At Criminal Defense, Brian Tannebaum wrote about the complicity of lawyers, our quivering silence in the face of an opportunity to educate others, if not our direct contribution to making people dumber for our having opened our mouth, about trials that capture the public interest.
But if ordinary trench lawyers have failed to fulfill this duty, or even contributed to the publics’ worse understanding, we’re nothing compared to HLN’s Nancy Grace. If we deserve a slap, what punishment is possibly harsh enough for a woman who has single-handedly made every person worse for having heard her shrill, nasty, ignorant voice?
From the AP :
“I feel like I owe the nation community service for having hired her and put her on television,” said Steve Brill, founder of the now-defunct Court TV. “She’s a monster.”Facile of Brill, now that there’s no Court TV to embarrass him further. But he knew, everyone knew, that she was playing to the lowest common denominator from day one. And as long as she brought in eyeballs, those who similarly had the depth of a puddle and the grasp of a worm, who cheered at such brilliant legal analysis as, “when there’s smoke, there’s fire,” Brill couldn’t care less. No, Steve, community service will not suffice.
Grace’s audience of nearly 3 million people that night was also a personal high. She brings the same in-your-face opinionated approach to legal news that several Fox News Channel and MSNBC personalities bring to politics, and viewers strongly endorsed it. Yet her assertion that the Anthony jury was “kooky” and post-verdict statement that “the devil is dancing tonight” seemed over the top even by Grace standards, offering fresh material for both those who cheer her advocacy and others who find her overbearing.
The characterization is wrong, completely off-target. That Grace pretends to be knowledgeable, referring to her ten years as a prosecutor (ending long ago when her improprieties came to the fore) and her hyperbolic claims of being the toughest one in America, too meaningless to call out with lawyer-like specificity, does not make her either a legal advocate or overbearing.
Nancy Grace spews stupidity. It oozes from her mouth, her eyes, her sneer. She feeds the deepest anger and hatred of people who aspire to pass third grade history by making the sort of vapid arguments that appeal to those for whom thinking is akin to death.
ABC’s Terry Moran on “Nightline” asked Grace if some of what she does could be perceived as unethical.
“The day that it is unethical to care about the murder of a 2-year-old little girl who ends up duct-taped and thrown into a swamp is the day that I, too, will retire and rue the justice system,” she said.
And yet ABC put her on air every morning during the Casey Anthony trial as their legal analyst. Her counterpoint was Danny Abrams, a post for which he was both ill-suited by his own beliefs, lack of experience and lack of fortitude to face the Tasmanian Devil. Danny wants to be the voice of reason, to the extent he reflects reason, in juxtaposition to Grace’s raging insanity. It didn’t work.
There is no hope, none, that the powers that control the airwaves will, in a pang of conscience, pull this woman off the air.
HLN, the former CNN Headline News, struck gold by following Grace’s interest in the Anthony case and giving full coverage to the trial. Years ago that would have been a niche for Court TV, but that network was converted to TruTV and largely shows flashy nonfiction programming.
HLN isn’t letting go until every ounce of interest is squeezed from the case. Its executives largely scrapped the network’s weekend schedule to run nearly wall-to-wall Anthony material, much of it hosted by Grace.
HLN’s chief, Scot Safon, has no duty to educate the public. The ethical obligations of lawyers don’t apply to a television network’s duty to raise viewership and increase commercial revenue. The crazier the noise, the more eyeballs it attracts. And the happier HLN is with its wailing shrew. So what if she makes no sense at all, reflects nothing remotely resembling legal analysis and is just plain wrong.
But Nancy Grace’s refusal to adhere to the obligations of a lawyer is unethical. She may not be stoppable on TV, where the demand for eyeballs consumes any interest in accuracy or ethics, but how is it that she still holds her ticket from Georgia? How is it that the rules that apply to lawyers have no hold on Grace’s tongue?
What if Nancy Grace was constrained to air her views as a disbarred lawyer? Would the big networks still give her the platform to spew on national television? Would those for whom knee-jerk, ignorant emotionalism remain as enthralled with their heroine who bolsters their moral authority to believe whatever they want, reason be damned?
Certainly, ABC’s producers can make the decision to put Nancy Grace on Good Morning America in place of a credible voice, regardless of whether she remains a lawyer, and let her be shown as an utter fool blowing kisses to Mike Nifong while condemning the innocent lacrosse players. Television is under no obligation to concern itself with truth and accuracy.
One of the jurors in the Anthony case, Elizabeth Ford, told ABC News that the 51-year-old Grace was not fit for television.
Yet no one at ABC cared. And there’s no indication that they ever will.
But we are lawyers. Even in Georgia, we are lawyers. We need not continue to put our imprimatur of legitimacy on this woman who, more so than any other of recent vintage, has made America more ignorant about the law. Or is the Georgia bar so enthralled with her drawl that they would never pull the ticket from their favorite daughter, exempt from the ethical obligations that apply to the rest of us?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Were Georgia to pull her ticket, she’d flog that as evidence that the corrupt legal system (you know, the one intent on freeing the guilty so they can prey on the rest of us) so fears her that they want to shut her down.
Disbarred, Nancy Grace might draw even higher ratings.
Sigh.
I revile Nancy Grace. Her legal commentary is interesting to me from a couple of perspectives: why does any purportedly creditable media outfit employ her?; and, why does she have audience? I think I know the answer to both of these questions although I haven’t plumbed the depths. Nancy Grace is not measurably different than Jerry Springer or any of the other televised car wrecks, including Judge Judy. Her program sells stuff.
