One Day in Federal Court: An Informal Case Study of Trauma-Informed Practices

Most people will experience a traumatic event in their lives. Few, however, will experience the kind of life-altering trauma forced upon Esther Salas, judge for the District of New Jersey, when a lawyer who had appeared before her in court shot and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl, in their own home.

Still, just seven months after Daniel’s tragic death, Salas made the radical choice to return to the bench. She saw her role in the courtroom as a means to honor her son, advocate for judicial security, and embody resilience for others. Her approach offers a window into how trauma-informed practices can operate within the federal judiciary.

Salas has dedicated herself to using trauma-informed practices on the bench, both in a traditional courtroom and in the Pretrial Opportunity Program (POP), the district’s specialty court over which she presides. POP provides drug court participants an opportunity to earn an alternative sentence and receive support while working to achieve a drug-free lifestyle. Additionally, Salas incorporates ways to support individuals outside her courtroom. In memory of her son, she helped found Danny’s Pantry, a food resource located within the district court that is made available to court users.

While most trauma-informed initiatives have taken hold in state courts over the last decade, Salas’s work can help build a working model for federal judges interested in better connecting with litigants and in creating long-term solutions that may avoid recidivism. Here, we briefly contextualize her work against the backdrop of the trauma-informed courts movement before detailing some specific practices in which she engages.³¹ It is worth noting that while specialty courts like POP tend to build in these kinds of practices, the approaches described here were observed over the course of a day of her work in the usual federal criminal system (not POP).

THE EMERGENCE OF TRAUMA-INFORMED COURTS

Put simply, trauma-informed practices in court — sometimes called “people-centered” or “relational” — are approaches that create safe, collaborative, and empowering environments for everyone, including survivors, defendants, and various court personnel. The concept of trauma-informed practices rose to prominence in the 1990s, following a landmark Kaiser Permanente study of more than 17,000 people in the general population that rocked the medical community with two revelations.³²

First, the prevalence of trauma among participants — who were overwhelmingly white and well-educated — was high: More than 28% of respondents had been physically abused, more than 20% had experienced sexual abuse, and more than a quarter had lived in a home with substance abuse.³³ Second, researchers found a correlation between the experience of childhood trauma and emotional outcomes later in life, including depression and suicide attempts, as well as physical outcomes, like cancer, ischemic heart disease, and chronic lung disease.³⁴ In fact, there was a “dose-response” relationship between the number of childhood traumas experienced and these physical health outcomes.³⁵ The study found that those exposed to multiple types of trauma were more likely to accumulate several health risk factors as adults; while 56% of individuals with no childhood trauma had no health risks, only 14% of those who experienced four or more types of childhood trauma were risk-free.³⁶ In fact, individuals who experienced four or more categories of childhood exposure had health risks for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempts that were 4 to 12 times higher than those with no such exposure.³⁷

Subsequent studies have uncovered further information, including additional kinds of trauma, the complexities of trauma’s impact, and — just as importantly — the role of resilience, which describes the body and brain’s ability to rebound and even come back stronger from traumatic experience. While trauma can physically alter the structure of the brain, no traumatized person is “broken” — and human connection, social engagement, self-care and awareness, meaning-making, growth mindset, and building attention and focus can all serve as approaches to healing.³⁸

Following publication of the study, many social sectors, including health care settings and school systems, began to approach trauma as a distinct issue. Some judges are now considering the impact of trauma as well. Understanding traumatic experiences may be particularly important in a courtroom setting, given that a traumatic experience often precipitates a court case, that court itself can be traumatic for court users and court personnel alike, and that up to 75% of adult defendants and up to 90% percent of child defendants have experienced trauma before their court involvement.³⁹

Among other approaches, a trauma-informed court assumes trauma among the court population, recognizes the signs of trauma in those involved in the system, and responds by integrating knowledge about trauma into its policies, procedures, and practices.⁴⁰ The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) offers six guiding principles for trauma-informed courts: (1) safety, (2) trustworthiness and transparency, (3) peer support, (4) collaboration and mutuality, (5) empowerment and choice, and (6) cultural, historical, and gender issues.⁴¹

A trauma-informed court assumes trauma among the court population, recognizes the signs of trauma in those involved in the system, and responds by integrating knowledge about trauma into its policies, procedures, and practices.

