In my stroll around the blawgosphere, I stumbled onto something called Clientvision, produced by the “Legal Television Network.” So I decided to take a look around. This was one slick model, with a lot of time and money behind it. It’s clearly headed for commercialization, though I can’t quite tell how it intends to make money just yet. Advertising, I suppose, will be its ultimate goal, but there’s nothing there just yet.
This website includes a variety of areas of law, so I naturally went to the criminal justice tab to see what it was all about. I couldn’t believe what I found. This is a website for lay-people to get a 60 second snapshot of the law and the variety of processes that one may go through in the course of the process, from arrest to plea. In a very glossy package, I might add. While I’ve never heard of the “experts” who appear as if being “interviewed” about the subject, it comes off as quite professional and knowledgeable.
Certainly, no one can question the need for regular people to have a place to go to gain a better insight into the legal process, and particularly the criminal process. But is this the way to do it? It isn’t easy to condense a complex system, with about a zillion variables, into a 60 second video. There must, by definition, be a lot left out. While it may illuminate somethings, it may give a false impression by omission. It may leave people feeling empowered when they have only a tiny bite of the information needed to make a sound judgment. But then, that’s more than they have now, in a grossly simplistic sort of way.
However, some of these videos are deeply disturbing. One in particular (and I have not watched all of them yet, so there could be worse) about the burden of proof in criminal cases was really problematic. In this video, some professor states that the burden means that jurors must be “85% certain” that a defendant is guilty to convict. 85%! Where the hell did he get that crap from?
This website includes a variety of areas of law, so I naturally went to the criminal justice tab to see what it was all about. I couldn’t believe what I found. This is a website for lay-people to get a 60 second snapshot of the law and the variety of processes that one may go through in the course of the process, from arrest to plea. In a very glossy package, I might add. While I’ve never heard of the “experts” who appear as if being “interviewed” about the subject, it comes off as quite professional and knowledgeable.
Certainly, no one can question the need for regular people to have a place to go to gain a better insight into the legal process, and particularly the criminal process. But is this the way to do it? It isn’t easy to condense a complex system, with about a zillion variables, into a 60 second video. There must, by definition, be a lot left out. While it may illuminate somethings, it may give a false impression by omission. It may leave people feeling empowered when they have only a tiny bite of the information needed to make a sound judgment. But then, that’s more than they have now, in a grossly simplistic sort of way.
However, some of these videos are deeply disturbing. One in particular (and I have not watched all of them yet, so there could be worse) about the burden of proof in criminal cases was really problematic. In this video, some professor states that the burden means that jurors must be “85% certain” that a defendant is guilty to convict. 85%! Where the hell did he get that crap from?
To its credit, the criminal defense lawyer then comes on and says that he thinks that may be a little low. But who would put out a video coming up with something so utterly baseless and wrong? I was shocked.
I’ve gone back and forth on whether this clientvision concept is a good thing, a bad thing or what. What do you think?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, it was great talking with you this afternoon. I appreciate the thought that you put into this.
What I love about the law is the ability to debate, to appreciate the diversity of views, and enjoy the process. In part, that’s something I’m actually trying to convey in these segments. Laypeople often think that there’s a book we can go to that tells us precisely what the law is. So, showing lawyers who disagree and even struggle with these concepts serves to emphasize that things really aren’t so simple after all.
I actually agree with many of your (positive) comments, but have to take issue with respect to the Burden of Proof segment. The segment is designed to (a) distinguish the criminal burden from the much lower civil standard; and (b) to show just how hard it is to quantify. Both lawyers agreed that it’s really impossible to quantify, demonstrated the difficulty in doing so, and, in Mr. Radding’s words, “certain things are not capable of a precise definition.” Even Prof. Warnken, who argued the Maryland v. Wilson case against Janet Reno in the U.S. Supreme Court, confessed that “you can’t really quantify it.” In my judgment, this segment does more than teach something about burdens of proof; it teaches people that the law is not composed of a black and white set of rules. There are many shades of gray and areas where reasonable minds may differ.
I’m not sure why you would find that to be “deeply disturbing,” but I do trust that viewers can understand what we conveyed in this segment. Your analysis of the segment takes a single line out of the context of the piece and misrepresents what we televised.
In your “Thoughts on Lawyer Websites,” you claim that “every attorney has an ethical obligation to assist the public and promote their knowledge about the law.” I could not agree more. Yet, our profession has traditionally resisted efforts to educate laypersons. Reasoning that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, we seem to prefer for public ignorance instead. As a result, most of the information presented online is written by lawyers for other lawyers and fundamental rights are hidden beneath a verbal firewall of legalese.
