Archive for the ‘Courtrooms as TV Entertainment’ Category

The Return of Casey Anthony

Friday, January 6th, 2012

For the first time since her acquittal in July, Casey Anthony has returned to the public eye in the form of a video diary posted on Facebook and YouTube:

Although Casey Anthony mentions neither the trial nor her daughter during the four minute video, her reemergence has rekindled public outrage over the jury verdict.  As Forum Director Thane Rosenbaum wrote last summer on the Huffington Post, the moral indignation arising out of the Casey Anthony trial marks another step in America’s continuing disillusionment with our legal system and its capacity for producing what the public perceives as unjust results.

Defending Doctor Death: The Public Prosecution of Conrad Murray

Friday, October 28th, 2011

By Christian Jackson

America, here we go again.  The media has been allowed to infect yet another American courtroom.

conrad-murray

Dr. Conrad Murray is accused of administering the fatal dose of the painkiller Propofol, which led to the death of Michael Jackson on June 25, 2009.  On Monday, February 7, Judge Michael Pastor agreed to let cameras into the courtroom – provided they don’t interfere with legal proceedings.  The judge said he wanted the “absolute least intrusive placement” of TV cameras.  F.Y.I., Judge Pastor, cameras are always “intrusive,” regardless of their placement.  If that fact is not clear, just take a look at the victim’s life.  Yes, the victim, the forgotten person in this unfortunate episode.  Michael Jackson lived a life tormented by cameras.  Every moment of his existence was sacrificed to the limelight.  It consumed his childhood, corroded his adult life, and will not be denied in his death.  Jackson hated cameras so much that he covered his face, and the face of his children, on those rare occasions when he would go out in public.  The cameras contributed to the pain and anxiety that led to Michael’s dependence on sleeping aids.  How terribly backward is it that the “innocent-until-proven-guilty” defendant, hired by Jackson to provide an escape from his torment, is now subjected to the very same torment at his fair and impartial trial?

I am by no means a Conrad Murray supporter.  His actions are somewhere between negligence and callousness.  However, whether this jury convicts him or not, the American public has already and forever passed judgment on his life.  He will be judged by: whether his reactions to testimony exude innocence, whether his tears are truthful, whether he is fearful.  These are not the issues a jury should be considering.  But an American public, with no legal training or direction, has little else to contemplate.

Screen shot 2011-10-28 at 10.52.30 AM

If convicted, Conrad Murray is unlikely to serve a single second in prison.  However the judge, the media, and public acquiescence have ensured that, regardless of the trial’s outcome, Conrad Murray will forever be a prisoner of his own infamy.  For the rest of his life, he will be known as “Dr. Death” – the man that murdered the “King of Pop.”  Life will be constant evasion of ignorant yokels that will occasionally make the connection, Jackson fans willing to pick a fight, and contrived lawsuits.  If fame is a fickle mistress, infamy is a crippling shrew.  This is a truth with which Michael Jackson was acutely familiar.  Thanks to Tinsel Town justice, Conrad Murray will have a lifetime to bond a scornful acquaintance.

Casey Anthony vs. Society

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

By Chloe Sarnoff

Homespun homilies such as “whatever comes around goes around,” or “don’t worry, things have a way of working themselves out,” often come across as meaningless or trite. Sometime, however, what sounded like a banality can end up ringing very true.

Several weeks ago, Casey Anthony was acquitted of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.  Most people believed that she was guilty and were surprised by the verdict.  Very likely Ms. Anthony was surprised, too. But to those furious members of the public who watched as a dangerous and negligent mother got away with murder (or at the very least manslaughter), we can all take at least small comfort in saying, “don’t worry, things will work themselves out.”

The justice system may have found Casey Anthony not guilty of pre-meditated murder, but Ms. Anthony has yet to receive the full force and effect of society’s verdict.  She is now left with the terrifying and difficult question of “what now?” What does a woman, whose face was plastered on the cover of every tabloid magazine, newspaper and TV show for murdering her innocent 2 year-old toddler, do with the rest of her life? How does she ever find her way back into mainstream society? In fact, if Ms. Anthony did a little research into what frequently happens to defendants in highly publicized and infamous trials when they are found acquitted, she might be even more nervous than she presumably already is.  She might even asked to be locked up.