Although many recognize the importance of trauma-informed approaches in the legal system, research is just beginning to uncover judges’ perceptions of trauma and the extent to which judges use trauma-informed practices in their own courtrooms.⁴² So far, much of the literature about trauma-informed courts has focused on state judicial practices.⁴³ This tendency may be in part because state courts oversee many of the proceedings most clearly associated with trauma, like child dependency, domestic violence, or other family law cases, and also provide more specialty courts — settings that more explicitly promote and encourage trauma-informed practices. Federal courts, by contrast, are courts of limited jurisdiction and more often associated with legal issues where the impact of trauma may be less apparent. The gap in the literature may also be attributable to sheer numbers — state judges handle the vast majority (about 90%) of all cases⁴⁴ — and, relatedly, the public may view state court judges as more tied to their communities, especially if they are elected.

Whatever the reason, the perception that federal judges are distant figures who handle a small percentage of cases in traditional settings that preclude a robust trauma-informed practice does not square with reality: Federal judges have great opportunities to implement trauma-informed practices, both in and outside of specialty courts, and their leadership can be invaluable in creating a better system. Some have already begun this work.

Robin L. Rosenberg, judge for the Southern District of Florida (and currently director of the Federal Judicial Center), for example, has written about sentencing as “a profound moment in a criminal case and in a defendant’s life.”⁴⁵ She demonstrates trauma-informed practices when she engages in a meaningful sentencing colloquy and maintains a “sentencing worksheet,” where she takes notes during the sentencing hearing to ensure she is consistent across similarly situated defendants.⁴⁶ Michael J. Aloi, U.S. magistrate judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, speaks openly about trauma in court, operates under the assumption that anyone who appears before him has suffered from trauma, and responds by providing resources to address any underlying issues, such as mental health evaluations or educational materials.⁴⁷ Through our work on the trauma-informed courts project at the Bolch Judicial Institute, we have spoken with numerous other federal judges about the various ways they engage trauma-informed practices from the bench.

TRAUMA-INFORMED PRACTICES OBSERVED

A day in Salas’s courtroom offered a concrete sense of how federal judges might incorporate trauma-informed approaches into everyday courtroom work. Below, we flag key practices observed and, where relevant, we note social science research that supports these practices.

1. Capitalizing on status conferences

Status conferences in criminal cases center the defendants’ experiences and provide them the opportunity to reflect on what they are doing well and ask for any additional support they may need. While traditionally discussed as case management and scheduling tools,⁴⁸ they can also be used to build trust and connect litigants with resources.

On the day of observation, Salas engaged in two status conferences with criminal defendants, employing trauma-informed practices in both. In speaking with a defendant who had made tremendous progress, for example, she told him that if he continued on the same positive path, “the only reason [he] would have to come” to court after that conference “is for help.” Such an approach may reduce the number of trips to court, which is itself trauma-informed (frequent involvement with courts and the courthouse environment can trigger prior traumas).⁴⁹

In a brief discussion in her chambers following court, Salas acknowledged that the more flexible approach she takes in status conferences with defendants who are succeeding does not necessarily work with defendants who are struggling. For example, at a status conference a few days prior, she felt that a defendant was not willing to commit to the process because he was frequently engaged in new crimes. At that point, she ordinarily switches to a formal proceeding. Salas said she looks for “a glimmer of hope, and a willingness to buy in” from each defendant she sees in a status conference.

2. Leading with praise and giving defendants the opportunity to speak about their progress

To set the tone, Salas began the first status conference we observed by telling the defendant she wanted to share with him that, according to his probation officer and other personnel who had worked with him since their last status conference, he had been “wonderful” and was “doing everything [he was] supposed to be doing.” Praise — even for small achievements — has been recognized in some contexts as trauma-informed because it helps individuals feel valued and capable.⁵⁰

In the second status conference, when Salas asked the defendant whether there was anything the court could be doing to help him, he provided her with an update on all the services he was receiving, and she celebrated the fact that he had taken advantage of them. Asking a defendant what the court can do for him gives a defendant a voice in the process — a key trauma-informed practice because it promotes a sense of procedural fairness.⁵¹ Salas also, again, found a moment for praise, telling him, “Once you have a picture of what you want your life to look like, you can start to work for it — and you’re doing that.”

3. Teaching court participants about dysregulation — and leaving space for it in the courtroom

Salas described many of her approaches as responses to the reality of “dysregulation” — or difficulty managing emotional responses when experiencing trauma or stress — among defendants in court. Dysregulation can impair decision-making and memory formation, make it difficult to focus, distort perceptions of risk, and lead to impulsive behaviors, which may in turn lead to engagement with criminal activity.

