"The court is the weakest branch of government," Professor Linda Fowler said yesterday, quoting Alexander Hamilton during her introduction to a special hearing of the New Hampshire state Supreme Court. "It has neither army nor purse to enforce its decisions, " she continued, emphasizing that the court's power derives from the public's belief in its legitimacy.
Yesterday morning, in an effort to enhance this legitimacy, Moore Theater in the Hopkins Center became the seat of the state Supreme Court for three hours.
The special session is part of a public outreach program aimed at improving public understanding of the legal system.
The five justices heard two cases, after which they took questions from the four hundred high school and College students in attendance.
In each case, both councils were given fifteen minutes to present arguments and answer questions before the justices.
The first case, State of New Hampshire v. Spencer, focused on the events surrounding a woman's confession to forgery and theft charges.
During the arrest of suspect Geraldine Spencer, police officers showed a picture allegedly showing her in the bank during the time of the forgery. The police officers then told her that if she cooperated they would recommend personal recognizance bail, which temporarily releases defendants at no charge.
Spencer's reaction to the picture and her confession 25 minutes after her arrest were both used to convict her of the forgery.
The crux of Spencer's case rests in the definition of interrogation. As precedent demonstrated in Rhode Island v. Innis, any action or word on the part of police that can illicit an incriminating response can be considered interrogation.
Defense lawyer Landya McCafferty argued that police illegally interrogated Spencer by not reading her the Miranda rights before showing her the photograph.
Furthermore, the defense argued, the police officers' promise to recommend PR bail provided an incentive for Spencer to make a confession in order to return home to her children, thereby making her second confession involuntary.
The second case, Rachel Comeau v. Jerry Vergato, dealt with the definition of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Vergato, the owner of a campground, entered Comeau's motor home and took her possessions after she had moved out. If landlord-tenant relationship had been legally established between the two, Vergato's actions were illegal. Under the specific campground statute, however, a landlord "may secure what is left behind, store it and sell it to make up lost fees."
The defendant was fined $23,000 for his actions in a lower court, based on the fact the plaintiff had lived at the campground for 11 months and the location was her home for the indefinite future when she had moved in. The campground statute does not detail how to distinguish between temporary and permanent residents.
Students asked questions of the counsels after each hearing and of the justices after both cases were complete. The justices outlined their job as an "ends-driven process."
"We go through the analysis and the case comes out wherever that analysis leads us," Justice Linda Dalianis said. Justice James Duggan added that justices "often go back and forth many times in a case."
Justice Joseph Nadeau '59 contrasted their process with that of the more politicized federal Supreme Court.
"In that court, politics sometimes get in the way and you can often tell where the case is going to come out. We don't really have ideologies that get in the way."
Two members of the court, Nadeau and Chief Justice David Brock '58, are Dartmouth graduates. The outreach program was continued at Dartmouth this year following its success last year at St. Anselm College and Dover High School.
