Oath-taking also presents a rhetorical context that symbolizes law as a "sacred" perspective of justice and courtroom procedures. Jurors, when impaneled, recite a pledge demonstrating their induction as semi-official participants. Witnesses, when called forth to testify, must also promise and pledge their veracity in providing information. In fact, some oaths require the witness to "promise" before God to tell the "whole truth." The oath then invokes a powerful deity which is called upon to witness testimony and assist in judgment. By means of oath-taking, a sacred power is transferred to an earthly context- the courtroom. Oath-taking acts as a notice and rhetorical reminder of the majesty and sublime nature of a courtroom situation; arguably, a definition of the situation is thus provided to the audience and those participating in the trial.
Costumes and physical evidence add to the rhetorical character of a trial ritual. The red satin robe and white ribbon tie worn by the judge may reflect the emergence of courtroom procedures from religious rite. The power and prestige of traditional religious and occult priests are thus symbolically transferred to more secular law practitioners, namely trial judges. Additionally, formal attire, traditional black robes and white judicial wigs exhibited by ‘official performers’ indicates their membership in the grand ceremony. Such costumes limit and mystify the court process in that they signify a "royal" or privileged authority status. On the other hand, spectators, jurors, and especially defendants are assigned a public, undistinguished status denoted by their lack of ceremonious costume.
The continued practice of wearing wigs and robes in court (and the fact that the vast majority of practitioners and officials were male) highlights the strong prevalence of societal hierarchies and gender definitions even in today’s society. They represent the fact that Courtroom procedure embodies the self-serving prejudices of the white male Christians who have traditionally dominated the legal establishment, and who have imported into their own professional lives (and forcibly impressed on others) their social and religious reverence for text. The performance complements prevailing legal epistemology, which for over two hundred years has consciously favored certainty, fixity, objectivity and rationality, "scientific" values that are fundamental to legal text and performance.
Technologies are only used, however only to a limited extent. Aside from microphones used by the speaking actor, a television used to screen witness statements and evidence and a video camera on hand- as well as the type writer machine used by the note-taker, technologies used are limited as to maintain a traditional and somber mood.
Today, the courtrooms of the Supreme Courts of Australia contain dramatic features, impressing an audience with pomp and circumstance. Courtrooms observed for this study were located in the interior of the courthouse structure and therefore relied on artificial lighting, often subdued and dim. Spatial placement of people in courtroom events enables or restricts their ability to effectively participate in the events. Seating arrangements were oriented to face toward the judge and witness box. The jury, seated in its segregated (privileged) section, also faces the judge but, more importantly, is positioned closest to the open performance space where presentations are generally given. Jurors are given front row seats for the courtroom drama, signifying their saliency in the performance.
Seating arrangements and spatial organization reveal hierarchical zones within the courtroom. The presiding judge or administrator is positioned at the highest point in the room, triangulated between the jury and the official adversarial performers. The judge is isolated and perched, overlooking the empty space or "staging area" which is available for performance. His or her entrance to the room is staged and proclaimed. The opening of court proceedings is signaled by a court officer calling "all rise!" The judge then enters a place where attendants and public citizens are standing in silence, paying homage to his status. Moreover, the judge's isolated position signifies his untouchable status. . As he sits with his arms crossed or hands cupped, resting on the table in front of him. He is a force not to be reckoned with.
Adversarial teams are seated at separate tables indicating their distinctive missions -- prosecution and defense. From here each party presents their respective cases to the jury located in the "expensive seats." They must stand and approach a lectern to speak. They are oratorical masters of persuasion adopting specific hand and facial gestures to support and emphasize their legal arguments. Their composure yet powerful passion elevates them to a position of utmost respect.
Seated with his or her "representative", the accused defendant is physically separated and symbolically isolated from the prosecution table and team. Although seated inside the performance area with his legal representative he is unable to freely move about as do other official agents; the defendant remains seated beneath the elevated magistrate, as well as subordinate to the adversarial teams which are free to move about the performance area. The jury is segregated in their own region marked with a railing or low partition. Members do not leave their assigned area to partake in or physically interact with other courtroom participants.
Members of the public are provided with rigid wooden pews or benches on which to sit. These "bleachers" are apart from the performance area where court agents appear before the official observers (jury/judge). Members of the public are placed under an awning and behind an ornate fence approximately one meter tall. Thus, ordinary citizens cannot enter the staging area to perform except when invited or compelled in the role of witness. No are they permitted to interact with the performers. The role of the audience is to remain quiet and passively support either the appellant or the defendant. Their “participation” and observance of the performance serves to legitimize the content of the arguments.
Thus, "Law" becomes less accessible to lay personnel the further one progresses into the courtroom; majesty, then, lies within regions and with those practitioners who are authorized to perform during the trial event. Access to the main staging area also exists through concealed and hidden doorways which are nearly imperceptible from the surrounding wooden walls. These camouflaged doorways lead to private areas and are utilized by courtroom personnel, that is, court clerk, court reporter and security officers. Only a small red placard exists as an indicator of the passage doorway: "authorized personnel only." Movement into and between such backstage regions imparts a privilege to those deserving to use such mysterious passages; the important and the excluded; the powerful and the less powerful. Armed court security officers maintain vigilance within the courtroom and thereby limit access to these privileged portals.
Although each actor serves a specific and individual purpose and is given their certain time in the limelight, the performance is a collective effort by the interaction of the individual players. There is a definite order and structural pattern to the order of events throughout the proceeding. Although arranged in a hierarchy- the Judge as the director of and key actor/leader of the performance- each member or actor fulfilling a certain role which significantly impacts in defining the other roles involved.
The court is in session from nine to five most days of the week, therefore the performance of serving justice in this public domain is ongoing. However, individual trials may last a few hours, or a few days (as was the case with this example). The beginning and the end of the performance is marked with the introduction and entrance, and exit of the judge.
The court magistrate will clearly announce that the “court is in session”. However, for most spectators the performance starts when they approach the ornate sandstone building, have their bags security checked and walk through a metal detector. Then bow on entrance to the presiding judge. The end of the performance is preferably marked by a resolution or answer to the legal problem at hand- or the announcement that the “court is adjourned”.
Courtroom proceedings are of vital importance and significance in community culture. Whilst (usually) being open to the public scrutiny, they are a mean by which hierarchical social structures are put on display. As well as being the forum by with the upstanding, and reasonable judges attempt to serve justice to individuals within their community, within the scope of the “trial” performance all involved are reminded of the law's content, its morality, its dignity and its power. A trial popularizes the law by disseminating and demonstrating it to a lay audience, giving participants the opportunity and the cathartic satisfaction of approving the law by serving as the instruments of deliberation and decision. Furthermore, it democratizes the law by calling the community to witness, and by making it collectively responsible for the law's effectuation. And this is rightly so, for it is the collective community who is ultimately responsible for this performance. The tax payers of the general public, government officials, upstanding well educated professionals and the accused criminals of society come together to both participate and fund this cultural display.