Salas noted that dysregulation often plays a role in the courtroom. Because the experience of being in court can be incredibly stressful for defendants, some may even leave the room without knowing what happened in their case and will frequently struggle to express themselves in the way they could if they were of sound mind. For that reason, Salas makes a concerted effort to notice emotional shifts or disengagement in her courtroom and frequently asks defendants how they are feeling. In one status conference, after Salas praised the defendant for his progress, she asked him how he was feeling. He replied, “Confident.” Salas replied, “Good.”

Salas also recognizes how dysregulation can impact her ability to do her job. She makes subtle decisions in the courtroom to prevent her own feelings from interfering with the way she conducts herself on the bench. After court, she shared that she often pauses and reflects when she feels herself becoming dysregulated, avoids raising her voice, and maintains an even tone. She also shared that she sometimes employs breathing exercises to keep herself grounded. Her practices are consistent with literature from other settings showing that naming dysregulation can help to combat it⁵² and that high-stakes interactions and decisions can benefit from grounding strategies.⁵³

4. Practicing active listening

One of the simplest yet most impactful trauma-informed practices is active listening. By engaging with courtroom actors, judges signal to the people in front of them that they matter, and that the outcomes that come from any given proceeding are of interest to the judge as much as they are to the defendants and their families.⁵⁴

Whether the defendants’ responses reflect enduring resilience or ongoing struggles with trauma, Salas endeavored to show them that she heard them and cared about their lives outside of her courtroom. At one point, she praised a defendant who had made substantial progress, after which he looked up at her and smiled. She paused to say, “I love seeing that smile!” At another point, when a defendant told Salas that he had recently lost close family members, she stepped in to say she completely understood just how hard that can be. She gave each defendant full attention, maintained eye contact with whomever was speaking, and shared afterward that she regularly brings her own notes to the bench. Such practices are an essential part of trauma-informed communication — and coming prepared can help ensure judges focus on the person, rather than the file, in front of them.

At one point, [Salas] praised a defendant who had made substantial progress, after which he looked up at her and smiled. She paused to say, “I love seeing that smile!”

5. Clarifying each proceeding’s steps and its purpose

Court moves quickly, many court processes have unfamiliar and even Latin names, and judges and lawyers alike are prone to legal jargon. The result can be an overwhelming experience for the uninitiated. Trauma-informed practices prioritize transparency and understanding,⁵⁵ which have been shown to help reduce anxiety and prevent re-traumatization.⁵⁶ One such practice is to ensure that everyone in the courtroom understands the proceeding.

Salas not only took the time to walk through each hearing’s steps, but also asked both parties if they considered those steps to be “an acceptable way of proceeding.” This moment of seeking buy-in — even if fleeting — empowers participants. Salas also ended each hearing with an opportunity for both parties to ask questions or share any remaining concerns they might have.

6. Recognizing the collateral consequences that impact justice-involved people

Prior traumatic experiences and criminal legal system involvement are both associated with challenges related to addiction, interpersonal conflict, and employment and housing instability.⁵⁷ Rather than shying away from discussing the impacts a conviction can have on an individual’s future, Salas takes opportunities to acknowledge them.

When a defendant told her he had gotten a new job, she expressed how proud she was of him, explicitly recognizing that being a convicted felon must have made it harder for him to do so. She wished him luck, acknowledged the challenges he was facing, and celebrated that he was doing everything he was supposed to be doing in spite of them.

By addressing the broader effects of the justice system on individuals and outlining the steps to mitigate resulting challenges, a judge can help foster trust and counter negative perceptions of the system,⁵⁸ which are common among defendants.⁵⁹

7. Making each proceeding feel personal

Salas always began by greeting both parties by name and frequently asked defendants how they were feeling. At times, she also provided concrete, tailored advice. For example, she told one defendant how important it was that he build a trusting relationship with his probation officer and reminded another that, based on the emotional experiences he shared with her, he could ask the court for more mental health counseling. Such collaborative practices can empower defendants and help them navigate the community resources available to them.⁶⁰

8. Framing court as a means toward achieving goals

For most defendants, having to appear in criminal court is perceived as a hurdle or setback — or, at the very least, a negative culmination of upstream events. Rarely is it viewed as an opportunity for change or redemption. Salas took time to push back against that conception, noting that court can provide positive outcomes for those who come before it. She explicitly told the defendants in status conferences that the goal was to prevent recidivism and utilized those conferences to offer defendants additional services. She frequently extended herself to others for anything new that they might need.

