Norm Pattis planned to do his job representing his client at a bail hearing. He sent his associate to a bail hearing for a client bright and early. I’m sure the family was there waiting, hoping, that bail would be set in an amount they could make, bringing the defendant home to the loving bosom of his family.
But this wasn’t your run of the mill case. It was a high profile case. And since Connecticut has enacted the Mickey Sherman Law and allows cameras in the courtroom, the proceedings had to wait. Why? The media wasn’t ready. Put over to 2:00 PM, when the cameras would be ready to roll.
For anyone who goes to the stadium for a professional football game, you know that there’s a little secret that the fans at home may not be aware of. Sure, the teams play the clock game, saving or using their time-outs strategically. But there’s a time out that’s never talked about by the commentators: The TV Time Out.
You see, the networks make money from commercials, and football commercials sell for some of the biggest bucks around. So if there are no breaks in the game, there’s no time for commercials. And really, aren’t commercials what football is all about? So when ten minutes goes by without a natural break in the game, the refs wave their arms, the teams gather on the sidelines, the fans sit there and the network cuts to a commercial. The game just stops.
Welcome to the TV-driven courtroom. It’s no longer about the judge, or the prosecutor, or even the defendant. Forget about rights (remember, that defendant has to sit in a cell for few hours more while the media finishes its morning coffee and starts to filter in). Forget about procedure. It’s showtime.
Let’s take this down the road apiece. Killer question on cross, witness breaks down in tears and screams, “yes, I lied.” Director says, “Cut, we didn’t get that shot. Let’s do it again.” Too far-fetched? What about cross building to a crescendo, hammering away at the witness on the stand, when suddenly the Judge says, “Okay, let’s take a 2 minutes recess for a commercial break.”
I’m no fan of cameras in the courtroom. But this goes well beyond cameras. In a high-profile murder case I did a few years back, my arraignment (like Norm’s bail hearing) was changed from 9:30 a.m., when court typically starts, to 2:00 p.m. to accommodate the media. This is just wrong. It’s one thing for the media to cover the case, but to have any say in the proceedings is crazy.
In my case, the producer of Law & Order sat on the bench with the judge during the trial. I kid you not. If you think this can’t get out of control in our media-crazed society, never underestimate the allure of those 15 minutes of fame. The only saving grace is that trials are, for the most part, tedious and boring to watch. But then, that’s what editing is for.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now, I am a fan of cameras in the courtroom, in the same sense that the courtroom is (generally) open to anyone who wants to attend.
But I agree that the media should be treated just as uninvolved spectators.
Cameras in the courtroom are NEVER uninvolved spectators. No one ever ignores the cameras, and they invariably influence the proceedings. If you would like to learn more about the subject, read this :
Ah, yes, human nature again ruins what should be perfect justice.
Of course, you realize that the media will still report on cases, and the lawyers will still be affected by it.
Gregory, to you this is an academic discussion. Why yes, I very much realize what the media will do, because I’m the lawyer in the courtroom, on TV, in the newspaper, etc. This is not academic for me or other criminal defense lawyers. This is what we live with every day.
When students spend time posting their thoughts on blawgs with practicing lawyers, they need to understand that we don’t live in classrooms or write about imaginary things from afar. This is our world. So yes, Gregory, I do realize.
Sorry, that was flip. Of course you know it will happen anyway.
But, given that lawyers will consider the media effect anyway, is does the marginal benefit of excluding cameras from the courtroom exceed the marginal costs?
Clearly, if judges will inevitably rearrange court schedules for the convenience of the media, it does not. But even in this situation, it’s not that simple. If the judge moved the hearing to coincide with the schedule of a favored reporter, cameras notwithstanding, that would be just as much of a problem. For that matter, it would be just as much of a problem if the judge moved the hearing to punish a defendant whom he didn’t like, for whatever reason. So the solution may be to limit judges’ discretion on these matters.
There is a cognizable argument that cameras, in general, make people more careful to act correctly. Further, a ban on cameras will almost certainly end up as a ban on ALL cameras, cutting out the balanced and educational as well as the sensationalist.
There is no marginal benefit whatsoever from cameras in the courtroom. People are not “more careful to act correctly,” rather the judge is constrained not to make an unpopular decision, the lawyers play to the cameras, witnesses refuse to testify. Cameras serve one purpose only, to provide content to media to sell their product and get advertising/commercial revenue. I repeat, no benefit whatseover.
Nor is there anything educational about it. No one ever shows a trial start to finish, and no one ever watches a trial start to finish, on TV. This is a game played by television producers, legislators and other aggradizing fellows to rationalize their quest for salacious content. They like trials as sport, and couldn’t care less how it impacts and undermines the legal process and rights of the accused.
And you’re forgiven your flippiosity.