Casey Anthony is not the only person to have successfully escaped punishment from the law, but she now finds herself in good company among other celebrity fugitives, acquitted of their crimes by the law but found irredeemably guilty by the moral outrage of society. For example, when O.J. Simpson entered a Kentucky steakhouse, owned by Jeff Ruby, Mr. Ruby refused to serve him.  After being publicly humiliated in the crowded restaurant, O.J. was given little choice but to leave and eat elsewhere.  This one instance pales in comparison to the life of ridicule that O.J. has led since he was acquitted. From the moment the jury reached its verdict, O.J. Simpson has been an outcast from society.  This alienation and scrutiny was made even worse when he found himself in a civil lawsuit brought in 1997 by one of his victims’ families.

Sometimes it’s not even necessary for the law to acquit before the punishing glare from society’s judgment intercedes, sending its own message of revulsion and disgust. When Ruth Madoff went off to get her hair done at Pierre Michel, the tony Upper East Side salon where she had been a client for roughly ten years, she was told : “you’re no longer welcome here. Even though Mrs. Madoff was not charged with a crime, and was left with $2.5 million after $80 million of her assets were linked to fraud, society still thought she had a price to pay.  Mrs. Madoff’s embarrassing exit from her hair salon is undoubtedly only one of the many punishments society has in store for her and the rest of her family (sadly already felt by the suicide of her eldest son), including those not behind bars.

Even if the seemingly impossible happens, and someone steps forward to confess to having murdered Ms. Anthony’s baby, her outlook is still grim.  When your name has been dragged through the dirt of a scandalous trial, innocent or guilty, there is no escaping what society has in store for you. Steven J. Hatfill learned this the hard way when then Attorney General John Ashcroft declared Hatfill a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Mr. Hatfill worked for the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases when FBI agents searched his home and interviewed his co-workers and neighbors.  Countless articles were written in major publications discussing the possible reasons why Mr. Hatfill was considered a suspect. Even when the actual anthrax killer, scientist Bruce Ivins, was convicted and Mr. Hatfill sued the government for damages and was awarded $5.8 million, he still was not assured that he would be accepted by society. “For Hatfill, rebuilding remains painful and slow,” according to David Freed at The Atlantic, “He enters post offices only if he absolutely must, careful to show his face to surveillance cameras so that he can’t be accused of mailing letters surreptitiously.”

Although O.J., Madoff and the anthrax suspect may have little in common with Casey Anthony’s alleged crime, the thread that holds them together is that they have had to, and will continue to, deal with society’s judgment and punishment long after the juries’ verdicts are delivered. This comes in the form of shame, embarrassment and disgust.  Members of Ms. Anthony’s community may never accept her back again; they may ask her to leave their establishments, not wanting their other customers to be subjected to her presence.  She likely has already lost the support and comfort of friends and family who are too ashamed to be seen with her in public.  She may be too humiliated to walk to the end of her driveway to pick up her newspaper, afraid of the horrible things her neighbors might say to her.

In the extremes, shame, guilt and humiliation can make people do terrible and drastic things. When a person is pushed to the outskirts of society, and there seems little chance of ever being accepted again, a person could think their life is no longer worth living.  This is certainly what happened to Bernard Madoff’s son, Mark. In December 2010, Mark Madoff was found dead in his apartment from a suicide, having hung himself while his wife was out of town and his young son was asleep in a nearby bedroom.  Although no suicide note was found, the public can assume that Mark’s desperate and deadly decision was connected to the two-year anniversary of his father’s arrest and his family’s public humiliation.

There is no way to fully predict what ultimately will happen to Ms. Anthony.  We do not know how long she will live, how she will support herself or how she will spend the rest of her days. We may not understand how our justice system could have failed to punish such a dangerous, callous woman, but one thing is for sure: Casey Anthony will never be innocent in our eyes.  The general public may not have the power to put her behind bars, as that decision was left to the jury. And it may not ultimately be as satisfying as a true legal punishment.  But society does possess incredibly powerful tools to cast its own judgment of moral guilt: the ability to shame, alienate, and outcast.  As Ms. Anthony will come to learn, these social afflictions can feel just as debilitating as prison bars.

Innocent in the Eyes of the Jury

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

By Erica Zaragoza

It is the case that has captivated the hearts of people across the nation – the brutal, senseless murder of 2 year old Caylee Marie Anthony. I first heard about the trial from my best friend who, after one briefing of the evidence and facts, was completely enveloped in the story. There was not a single doubt in her mind that Casey Anthony had premeditated and executed the murder of her own daughter. This sentiment seemed to be the consensus among most people following the case. The evidence: Facebook and Twitter were buzzing with less than friendly remarks about the jurors, and Casey, once the verdict was read. Onlookers called them to the dumbest jury since the OJ Simpson trial. Why did a nobody, like Casey Anthony, cause such controversy in the media and pull the heart strings of America?

Was it the crime itself? Casey’s personality and seeming lack of remorse? A family in shambles? An adorable little girl? It may be a combination of it all. All that’s certain is the curiosity surrounding this case has yet to die down. Just last night I watched “Investigation Discovery: Casey Anthony: Behind the Verdict.” Now than ever, more people are questioning our justice system and its competence in prosecuting the guilty. Forum Director, Thane Rosenbaum, touches upon the concept that obvious guilt may not be able to stand trial against the reasonable doubt standard, in his Huffington Post article. As jurors entered a contentious environment, post verdict, they fervently tried to explain that they did their duty according to law, and thus had to acquit Casey Anthony. Individual jurors went to the media to make the distinction: no one said she wasn’t guilty, all we said was we couldn’t prove it.

Inconsistencies in Casey’s story – neglect to report a missing person for 31 days – stolen car that smelled like a dead body – partying – stealing money – internet searches of Chloroform – the evidence seemed to be mounting towards a guilty verdict for Casey Anthony. But, according to the jurors,  the evidence directly linking Casey to the murder was simply not there. No eyewitness testimony – no forensic evidence, nothing conclusively stating “Casey Anthony is the mother who murdered her child.” And, simply put, the circumstantial evidence just could not hold up the house for a guilty verdict. Nothing directly implicated Casey Anthony as the murderer of her child, despite her various statements and wildly inconsistent behavior.

It’s been proven that pretrial publicity is a definite determinant in the outcome of a case, despite meticulous jury selection. However, photos of scantily clad Casey Anthony were plastered across news media in all forms proving that the law sometimes trumps exposure, and rightfully so. In a court of law, simply surmising guilt will just not cut it. No matter what side you fall on in this case, justice was done in the eyes of our system.

Why We Watched

Monday, July 11th, 2011

By Ben Falk

There are a few cases, that didn’t star a celebrity, which managed to catch our collective attention quite like Casey Anthony’s. Mary-Kay Letourneau’s trial is an example, but its weirdness (and its oddly happy ending) is probably the reason why we watched. The Oklahoma City Bombers’ trial is another, but the tragedy and magnitude of their crimes place it in a different category all together. Outside of those two, I just don’t know of another case that touched a nerve in quite the same way.

So the question remains: why? I imagine the pundits are correct, we watched because she was relatable, she seemed like one of us, and she led (so we thought) a fairly normal life. Perhaps, shockingly and horrifyingly, we saw some of ourselves in her.

Unfortunately however, when we watched Casey Anthony’s case as closely as we did we ended up not liking what we saw. The Forum’s Executive Producer, Thane Rosenbaum, explained in The Huffington Post that the Casey Anthony case demonstrated the difference between legal and moral justice. Yet while the trial may have produced a legally “just” result, we are still left morally outraged. And there lies, I think, the most convincing reason why we watched the trial so intently: we wanted vengeance, we wanted to feel superior, and we wanted to be a part of the punishment our justice system was supposed to enact.

Revenge is an ugly, uncomplicated, sometimes necessary emotion.  We felt Casey Anthony did wrong and we wanted to watch our court system right it. And watching the trial and hoping for a guilty verdict was the closest each of us could get to getting revenge without breaking the law.

This blood lust would also explain our outrage at the verdict. We were deprived of revenge by the very system that was supposed to get it. But then there’s where we were wrong. Our legal system is not designed for revenge. Its goal is to look for truth, and when the truth is too hard to discern it would rather see a guilty person walk free than imprison someone innocent. And we are all better off because of it.

Suits: What Does It Mean to Be A Great Lawyer?

Wednesday, July 6th, 2011

By Ben Falk

That’s the question “Suits,” at its core, seems to be asking. Does being a great lawyer mean being a fantastic researcher? Is it the ability to intimidate an adversary in negotiations? Mastery of black-letter law? Is it empathizing with clients? Is it performance in a courtroom? Is it all of the above?

Suits,” on the USA Network, stars Gabriel Macht as Harvey Specter, the Harvard (they don’t miss a chance to point that out) educated lawyer who is the firm’s “best closer.” Specter hires Mike Ross (Patrick Adams), a legal-savant who happens to be running away from a drug-deal gone bad when he coincidentally ends up crashing an interview Harvey is conducting for his high-powered, white shoe firm. Mike Ross, who has never graduated college or law school, still manages to pass the bar. Rounding out the core group is Rachel Zane (Meghan Markle), a paralegal who, it is made perfectly clear, is much smarter than most of the people at the firm.

Implausible? Goes without saying. But as artificial as the premise may be (although it may not even be that far-fetched for cable television), it does create an ideal starting point from which to ask the question: “What makes a great lawyer?”.

All the lawyers in “Suits” are good. That much is clear. But none, it seems, are truly great. But, similar to Captain Planet, when Specter’s, Ross’s, and research-maven Rachel Zane’s powers combine, they are truly great (“Gonna take corporate malfeasance down to zero!”). So I guess there is the answer. It is no one skill, but many.

Harvey may have the ability to get an impossible deal done. Rachel may be able to find the one case, or one dissent, which pushes an argument across the finish line. Yet that alone is not enough. Add Mike Ross (or, “Ma-ti”, wielding the power “heart”), and his ability to empathize with his clients, and a truly great lawyer, even if in composite, is made. And therein lies the key ingredient.

Empathy is what makes a lawyer go from being merely good to being great. It allows a lawyer to serve the client’s interest, rather than merely solving the client’s problem. The difference is critical. While solving problems is important, it is really only a technical issue, requiring (usually) a meeting, research, the filing of a brief, etc., in order to make the problem go away. However, if an attorney is serving his or her client’s interests, the lawyer will understand the underlying issues affecting the client’s business and decision making in order to put the client in a better position to succeed, whether in the overall litigation, in business, or once the litigation is complete.

This is what Suits demonstrates, that technical proficiency will only get lawyers so far, empathy and understanding are necessary to truly be great.

Was the Moral Lawyer Hiding in LA?

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

For the tried and true New York native fan of Law & Order, there
seemed little to look forward to with Law & Order: LA. Regardless of
whether the structure would be the same, the idea of Los Angeles as a
character in the show (the way New York very much was) left a good
deal to be desired. Considering the national perception of the area,
it seemed as though it would be difficult not to focus on movie stars
and the wealthy in order for people to “buy” the “LA-ness” of the new
series. “Ripped from US Weekly” or some other tabloid simply seemed
silly when compared with storylines ripped from the New York Times.
And yet, Law & Order: LA had a different trick up its sleeve.
Granted, it was after a hiatus for a revamping, but the show returned
with a new attitude. More specifically, Deputy District Attorney
Morales, played by Alfred Molina, returned a different lawyer: a
lawyer so disillusioned by the law, he left it in episode 9, “Zuma
Canyon.” Morales’ moral compass and his disgust for political
trumping the legal led him to resign his position with the District
Attorney’s Office and rejoin the police force.

The episode began with a mass shooting at a quinceañera where several
people were murdered, including three children. Two detectives
arrived on the scene and determined that the shooting was the result
of the family’s accidental interference with a Mexican drug cartel.
After further investigation revealed the identity of the head of the
operation, the detectives confronted him about the shooting. Sadly,
the “crime” portion of the episode then ended with the head drug lord,
Cesar Vargas, murdering one of the detectives in a drive-by as he
heroically pushed his young daughter out of the way.

Morales then entered the scene. He first attacked the legal system by
calling for the State Department to grant asylum to the family of a
young Mexican boy who had offered to testify against Vargas. Despite
Morales’ argument that the “geo-political message” was less important
than justice for the slain detective, his request was denied and he
was told that the State Department was “not in the business of
antagonizing allies.” Unsatisfied, Morales took the issue to federal
court. Although the court was reluctant at first, Morales argued that
the court should “match the courage” of the young boy who agreed to
testify and his request was finally granted.

Sadly, however, the boy never had the chance to show this courage, as
he was murdered in his holding cell moments before testifying.
Without a star witness, the case was dismissed. Unsatisfied with such
a miscarriage of justice, Morales then requested that the Distract
Attorney turn the case over to the FBI. Again, he was met with
resistance and the DA asked him if his only motive was to humiliate
the office. Morales replied that clearly, his only interest was
justice. The DA responded that he had already “called in a lot of
chits on [Morales’] behalf.” Morales’ response was the defining
moment for his character.

Although the audience had seen inklings of it in the past, it was in
this response that Morales truly showed his true colors as a moral
lawyer. He countered, “on my behalf? I thought we spoke for the
victims. I quit the police department twelve years ago because I
thought here, in this office, I might make a real difference. But if
it’s all politics and posturing . . . you want humiliation, Gerry? How
about a prosecutor quitting his office and rejoining the police force
because his boss is too vain to ask for help in bringing a cop-killer
to justice.”

The very moment Morales truly became a moral lawyer, he stepped down.
Is Law & Order: LA suggesting that there truly are no moral lawyers?
That in order to retain a sense of justice one must abandon his post
rather than fight the politics? We shall see. For now, Morales
continues to fight for what he believes is right as a detective. We
can only hope he returns to his post at the District Attorney’s office
to shine a light on the hypocrisy. Who knows—perhaps despite being
considered superficial, LA is the perfect place to start cleaning up
the mess.

L.C
Law and Literature

The Concept of Relevancy from a Moral Justice Perspective

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

There is a Law & Order episode in which a defendant is on trial
for murdering his business partner, with whom he ran an illegal
gambling operation.  During the proceedings, the defendant admits to
stealing money from the illicit venture, and further acknowledges that
his partner; the “muscle” of the operation, found out about his theft.
This evidence is admitted under the pretense that it is relevant; it
goes to demonstrating the defendant’s motive for the murder.
The more interesting exchange occurs when the defendant is asked
what he did with the money.  As it happens, the defendant was sending
the money to Israel to buy medical supplies in order to assist
citizens harmed by anti-Semitism.  The now deceased partner was
portrayed as some brute standing in the way of this noble pursuit.
As one with a legal predisposition would imagine, this testimony
was objected to by District Attorney Jack McCoy, on grounds that it
was wholly irrelevant.  McCoy argued that because justification was
not a defense that is allowed under the law, the “reason” offered by
the defendant was inappropriate.  Indeed, a standard definition of
relevancy asks if the evidence has any tendency to make the existence
of any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Using this rubric, something is relevant when it speaks to a fact of
consequence; a fact which proves an essential element of the crime.
It is the task of the jury to decide whether all the essential
elements of a crime have been proven.  Following McCoy’s logic, which
should be noted is legally correct, since justification is not a
defense to murder, it is irrelevant and should be completely excluded
from the jury.  In short, what the defendant was doing with the money;
no matter how noble, or as the story attempted to portray as “the
right thing to do,” has no place in the courtroom.
This episode has a hallmark of Professor Thane Rosenbaum’s
courses; truth and storytelling, or lack thereof.  For one, the
defendant is essentially saying, “this is what I did, and this is why
I did it, it may not be right, but that does not mean it is not
relevant to my case.”  It is, after all, the broader story of what
happened, without which a full account of the “what and why” would not
be possible.  Yet as McCoy notes, there is no room for the full story
in the law.  What is paramount is the defining of the jury’s tasks; to
break down every element along a narrow determination of relevancy.
Does this shred of storytelling further a fact of consequence?  If
not, then the jury cannot hear it.  It must be objected to and
stricken from the record, or never allowed to be raised in the first
place.  If heard, the jury must be told to disregard it completely;
pretend it did not happen.  If such an undertaking is infeasible, we
must start over; get a new jury, one that has not been exposed to
material, which despite being the story of the murder, is not relevant
to the essential elements of murder.

-SG

“The Practice”, reality or far away from the true…

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

Bobby Donnell (played by Dylan McDermott) and his team of lawyers representing an unusual defense lawyers which
constantly straggle with ethical and moral themes while defending murderers,
rapists etc. The twist is that they almost always win the cases and this is a surrealistic
representation of reality. The author of the TV series is well aware of this
conflict, giving his characters to face the cold, cynical emotionless court
room as it is in reality. While Bobby Donnell and his team try to bring into
court moral arguments and emotional point of view, against them standing Helen from
the D.A.’s office; cold, strong woman who is emotionally detached from the defendant
side of the story. What makes the series interesting is that the viewers fall
in the charm of the defense almost forgetting that they actually represent the
“Bad guy” in the story. Humans apparently are moral and ethical
creatures. But the reality of the legal system of today is pretty much like
Helen’s side of the story, emotionless, cold, and clean from moral issues. Lawyers
speak only in legal terms trying to avoid as much as they can moral issues and
moral approach. So why we all losing ourselves in the world of Bobby’s firm,
while reality leads us in a different road?
Sivan Duani

The Legal System Through the Eyes of Hollywood: Good or Bad?

Sunday, February 27th, 2011

Author: Dale Cohen

Open Scene:  An old, hot shot attorney in an expensive suit who has
been retained by a billionaire is negotiating with a young, idealistic
attorney representing a poor shop owner. The old attorney grimly
explains that his client has the money to drag out the trial for years
and the shop owner’s only chance for coming out of the situation with
anything to show for it is to accept a pathetically small settlement
offer.

Whether it’s a civil trial or a criminal proceeding, Hollywood is
riddled with tales of the trials (pun intended) and tribulations of
individuals caught in legal system.  Most stories involve soulless
lawyers attempting to manipulate the technicalities of the legal system
in order reach some sort of legal result which totally circumvents any
commonplace understanding of how individuals understand the concept of
moral justice.  Of course no story would be complete without the
protagonist, usually a beaten up but ever optimistic lawyer, fighting
to protect what strikes the heart of viewers as the correct outcome.

The question then becomes, how beneficial are these depictions of the
legal system?  Despite often being highly inaccurate, I believe that
they nevertheless have a positive impact.

First, they acquaint citizens with some fundamentals about the legal
system.  For example, before a witness testifies in court, they have
to swear to tell the truth—who knew?  Also, when bad guys are taken
into custody the police must warn them that anything they reveal about
the crime they just committed can be used against them in court—again,
truly a novel concept.

Another benefit of these Hollywood depictions of the legal system is
that they illustrate day-to-day grind of attorneys and how they become
embroiled in a system of law that is often quite contrary to a system
of justice.  They show the two basic possible of outcomes: one which
strikes the viewers conscious as idealistically correct and another
which seems wrong but represent the “it is what it is” reality of how
the legal system works.  In this sense, they are like children’s
stories which appeal to the adult sensibilities.  No longer are there
clear good guys and bad guys, but characters who don’t fit neatly into
a box.  They serve to highlight the pitfalls of structuring our legal
system without regard to morality or true justice.  These films/tv
shows help to readjust individuals expectations so if they ever have
to enter a courtroom they know they might be disappointed with the
outcome (they may be similarly disappointed when finding out that
gadgets and technological advances shown on CSI are not really how
cases are solved).

Finally, I’m a fan of these Hollywood depictions of the legal system
because they are entertaining!  Just like anything else presented
through film, television, or the all mighty internet, they should be
taken with a grain of salt.  Of course they present a glamorized
vision of the legal system; they are called dramas for a reason.  Just
like viewers of House shouldn’t expect that kind of treatment when
they enter a hospital, the viewers of legal dramas should not expect
the mundane accuracy of real life.