As she said to one defendant, “the job of everyone in this courtroom right now is to help you succeed.” Remarkably, instead of rising to the bait of a defendant who engaged unpleasantly with her, Salas often re-emphasized the refrain that her goal is to prevent defendants from getting into further trouble. That even-handedness likely not only prevented escalation but also recentered the defendant — and not the judge — as the focus of the proceedings.

9. Offering trauma-informed educational resources to everyone in court

Salas promoted further trauma education on the bench as well, noting it could help us understand ourselves and see better outcomes in our everyday lives. She told one defendant that she would get him a copy of What Happened to You? Conversations on Trauma, Resilience, and Healing by Bruce D. Perry and Oprah Winfrey — a favorite of hers that she often provides to defendants who appear interested in learning more about how trauma continues to impact them. (Additional trauma and trauma-responsiveness resources recommended by Salas appear in the sidebar.)

10. Building community

Beyond offering individual defendants access to trauma-informed resources, Salas previously convened a book club for defendants involved in POP. The group read What Happened to You? and engaged in discussions about trauma. She has also presented to judges across the country and often speaks about trauma, neuroscience, and spirituality.

---

Sitting in Salas’s courtroom is a reminder of how important it is to center individual experiences and acknowledge the presence of trauma — and the possibilities of resilience — in a courtroom setting. Consistent with social science data, her approach visibly calmed participants, built trust, and allowed for more fruitful courtroom engagement. Trauma-informed practices like the ones outlined here can help serve as a guide for other judges working to reframe courts from a potential source of further trauma to a vital community resource with the potential to move everyone forward.

---

About the Authors

EMILY BASS is a member of the Duke University School of Law JD Class of 2026 and a research assistant for the Bolch Judicial Institute’s trauma-informed courts initiative.

AMELIA ASHTON THORN is a senior lecturer at Duke Law, articles editor for Judicature, and assistant director at the Bolch Judicial Institute, where she leads the Institute’s trauma-informed courts initiative.

---

1. One of the authors of this piece, Emily Bass, visited Judge Salas's courtroom in 2025. This article draws upon her informal observations of the judge that day, along with a conversation with the judge following court. All the defendants observed that day were under supervision.
2. About the CDC-Kaiser ACE Study, CDC (Apr. 6, 2021), https://duke.is/CDC-Kaiser-ACE-Study.
3. Id.
4. Vincent J. Felitti et al., Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, 14 Am. J. Prev. Med. 245, 249–251 (1998).
5. Id. at 250 (noting a significant "dose-response relationship between the number of childhood exposures and the following disease conditions: ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic bronchitis or emphysema, history of hepatitis or jaundice, skeletal fractures, and poor self-rated health").
6. Id.
7. Id. at 245.
8. See Paola Ledesma, Self-Awareness Approaches Towards Healing of Stress and Trauma, Boston Univ. (Feb. 27, 2024), https://duke.is/healing-stress-and-trauma (discussing the "therapeutic practices and life choices [that] can be embraced in the journey to healing").
9. See Flora I. Matheson, Implications of Trauma Among Male and Female Offenders, 9 Int. J. Env't. Rsch. & Pub. Health 97, 98 (2012) (explaining that estimates of adult defendants who "have experienced childhood physical or sexual abuse" can range as high as 75%); Carly B. Dierkhising et al., Trauma Histories Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 4 Eur. J. Psychotraumology 1, 1 (2013) (noting that "[u]p to 90% of justice-involved youth report exposure to some type of traumatic event").
10. See, e.g., Trauma-Informed Approaches and Programs, SAMHSA, https://duke.is/Trauma-Informed-Approaches-and-Programs (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (discussing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAHMSA)'s approach to promoting trauma-informed care generally).
11. SAMHSA's Gains Center Works to Develop Guidance for Treatment Courts Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach, Pol. Rsch. Assoc. (Oct. 26, 2023), https://duke.is/SAMHSA-gains-center.
12. See Eva McKinsey et al., Trauma-Informed Judicial Practice from the Judges' Perspective, 106 Judicature 35, 35–36 (2022) (describing an "in-depth investigation of judges' perspectives on how to make judicial practice more 'trauma-informed'").
13. See, e.g., id. (examining a study exploring judges' perceptions of trauma-informed training and courtroom practices through a pilot trauma-education program for North Carolina district court judges); Jerel M. Ezell et al., Implementing Trauma-Informed Practice in Juvenile Justice Systems: What can Courts Learn from Child Welfare Interventions?, 11 J. Child & Adolescent Trauma 507, 509–10 (2018) (examining how judges and court staff in rural Michigan juvenile courts understand, implement, and experience barriers to trauma-informed judicial practices within state juvenile court systems); Sarah Blanco et al., Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities, Ctr. for Just. Innovation (May 2024), https://duke.is/Trauma-Informed-State-Criminal-Courts (analyzing survey data from judges and court staff across 20 states to examine how trauma-informed practices are implemented in general (non-specialty) state criminal courts).
14. State Courts vs. Federal Courts, Jud. Learning Ctr., https://duke.is/jlc (last visited Jan. 17, 2026).
15. Robin L. Rosenberg, Conversations of a Lifetime: The Power of the Sentencing Colloquy and How to Make It Matter, 103 Judicature 19, 19 (2019).
16. Id. at 21.
17. Sarai Flores, Two Sides to Every Bench: Utilizing Trauma-Informed Court Practices to Promote Dignity and Reconciliation, Pol. Rsch. Assoc. (Jan. 21, 2022), https://duke.is/two-sides.
18. See, e.g., William W. Schwarzer & Alan Hirsch, The Elements of Case Management (3d ed.), Fed. Judicial Ctr. (2017), at 4 ("Although Rule 16(c) provides an agenda for the conference, judges may think of additional items appropriate for a particular case. Many judges issue a standard status conference order in advance, notifying the lawyers of what is expected of them. Many judges ask the lawyers to submit a joint case-management statement prior to the conference, summarizing the essentials of the case in simple terms, stating their position on the various agenda items, and proposing a joint scheduling plan."); The Caseflow Management Maturity Matrix, Nat'l Ctr for State Crts. 4 (2015) ("A third element of early control is the practice of conducting early and productive case conferences. A conference may not be necessary in a simple case, but in more complex litigation it is an opportunity to ensure preparation by the court and all parties in the case.").
19. Cf. Victoria A. Knoche et al., Trauma-Informed: Dependency Court Personnel's Understanding of Trauma and Perceptions of Court Policies, Practices, and Environment, 11 J. Child & Adolescent Trauma 495, 495 (2018) ("Individuals who are already traumatized can experience stress which triggers prior trauma through court policies, practices, and environment during involvement with the child abuse and neglect court system.").
20. Cf. Handle Tiny Humans with Care: Trauma-Informed Care Tips for Early Childhood Educators, Child Care Ed, https://duke.is/handle-tiny-humans-with-care (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (explaining the importance of positive reinforcement in trauma-informed care).
21. See Brian MacKenzie & Kevin Burke, A Trauma-Informed Court Starts with Procedural Fairness, Just. Speakers Inst. (Nov. 29, 2022), https://duke.is/trauma-informed-court-procedural-fairness (describing one's voice, or "ability to participate in the case by expressing their viewpoint," as a core principle of procedural fairness and therefore necessary for trauma-informed courts).
22. See Matthew D. Lieberman et al., Putting Feelings Into Words: Affect Labeling Disrupts Amygdala Activity in Response to Affective Stimuli, 18 Psych. Sci. 421, 421 (2007) (finding that "affect labeling . . . [decreased] the response of the amygdala and other limbic regions to negative emotional images").
23. See Amy H. J. Wolfe et al., Mindfulness Exercises Reduce Acute Physiologic Stress Among Female Clinicians, 6 Critical Care Explorations 1, 1 (2024) (explaining that "stress levels . . . improved after participating in grounding, deep breathing, and body scan meditations, which may highlight their importance as stress reduction tools" in a study of female clinicians).
24. Susan Wells & Jenifer Urff, Essential Components of Trauma-informed Judicial Practice: What Every Judge Needs to Know About Trauma, SAMHSA (2013), https://duke.is/essential-components ("Many judges have come to recognize that acknowledging and understanding the impact of trauma on court participants may lead to more successful interactions and outcomes.").
25. Cf. What is Trauma-Informed Care?, Trauma-Informed Care Implementation Res. Ctr., https://duke.is/what-is-trauma-informed-care (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (noting that "[t]rauma-informed care seeks to . . . [r]ecognize the signs and symptoms of trauma in patients, families, and staff" and "[i]ntegrate knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices").
26. See, e.g., 6 Guiding Principles to a Trauma-Informed Approach, CDC Stacks (June 2, 2022), https://duke.is/6-guiding-principles (describing trustworthiness and transparency as some of the most vital principles guiding trauma-informed approaches).
27. McKinsey et al., supra note 12, at 35.
28. See MacKenzie & Burke, supra note 21 (explaining that the foundational principles of procedural fairness include trust, which is "achieved by judges who carefully listen, who project that they are caring and who explain their decisions").
29. See Victoria Pratt, Why Dignity and Respect Matter in Our Courts, 48 Litigation 27, 27 (2022) ("Distrust of the justice system can radiate out from a defendant — to the defendant's family and neighbors, and eventually into entire communities.").
30. See CDC Stacks, supra note 26 (noting the importance of support, collaboration, and "engagement with community stakeholders" to improve trauma-informed practices).
31. One of the authors of this piece, Emily Bass, visited Judge Salas’s courtroom in 2025. This article draws upon her informal observations of the judge that day, along with a conversation with the judge following court. All the defendants observed that day were under supervision.
32. About the CDC-Kaiser ACE Study, CDC (Apr. 6, 2021), https://duke.is/CDC-Kaiser-ACE-Study.
33. Id.
34. Vincent J. Felitti et al., Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, 14 Am. J. Prev. Med. 245, 249–251 (1998).
35. Id. at 250 (noting a significant “dose-response relationship between the number of childhood exposures and the following disease conditions: ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic bronchitis or emphysema, history of hepatitis or jaundice, skeletal fractures, and poor self-rated health”).
36. Id.
37. Id. at 245.
38. See Paola Ledesma, Self-Awareness Approaches Towards Healing of Stress and Trauma, Boston Univ. (Feb. 27, 2024), https://duke.is/healing-stress-and-trauma (discussing the “therapeutic practices and life choices [that] can be embraced in the journey to healing”).
39. See Flora I. Matheson, Implications of Trauma Among Male and Female Offenders, 9 Int. J. Env’t. Rsch. & Pub. Health 97, 98 (2012) (explaining that estimates of adult defendants who “have experienced childhood physical or sexual abuse” can range as high as 75%); Carly B. Dierkhising et al., Trauma Histories Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 4 Eur. J. Psychotraumology 1, 1 (2013) (noting that “[u]p to 90% of justice-involved youth report exposure to some type of traumatic event”).
40. See, e.g., Trauma-Informed Approaches and Programs, SAMHSA, https://duke.is/Trauma-Informed-Approaches-and-Programs (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (discussing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAHMSA)’s approach to promoting trauma-informed care generally).
41. SAMHSA’s Gains Center Works to Develop Guidance for Treatment Courts Implementing a Trauma-Informed Approach, Pol. Rsch. Assoc. (Oct. 26, 2023), https://duke.is/SAMHSA-gains-center.
42. See Eva McKinsey et al., Trauma-Informed Judicial Practice from the Judges’ Perspective, 106 Judicature 35, 35–36 (2022) (describing an “in-depth investigation of judges’ perspectives on how to make judicial practice more ‘trauma-informed'”).