To be sure, simplifying the law means that we cannot provide a legal encyclopedia in two minutes. But I reject the paternalistic notion that we must protect the ignorant among us who may somehow hurt themselves by misusing information conveyed in a responsible manner. If we can trust laypersons to deliberate over our most significant legal decisions, perhaps it’s time we can show a bit more respect for their ability to distinguish between a two-minute segment and a comprehensive dissertation on the complexity of the law. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, we cannot as a profession excuse our failure to inform the public by claiming that ignorance is the lesser of two evils.
I welcome you and your colleagues to register as network affiliates and use these videos for the greater good.
Burden of proof is so difficult to explain. See the recent debates over what an appropriate instruction should be. Maybe they should have spent the entire segment debating it. That would have given the viewer the appropriate definition.
Scott – I’m Steve. I’m a frequent reader, but first-time commenter.
I’d just like to say that, yes, it does get worse. Check out the Miranda segment: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid219252217/bctid1078647313
At best, the segment is unclear about when officers must read the warnings, and the consequences if officers don’t read the warnings. At worst, the segment is extremely misleading.
Since the Miranda warnings may be the most misunderstood aspect of criminal law among laypeople, Clientelevision ought to clarify this segment.
And Scott – keep up the good work on the blog! Even as a non-lawyer, I love it; I’m an almost-daily reader.
Steve,
The only thing “extremely misleading” is your utterly baseless comment. As you are a non-lawyer, it’s nice to know that you already know more than seasoned professionals. I challenge you to cite a single aspect of this segment that is, in any respect, inaccurate. But if it makes you and Scott feel better to knock it, so be it.
Hey Steve,
First, thanks for the heads up. Second, thanks for reading. It’s nice to know that there are real people out there reading Simple Justice, and it’s not just Gideon reading the same post 327 times.
And third. please let me know what you think. The best thing about a blog is the dialogue, so write me a comment whenever you see something that interests you, whether you agree or disagree. I’d love to hear from you.
SHG
Irwin,
I appreciate that you’ve put a lot of work and money into producing these clientvision pieces, and that pride of authorship is a powerful thing. But you wanted to know what people thought of them, and you can’t bite their heads off for telling you.
I took a look at your Miranda segment and, frankly, found it disappointing. Miranda is a trap for people, not a benefit. Today, it’s not the defense side that provides the biggest support for the continuation of Miranda. It’s the cops. Why? It’s a bright line test that enables them to pull all sort of shenanigans by just mouthing words.
If take a look at your Miranda video and here’s my thoughts.
1. There’s nothing in there about Mirdan only being required for custodial interrogation. This is a glaring omission. It will mislead people into believing that they can talk their heads off and then it can’t be used against them. Most important is the little detail that unsolicited statements are not subject to Miranda.
2. Reciting the warnings is fine, but anyone who has ever watched a cop show knows them already. What they don’t know if how to invoke their rights under Miranda, which is a huge trap because people do it wrong constantly by asking qustions instead of making assertions of rights (i.e., Do I need a lawyer?) or an equivocal assertion (i.e., I think I would like a lawyer). Tell them to say the magic words: “I do not want to answer questions. I want to speak with an attorney.” Without this bit of info, everything else is meaningless.
3. That crap from the cop that warnings have to be given before putting a perp in the cruiser is utter nonsense. It may be his way of doing things, or it may just be a bald faced lie, but it’s wrong. Cops use a number of methods designed to manipulate people into speaking in order to circumvent the Miranda rights, and without telling people this, the video fails to illuminate what Miranda, and the rights that it purports to safeguard, is all about.
SHG
Dammit, you’re on to me.
I don’t know. I don’t think it’s utterly baseless. I think it could have been done better – as Scott points out – but I do think that these videos do serve some purpose. It gives the uninitiated a general idea and some limited background off which to build upon.
Steve,
I deeply appreciate your second post as it provides a better understanding your concerns. I hope to address them appropriately here. I was kinda brusque in my last comment, but I’m glad you followed up.
I’d be the first to concede that there are pros and cons to any medium of expression. You raise some excellent points. For example, you make an excellent point that cops could just mouth words and then intimidate the heck out of you, all the while using Miranda as a sword against you. Indeed, they have “ways of making you talk.” No question. In fact, I devoted an entire segment to this very issue. Check out http://www.clientelevision.com/criminal_justice/cooperate_with_cops.html. That segment actually DOES tell people to say, “I’M NOT SAYING ANYTHING OFFICER UNTIL I TALK WITH MY LAWYER.”
We all want to do the same thing: Helping to enhance public understanding. But you can’t teach anyone anything unless you have their attention. If we produced a more comprehensive recitation of the law, I fear that the resulting length of each video would serve as a deterrent to online viewers. If fewer people wish to devote hours to viewing a video, those who don’t click will be deprived of the information provided. In the long run, that’s not going to achieve the educational mission as well.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t do longer-form programming which provides even more detail for those who want it. And, in fact, that is part of the overall CLIENTELEVISION (at least, spell my name right!) plan.
