Not long ago, you could predict the District of Rhode Island’s courtroom lineup like the Red Sox batting order. David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez batted 3 and 4, and Judge Lisi sat in Courtroom 1, Chief Judge Smith in Courtroom 2, Judge McConnell in Courtroom 3, and Senior District Judge Lagueux in Courtroom 4, along with Magistrate Judges Almond and Sullivan in Courtrooms A and B in the Pastore building.
Then, when Judges Lisi and Lagueux retired, Courtrooms 1 and 4 stood vacant. Federal court aficionados watched and wondered. Who would take Courtroom 1? Would the judges wait for the Senate to fill Judge Lisi’s seat? Did all the judges like their current courtrooms? Do any of the judges, like probably the entire public and many members of the bar, find it confusing that Courtrooms 1 and 2 are on the third floor, Courtrooms 3 and 4 are on the second floor, and one of the judge’s chambers isn’t on the same floor as his courtroom?
Courtrooms 1 and 2 have long and storied histories. As the two original courtrooms when the courthouse opened in 1908, they are physical manifestations of the traditional split between actions at law and equity. Generally, actions at law request money damages and require jury trials. Equitable actions focus on justice and fairness and do not require jury trials.
Before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merged actions at law and equity in 1938, a federal judge sitting in equity could not entertain a cause of action at law in the same case, and vice versa. To emphasize this distinction, the designers of the Rhode Island courthouse built a law courtroom and an equity courtroom. Litigants headed to Courtroom 1 for actions at law and walked down the hall to Courtroom 2 for equitable claims.
Courtroom 1 reflects its historical legacy. It has a large jury box, beautiful wood carvings, high ceilings, ample gallery seating to observe jury trials, and a large stained glass window in the ceiling. If Courtroom 1 was a movie set, a superhero and/or villain could break through the ceiling window at any moment, adding an extra level of intrigue. It is the site of many interesting real-world events, including the urination incident of 1997 that is the stuff of local lawyer legend.
Courtroom 2 is also reflective of its historical roots. It has majestic wood carvings, but is much smaller than Courtroom 1 with limited gallery seating. Originally, Courtroom 2 did not have a jury box because a federal judge sitting in equity doesn’t need one (later the Court crammed a jury box along the right wall).
Courtrooms 3 and 4 were added later and have less pomp and circumstance. Courtroom 3 is like the old Boston Garden. Just as unwitting fans at the Garden could buy a seat with a restricted view, depending where you sit in Courtroom 3, you might see the plaintiff’s counsel table but not the defense table, and good luck seeing where the law clerks sit. Retired Judge Torres presided in Courtroom 3 for many years. It is the site of Mayor Vincent A. (“Buddy”) Cianci’s criminal trial. Courtroom 4 is another small courtroom; it has better site lines than Courtroom 3 but is nondescript.
So who moved where when the dust settled? In recent months, a clear pattern has emerged. Judge McConnell has moved from Courtroom 3 to Courtroom 1. Chief Judge Smith has decamped from Courtroom 2 and taken Judge McConnell’s old digs in Courtroom 3.
Courtroom 2, the old equity courtroom, sits vacant (as does Courtroom 4). But not to worry, ever since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, federal judges can hear actions at law and equity in the same case. Judges McConnell and Smith can dispense equitable justice just fine without visiting Courtroom 2. For those out there who don’t like change, they can rest easy knowing that Magistrate Judges Almond and Sullivan still occupy Courtrooms A and B.