43. See, e.g., id. (examining a study exploring judges’ perceptions of trauma-informed training and courtroom practices through a pilot trauma-education program for North Carolina district court judges); Jerel M. Ezell et al., Implementing Trauma-Informed Practice in Juvenile Justice Systems: What can Courts Learn from Child Welfare Interventions?, 11 J. Child & Adolescent Trauma 507, 509–10 (2018) (examining how judges and court staff in rural Michigan juvenile courts understand, implement, and experience barriers to trauma-informed judicial practices within state juvenile court systems); Sarah Blanco et al., Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities, Ctr. for Just. Innovation (May 2024), https://duke.is/Trauma-Informed-State-Criminal-Courts (analyzing survey data from judges and court staff across 20 states to examine how trauma-informed practices are implemented in general (non-specialty) state criminal courts).
44. State Courts vs. Federal Courts, Jud. Learning Ctr., https://duke.is/jlc (last visited Jan. 17, 2026).
45. Robin L. Rosenberg, Conversations of a Lifetime: The Power of the Sentencing Colloquy and How to Make It Matter, 103 Judicature 19, 19 (2019).
46. Id. at 21.
47. Sarai Flores, Two Sides to Every Bench: Utilizing Trauma-Informed Court Practices to Promote Dignity and Reconciliation, Pol. Rsch. Assoc. (Jan. 21, 2022), https://duke.is/two-sides.
48. See, e.g., William W. Schwarzer & Alan Hirsch, The Elements of Case Management (3d ed.), Fed. Judicial Ctr. (2017), at 4 (“Although Rule 16(c) provides an agenda for the conference, judges may think of additional items appropriate for a particular case. Many judges issue a standard status conference order in advance, notifying the lawyers of what is expected of them. Many judges ask the lawyers to submit a joint case-management statement prior to the conference, summarizing the essentials of the case in simple terms, stating their position on the various agenda items, and proposing a joint scheduling plan.”); The Caseflow Management Maturity Matrix, Nat’l Ctr for State Crts. 4 (2015) (“A third element of early control is the practice of conducting early and productive case conferences. A conference may not be necessary in a simple case, but in more complex litigation it is an opportunity to ensure preparation by the court and all parties in the case.”).
49. Cf. Victoria A. Knoche et al., Trauma-Informed: Dependency Court Personnel’s Understanding of Trauma and Perceptions of Court Policies, Practices, and Environment, 11 J. Child & Adolescent Trauma 495, 495 (2018) (“Individuals who are already traumatized can experience stress which triggers prior trauma through court policies, practices, and environment during involvement with the child abuse and neglect court system.”).
50. Cf. Handle Tiny Humans with Care: Trauma-Informed Care Tips for Early Childhood Educators, Child Care Ed, https://duke.is/handle-tiny-humans-with-care (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (explaining the importance of positive reinforcement in trauma-informed care).
51. See Brian MacKenzie & Kevin Burke, A Trauma-Informed Court Starts with Procedural Fairness, Just. Speakers Inst. (Nov. 29, 2022), https://duke.is/trauma-informed-court-procedural-fairness (describing one’s voice, or “ability to participate in the case by expressing their viewpoint,” as a core principle of procedural fairness and therefore necessary for trauma-informed courts).
52. See Matthew D. Lieberman et al., Putting Feelings Into Words: Affect Labeling Disrupts Amygdala Activity in Response to Affective Stimuli, 18 Psych. Sci. 421, 421 (2007) (finding that “affect labeling . . . [decreased] the response of the amygdala and other limbic regions to negative emotional images”).
53. See Amy H. J. Wolfe et al., Mindfulness Exercises Reduce Acute Physiologic Stress Among Female Clinicians, 6 Critical Care Explorations 1, 1 (2024) (explaining that “stress levels . . . improved after participating in grounding, deep breathing, and body scan meditations, which may highlight their importance as stress reduction tools” in a study of female clinicians).
54. Susan Wells & Jenifer Urff, Essential Components of Trauma-informed Judicial Practice: What Every Judge Needs to Know About Trauma, SAMHSA (2013), https://duke.is/essential-components (“Many judges have come to recognize that acknowledging and understanding the impact of trauma on court participants may lead to more successful interactions and outcomes.”).
55. Cf. What is Trauma-Informed Care?, Trauma-Informed Care Implementation Res. Ctr., https://duke.is/what-is-trauma-informed-care (last visited Jan. 17, 2026) (noting that “[t]rauma-informed care seeks to . . . [r]ecognize the signs and symptoms of trauma in patients, families, and staff” and “[i]ntegrate knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices”).
56. See, e.g., 6 Guiding Principles to a Trauma-Informed Approach, CDC Stacks (June 2, 2022), https://duke.is/6-guiding-principles (describing trustworthiness and transparency as some of the most vital principles guiding trauma-informed approaches).
57. McKinsey et al., supra note 12, at 35.
58. See MacKenzie & Burke, supra note 21 (explaining that the foundational principles of procedural fairness include trust, which is “achieved by judges who carefully listen, who project that they are caring and who explain their decisions”).
59. See Victoria Pratt, Why Dignity and Respect Matter in Our Courts, 48 Litigation 27, 27 (2022) (“Distrust of the justice system can radiate out from a defendant — to the defendant’s family and neighbors, and eventually into entire communities.”).
60. See CDC Stacks, supra note 26 (noting the importance of support, collaboration, and “engagement with community stakeholders” to improve trauma-informed practices).