But I believe there is a place for shorter, punchier segments that people are, as a practical matter, more likely to click on. No, they won’t know as much as you, Scott or Gideon, but they will certainly know more than before they clicked. If you believe that people are somehow better off without the bite-sized information we produce, we will have to agree to disagree.
We may agree or disagree on some of the editorial choices made, and that will be true no matter what we put into them. No two people would express things the same way or emphasize all the same nuances. That’s why I rarely run a segment that has just one person’s perspective, and love it when they disagree. For me, that’s what the law is all about.
But even if we can’t capture all the points in a single segment, we need you guys to tell us what else we should emphasize for people. That’s a key part of our job. I think, in this instance, that the Cooperate With Cops segment makes many of the points that you have raised here.
The viewer’s time is a precious resource and we do our best to use it effectively. It’s easy to criticize any of these segments for what we DON’T include. If you wish to dissuade people from viewing them, your labeling them as “crap” may meet your objectives. I’m not sure it will serve the higher purpose of enhancing public awareness, however.
Irwin,
First, the response you are referring to was from me, not Steve. Yes, your response to Steve was “brusque” to put it mildly, and probably did clientvision far more harm than Steve did. Antagonism is generally not a good selling technique.
Second, you are still fighting rather than listening to what people say about clientvision. If you just want to argue with those who disagree, then it is unlikely that you will learn anything from your potential users and, hence, have no potential users.
And finally, brevity is the soul of wit. Take a look at the length and tone of you replies. I would address the “talk to cops” issue, but it has reached the point of tedium and is no longer my concern. The viewer’s time is a precious resource.” That’s true here as well. Take a breather and listen. Your stuff has issues. It’s not the concept, it’s the content.
SHG
Irwin –
First, please allow me to apologize. Reading my comment over again, I realize it came across with a more hostile tone than I intended. I appreciate your heads-up that I should be a bit more careful about how others will interpret my comments, especially in a text-only environment like this, where body language and vocal intonation are absent.
I also believe that I could have been clearer about my issues with the clip, and how I think it could be improved. So I’ll try to do so here.
First, consider the major myths about Miranda, namely: (1) that unsolicited statements which precede Miranda warnings are inadmissible, (2) that statements made during non-custodial questioning are inadmissible unless preceded by warnings, and that (3) an arrestee who is not read warnings contemporaneously with the arrest must be released. With those myths in mind, take a look at the following statements made during the clip:
– “You, as a citizen, are entitled to know your rights before law enforcement can make you talk to them.” (0:10-0:17)
– The string of quotes that all begin with, “You have to tell me that…” (0:30-0:54)
– “The Supreme Court said before a person can be questioned, he must be told [his rights], so he can’t be questioned in ignorance of his rights.” (0:54-1:04)
– “And that needs to take place, typically, on the street, because anything that would be said while the officer was transporting the person, if they were not Mirandized at that point, could be an issue where their statement could not be used.” (1:14-1:27)
– “If the police don’t give those warnings, then, by-and-large, they’re not going to be able to introduce that statement against you.” (1:28-1:35)
My main concern is that someone who believes myths (1) or (2) could, after viewing this clip (and especially these statements), be left with the impression that these myths are correct! And although the last two statements seem to debunk myth (3), I think a more direct statement would be appropriate. Certainly, a few statements directly debunking these myths could fit in the video.
My second concern, as Scott points out, is that the video does not teach people how to effectively assert their rights by using the “magic words,” and then remaining silent thereafter. I would like to see the Miranda video become more like your “May I Record Your Statement?” video on insurance claims investigations (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid219252217/bctid1078683892): telling viewers what to watch out for, and how to protect themselves. As Scott says, most laypeople already know their Miranda rights – what they need is information debunking the myths, and on how to properly exercise their rights.
Finally, I echo Gideon’s sentiment that these videos can serve a purpose. Often, the people who are most in need of this type of information are the ones least likely to go read it – a 2-minute video clip will help many people better understand how to exercise their rights.
Will do.
Looks like Scott beat me to saying this, but those were Scott’s comments to which to you were replying, not mine. I’ve posted my own follow-up comment…it’s somewhere in the comment-tree.
But please let me clarify that I do NOT think the videos are “crap;” rather, I feel, as you do, that they serve a useful purpose. However, I feel they leave out critical information that could still be placed inside the 2-minute time limit. I applaud the inclusion of “how to exercise your rights” information in the “Cooperate With Cops” segment; but I still think that a few sentences debunking the major Miranda myths would infinitely improve the value of the Miranda clip.
Not that this comment tree needs any more complexity, but I forgot to add my name to my above comment. Sorry!