Entry Regarding Motion Page 4 of 11
24-CV-04273 Juliet Stephens v. Shannon Gilmour
portion of the Courtroom as there is generally no reserved or assigned seating, but nearly every part
of the public section shares an unobstructed view of the witness stand.
Third, when M.G. has completed her testimony, she, like all other non-party witnesses, may
remain in the Courtroom but will be obligated to sit in the public portion of the Courtroom where
Ms. Stober is free to sit with her. Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 80–85 (2d Cir. 2005) (individuals
enjoy a first amendment right to access state courthouses).
The Court will remind the parties that anyone’s presence or location in the Courtroom will
depend upon their decorum and respect for the process. If any individual’s presence becomes
disruptive, the Court has the inherent authority to control the Courtroom to ensure that the judicial
process is not disrupted. Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir.1997) (describing a judge’s role
to ensure that trials are not disrupted and to maintain “proper order and decorum”).
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to allow a support person for M.G. largely asks for
permission where none is needed. As such the motion as understood by the Court is Moot.
3. Accommodations of a Minor Witness (Motion #24)
Defendant seeks five accommodations from the Court related to M.G.’s anticipated
testimony. Plaintiff continues her general objections.
Defendant requests that if and when M.G. testifies that she be allowed the following: (1)
Permit Tracy Stober to be present in the Courtroom as a support person for M.G. when she
testifies; (2) Give M.G. breaks as needed; (3) Allow Defendant to introduce M.G.’s written
statement; (4) Permit the use of the written statement in lieu of testimony; and (5) Require an age-
appropriate cross-examination.
Defendant’s first two requests fit within the existing framework of a jury trial. The first
concerning Ms. Stober’s presence in the Courtroom was addressed above. She may be present when
M.G. testifies, but she must sit in the public portion of the Courtroom. The second concerns
requests for reasonable breaks. The Court generally allows reasonable breaks in testimony where
needed, but such reasonableness cannot be determined in advance and will have to be addressed
during trial.
As to the use of M.G.’s written statement, the Court begins its analysis by looking to the
document in question. While Defendant’s motion does not identify the specific written statement,
the Court has reviewed the exhibits, and the sole document that appears to fit the description is
what Defendant has labeled Exhibit BF. This exhibit is a 17-page affidavit, although the format
does not strictly follow what an affidavit would contain: it has both traditional affidavit provisions
along either a section of questions and answers that have been “Edited for Court Presentation” as
well as a “personal statement” section that purports to be “Verbatim, Unedited.” The document is
first and foremost a hearsay document in that it is an “statement, other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter