A dear friend in the media implored me to watch Court TV to see another friend, defense lawyer Joe Tacopina, in the Melanie McGuire murder case in New Jersey.  So I had some time last Friday to tune in.  Naturally, the trial was put over to Monday for closings, so I didn’t get to see Joe do his magic.  But there were the talking heads, as always, discussing the case.  And that’s where this rant begins.

First, the anchors.  I don’t blame people whose career path is television for doing their thing on whatever channel will pay them.  But I’m watching Jack Ford, Rikki Klieman and Ashleigh Banfield and, to be blunt, they’re just blathering.  Words are just coming out of their mouths to fill air time, ranging from the banal to the silly.  I tried listening carefully.  I really did.  But the words offered absolutely nothing.  They were not informative.  They were not interesting.  They were not accurate.  They were just, plain pointles.

Attorneys have an ethical obligation to assist the public to better understand the legal system.  But Court TV treats the system like a little league baseball game, turning witnesses into innings and offering such elucidating comments as “the prosecution scored a big point with that one.”  Where’s the little box score in the corner?

Second, the guests.  There are always attorneys who appear as the “expert” commentary.  They don’t pay these lawyers, but know that there are always going to be plenty of lawyers who want to get their puss on TV, even if they have nothing to add and can’t get three words out without tripping.

Why?  Why do they put some guy whose sole purported reason for appearing is that he was “once a prosecutor and now a criminal defense lawyer” on the air to discuss what’s going on in the real defense lawyer’s mind.  He doesn’t have a clue.  He can’t have a clue.  If the expert has half a brain, he KNOWS he doesn’t have a clue. Yet, he will happily appear, waste hours of his day, with the absolute knowledge that he has nothing to say.  Why?

But the anchors are pros.  They know that their expert brings nothing to the table, and is just another excuse to fill up empty air.  So, they ask the expert a 3,742 word question that includes the answer to their own question, not to mention a half dozen presumptions of dubious validity, leavin the expert to bob his head like a blithering idiot until the anchor says, “Well Joe, we’re out of time.  Thanks again for that insight. And now…”

Third, Nancy Grace.  Nancy Graces gets a category all her own.  Unlike the others, Nancy has an ax to grind.  She claimed to be the fiance of a murder victim, on top of being a former prosecutor.  Of course, it is now well known that she is accuracy challenged, but somehow nobody seems to mind.  Instead, she brings insight such as “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” to the legal table.  She has single handedly done more to undermine the standard of proof, concept of reliable evidence  and rationally connected thought than any other blond in America. 

But unlike the others, at least she says something, stupid though it may be. Shockingly flawed reasoning?  Grotesquely biased views?  Cynically deceptive manipulation of facts?  So what.  Nancy’s going after the bad guys, and she don’t need no stinkin’ facts to tell her who’s guilty. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve spent many a happy hour waiting in the green room (or on the cold street in front of a courthouse) doing the stand-up expert thing.  In fact, we used to mess with some of the anchors (like Ashleigh Banfield when she was over at MSNBC in Secaucus, New Jersey, before she put on her glasses to look more serious) when we did 6 hours bits of debate before they changed the format.  They would have a defense lawyer and former prosecutor to create a debate-type set up.  Sometimes, it would be so boring and obvious that we would switch sides without telling the anchors just for fun.  Six hours is a long time to spend in Secausus.

In my own defense, I refused to accept the anchors’ presumptive questioning when asked foolish, misleading or truly banal questions, and instead freely corrected or challenged the anchor.  This was particularly true when I was asked if I could “get inside the judge’s head.”  NO, I would exclaim, I’m a lawyer, not a psychic.  But I’d be happy to talk about what the judge’s ruling means to the defense.  I seriously tried to illuminate rather than fill empty air time.  But I was still there, talking as if one piece of evidence was the equivalent of a triple with a man on second.  So mea culpa.

There is so much that Court TV, and all the other networks and new magazines could do, to enhance the publics understanding of the criminal justice system while enjoying the free content that trials offer.  It could be fascinating.  At times titillating.  Even sensational enough to grab an audience by the throat and pull them in, while being accurate, informative and educational.  Most of these anchor types are lawyers, and had their share of time in the well sufficient to demonstrate a real knowledge of what’s happening.  It’s a shame that this opportunity is being squandered.