plea bargains in the American courthouse.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education, 91(2), 50–55.
Scarduzio, J. A., & Tracy, S. J. (2015). Sensegiving and sensebreaking via emotion cycles and
emotional buffering: How collective communication creates order in the courtroom.
Management Communication Quarterly, 29(3), 331–357. doi:10.1177/0893318915581647
Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judg-
ments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(4), 423–436. doi:10.1002/bsl.502
Simonet, D. (2008). Service-learning and academic success: The links to retention research (pp.
1–13). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Campus Compact.
Starks, B., Harrison, L., & Denhardt, K. (2011). Outside the comfort zone of the classroom. Journal
of Criminal Justice Education, 22(2), 203–225. doi:10.1080/10511253.2010.517773
Stroud, C. H., Cramer, R. J., & Miller, R. S. (2014). A trait–affect model of understanding percep-
tions of expert witness testimony. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(3), 333–350. doi:10.1080/
13218719.2013.815601
Taylor, K. B., & Baker, A. R. (2019). Examining the role of discomfort in collegiate learning and
development. Journal of College Student Development, 60(2), 173–188. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.
0017
Thompson, S. B. N., Merrifield, A. S., & Chinnery, H. (2011). Are mock jurors influenced by the
defendants gender, socio-economic status and emotional state in forensic medicine? Forensic
Medicine, 2(2), 2–21.
VanderPyl, T. (2018). Combatting othering and inspiring hope: A unique approach to teaching
about juvenile justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 29(3), 456–475. doi:10.1080/
10511253.2017.1419270
Wettergren, A., & Blix, S. B. (2016). Empathy and objectivity in the legal procedure: The case of
Swedish prosecutors. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention,
17(1), 19–35. doi:10.1080/14043858.2015.1136501
Wyant, B. R., & Lockwood, B. (2018). Transformative learning, higher order thinking, and the
inside-out prison exchange program. The Journal of Correctional Education, 69(3), 49–67.