NEW YORK, Dec 14 (Reuters) - On Wednesday morning, the Manhattan criminal court had one more courtroom than usual: Jury Room 10, which was pressed into service to handle the nearly 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters who swamped the courthouse, summonses in hand, months after most of them were rounded up by police during a march across the Brooklyn Bridge in October.

One by one, the protesters were called up before Criminal Court Justice Neil Ross. Each had been arrested for walking on the bridge's roadway Oct. 1 and received a summons, a violation typically handed out for carrying an open container of alcohol or using a city park after hours.

Trials are rare occurrences for summons court, where routine offenses are normally processed immediately through a fine or a dismissal.

But the scene inside the courtroom and outside in the hallways was anything but routine. Like the movement itself, it was organized chaos, as law enforcement -- this time, court officers -- kept a watchful eye on the proceedings.

The presence of so many protesters at once -- with hundreds more are expected over the next week -- presented several logistical challenges for the court system, which assigned Justice Ross to shepherd the cases, rather than follow the usual practice of tapping retired judges, known as judicial hearing officers, for the job.

In addition, the Manhattan district attorney's office, which normally does not appear in court in summons cases, assigned prosecutors Wednesday to ensure all Occupy-related cases, including other arrests that are being prosecuted by the district attorney, are handled "consistently and fairly," a spokeswoman for the office said.

In all, the DA's office is processing more than 1,000 arrests, a number that does not include the 700 protesters, including Wednesday's group, who received summonses.

'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'

In the courthouse hallways, volunteer lawyers in fluorescent green hats -- members of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been representing the majority of protesters throughout the movement's lifespan -- carried clipboards, calling out names and signing in protesters.

Martin Stolar, an NLG attorney, explained the options to small groups of protesters, most of whom he had never met before.

"Hi," he said to one cluster of defendants, smiling broadly. "I'm Marty Stolar, one of your friendly neighborhood lawyers."

The protesters had two options, Stolar explained. They could accept the district attorney's offer of an ACD, or adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Under that deal, the charges would be dismissed and the arrest sealed after six months, provided the defendant does not get arrested in the interim.

Quinton Mudd, 28, an arrestee who works in commercial real estate, took the offer, saying he had no further plans to protest and risk arrest unless something truly inspired him to do so. Instead, he said, the movement had entered a new phase.

"I feel like the marches helped give that movement its power," he said. "I don't feel like marching now will accomplish the goals we need to accomplish."

Some protesters, such as Jennifer Wittlin, a 41-year-old social worker, chose Stolar's second option -- to plead not guilty and go to trial -- either because they would not guarantee they would not be re-arrested or because they felt their first arrest was unjustified.

"I think it's just a matter of principle for me, feeling like I didn't have the right to exercise my free speech," Wittlin said.

Stolar estimated that approximately 60 percent of protesters accepted the ACD offer, and the rest opted to plead not guilty.

'VERY GOOD CHANCE' OF WINNING

There was, of course, a third option -- pleading guilty -- but Stolar didn't mention that one, instead telling protesters that they had a "very good chance" of prevailing at trial, given video clips that appear to show police allowing protesters onto the bridge before arresting them.

A few minutes after declaring she would plead not guilty, Wittlin learned her case had been dismissed -- one of a lucky few whose summonses were never processed, either because the police officer failed to enter them into the system or because a clerk found them defective in some way.

Wittlin chose to believe that her arresting officer, whom she said was particularly sympathetic, had decided not to process the summons.

"I'm a little bummed," she said. "I was looking forward to going through the process."

(Reporting by Joseph Ax)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal

(A previous version of this story stated that the march on the Brooklyn Bridge took place Sept. 30. It took place Oct. 1)