The case was about a DWI and much of the lawyer-talk centered around the accused woman's ability to walk the line in five inch heels.
So, at one point in the midst of the somewhat tedious legalize, I did an unscientific poll. I examined the footwear of all of the women in the courtroom.
That's when it occurred to me -- all of the "players" in this case were women. The defendant was a woman. The defense attorneys were both women. The prosecuting attorneys were both women. The bailiff was a woman, the court reporter was a woman, and Her Honor the judge was a woman. Our six person jury was evenly split, three men and three women. We elected a woman to be our foreperson.
We eventually found the defendant not guilty.
As I sat there examining shoes, I wondered about some famous female defendants of the past.
Joan of Arc was tried with a male bishop as a judge and all male lawyers. They sentenced her to death and she may have been raped in prison before she was burned to death.
Anne Hutchison was tried for "traducing" the clergy. She was in her forties and pregnant for the fifteenth time. Her male inquisitors forced her to stand for several days of questioning.
In 1873, a jury of twelve men indicted Susan B. Anthony for the crime of voting. The male judge evidently wrote a statement of guilt before the trial began.
Karla Faye Tucker brutally killed a man. She later converted to Christianity and asked for an appeal. The (male) Governor of Texas is said to have made fun of her request.
Does footwear make difference in the justice system?