Civil Cases Involving Vulnerability

---

Why Courtroom Environment Matters in Non-Criminal Cases

Wyoming’s civil courtrooms were not designed with privacy, trauma awareness, or power dynamics in mind. While criminal courts often consider safety and separation of parties, civil courts — even those involving sensitive facts — typically do not.

My case highlighted a series of structural issues that raise important questions about how civil courts should handle matters involving vulnerability, exposure, power imbalance, and emotional distress.

The goal of this page is not to criticize individuals, but to examine the environment and why modern courts across the country have shifted toward trauma-informed practices.

1. Civil Cases Can Involve Deeply Personal, Intimate, or Traumatic Facts

Although my case was not criminal, it involved:

• nudity
• exposure
• power imbalance
• emotional trauma
• privacy violations
• LGBTQ+ vulnerability
• a tenant alone against a property company
• conflicting narratives under stress

Civil does not mean “low stakes.”

Civil does not mean “emotionally neutral.”

Civil does not mean “safe.”

A civil case can be just as traumatic — sometimes more — because the person harmed is forced to publicly relive the event without the procedural protections of criminal court.

2. Courtroom Layout & Movement Pathways Can Create Pressure

Throughout the trial, large groups affiliated with the defendants gathered together outside the courtroom doors, standing in circles directly in the path I needed to walk to enter or exit.

There may have been no intent to intimidate, but the effect on a vulnerable party is the same:

• feeling surrounded
• having no neutral pathway to move
• feeling watched or judged
• increased emotional activation before testimony
• loss of basic psychological safety
• sense of imbalance in numbers and support

Modern trauma-aware courts in many states now create separate waiting areas or staggered entry/exit guidelines when facts are sensitive, even in civil cases.

Wyoming does not.

3. There Are No Trauma-Informed Safeguards for Sensitive Civil Trials

Many states have adopted policies such as:

• separate hallways
• separate waiting rooms
• court security guiding parties
• staggered entry and exit
• designated seating arrangements
• prohibitions on large, coordinated groups
• trauma-aware judicial training

Wyoming’s civil courts currently use a one-size-fits-all model, regardless of whether a case involves:

• sexual exposure
• LGBTQ+ vulnerability
• power imbalance
• mental health implications
• stalking
• domestic dynamics
• landlord-tenant trauma
• past abuse
• privacy invasions

My case revealed just how unprepared the system is for emotionally sensitive civil disputes.

4. Visible Support Groups Can Influence Atmosphere

On the Monday of trial, when Trinity was brought back to the stand more prepared, she acknowledged multiple people in the courtroom audience who were brought by the defendants.

This created:

• an emotional performance of community support
• social pressure on the environment
• subtle messaging about credibility
• a shift in tone from factual testimony to emotional display

Even when not intended as manipulation, large supporter groups can create an unbalanced power dynamic that affects the tone of a bench trial.

Most modern courts take steps to avoid this exact issue.

Wyoming does not.

5. Vulnerable Parties Deserve Dignity, Safety, and Neutral Space

When a civil case involves:

• the victim being naked
• a home intrusion
• LGBTQ+ safety concerns
• emotional distress
• privacy violations

…the legal process should protect the dignity of the vulnerable party, not exacerbate their stress.

Courts should ensure:

• a safe physical environment
• privacy considerations
• balanced courtroom dynamics
• trauma-aware judges
• controlled audience behavior
• clear movement pathways to prevent clustering
• basic emotional safety while testifying

These are standard in many jurisdictions — and should be in Wyoming.

6. Trauma Is Not Limited to Criminal Cases

One of the most outdated assumptions is that only criminal cases involve trauma.

In reality:

• evictions
• abuses of landlord power
• privacy violations
• harassment
• medical malpractice
• discrimination
• sexual orientation vulnerability
• exposure
• Title IX contexts
• emotional distress

…all occur in civil courtrooms across the country.

A system that treats all civil cases as “routine” fails to recognize the lived experience of the people forced to relive trauma in front of strangers.

7. A Better Way Forward for Wyoming

My experience is not unique — it simply exposes what happens when a state’s civil courts:

• have no trauma-informed design,
• lack separation protocols,
• allow crowd dynamics,
• ignore power imbalances,
• treat intimate facts as administrative,
• and fail to adapt modern best practices.

Wyoming can take the following steps:

✔ designate trauma-safe waiting areas

✔ adopt staggered entry/exit procedures

✔ provide courtroom guides for vulnerable parties

✔ limit performative audience behavior

✔ incorporate trauma-informed judicial training

✔ modernize civil courtroom design

✔ recognize vulnerability beyond criminal law

✔ ensure that dignity is protected regardless of case type

Even simple changes can profoundly improve safety, fairness, and psychological well-being for litigants.

Why This Matters

A civil courtroom isn’t just a place where the law is applied — it’s where people relive the worst moments of their lives.

A vulnerable tenant who was naked on a couch deserves the same dignity and trauma-aware treatment as any victim in a criminal case.

Wyoming can — and should — modernize its approach.

If you have thoughts, expertise, or perspectives on courtroom design and trauma-aware reforms

contact: wyomingreform@gmail.com