But what ABA model rule of professional responsibility would you contend she contravenes? Bearing in mind our tradition and constitutionally protected right to a Free of Press (and speech) what disciplinary action is appropriate.
As angry as I feel when I see or hear Nancy Grace, nothing works better than the “power” off button on the remote.
BL
I want to know how people can actually enjoy watching her. Most political commentary is a bunch of yelling, frothy-mouthed idiocy, but Nancy Grace is just on a whole other level.
It’s not even the content of what she says. Her tone of voice is unbearable. The only way I can imagine anyone being able to watch her for more than 30 seconds without cringing is that their own internal monologue is just as bitchy (sorry, there’s no other word for it). Use Nancy Grace as a litmus test for who to avoid.
I’ve no doubt you’re right, that it would be the start of a new crusade by that nasty, ignorant woman. Of course, if only the media would air someone else, someone who was both bold enough to shut down the ignorance and be given the opportunity to say why her noise is nothing more than pandering to ignorance. If only…
She can spew all she wants, but she has no right to wear the mantle of a lawyer while doing so. This isn’t about free speech or free press, but about wrapping oneself in legitimacy while exercising it.
Grace appeals to those who can’t be bothered to think, and validates their anger and ignorance by having a very important lawyer who says they’re right.
Yes, but what disciplinary rule does she violate? The prohibition against being a hate spewing demagogue? See the problem?
I get how the whole punditsphere echochamber works.
What I don’t understand is how they can tolerate her voice. She could be reading beautiful poetry, and it would still sound like nails down a chalkboard.
I don’t think it’s so much she’s echoing back their thoughts on the cases. It has to be that she’s echoing the insane voice that screeches inside their heads.
The duty to educate as opposed to misinform. The duty of honesty, as opposed to deception.
I find her physically repulsive too.
I speak from a non-lawyer perspective. I do think as a nation we are in trouble when daytime TV is filled with the screaming, insanity and drama of the people who are in the most pain and ignorance in our society. If I was from another country I would be shocked at what the great Americans are calling entertainment. More like the ugly Americans we read about so many years ago.
That said, the only thing I know about the Anthony trial is that the truth is not known by us. The person(s) who do know the truth will never come forward. So what has happened is that Nancy Grace (who is anything but grace – she even makes a mockery of that)has poisoned many potential jurors for years to come with bias and a perception of guilty no matter what the evidence does or does not say.
As a person falsely accused and wrongly convicted, it is sad enough we have to deal with corruption in the legal system but don’t we hope a jury will at least bring to the table a possibility of clear unbiased thought. So long as this country (the media) endorses and feeds into people’s anger, hates and resentments…it will continue to grow all the wrong attributes and will reinforce a justice system that quite often is about who performs the most compelling drama. A very sad commentary on our society and those in position to approach this differently.
Excellent post. Not surprising. I enjoy everything you write, all your ideas, even if I disagree at times. But this Nancy Grace thing is an atrocity.
The public who likes her and believes her are the very reasons she needs to be off the air. They are without knowledge of the legal system and wrongly believe she educates them. Instead, she distorts the worst of it.
Broadcast media who do not counter her with a respected, highly qualified attorney are complicit in her tactics of undermining public confidence.
Clearly Grace has an audience – and yet you reject my claim that most people are as dumb as a sack of rocks.
But before complaining about her, how about Gloria Allred who held up an empty garbage bag while screaming that Scott Peterson was “a piece of garbage”? Or repeating that Scott Peterson is an “A-hole” on the air no less than 15 times within one week? Or creating fake outrage about a boat the defense used to test one of the ridiculous theories of the prosecution on the specious grounds that the jury ‘might’ see it if they happened to drive by – whereas having the public walk up to un-sequestered jury members throughout the 5 month trial and saying “fry him” or otherwise indicating how they should vote is quite fair? How did Allred fulfill her obligation as an officer of the court to ensure a fair trial before an unbiased jury? Can you quote one thing?
And now we have the Casey Anthony trial where the evidence goes strongly to innocence – or at worst construction is equivocal as to guilt. And yet so many who claim knowledge of the law are trying to take the title of “Dumbest Blonde on TV” (a title which surely goes to Gretchen Carlson, IMO the Susan Lucci of stupid).
Where is competent analysis of the case? Are the lawyers smart enough to properly analyze the case too smart to get near a TV camera? The only examples of your profession who will appear do nothing to raise the stature of the law.
Disagree at times? I’m unfamiliar with these words…
I never rejected your claim that most people are as dumb as a sack of rocks. I reject your self-attribution of sanity.
I watched Grace on O’Reilly last night in their joint attempt to defend her against criticism from the MSM. O’Reilly’s been as out there as Nancy on this. He even unsuccessfully attempted to push Jeff Ashton further down the pro-prosecution path than even he was willing to walk.
O’Reilly kep (and keeps) insisting that because there was supposedly no defense evidence re accident, it was improperly speculative and stupid for jurors to conclude there was one. Ashton replied there’s a thin line between their failing to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt and accident. This went completely over O’Reilly’s cerebrus interruptus.
I kept screaming at the TV the following calculus: Lack of PBRD for murder, minus death by natural causes, minus suicide, equals accident. How hard is this to understand? Besides, the original medical examiner for the state said manner of death was indeterminate, could have been an accident, and so did defense expert Spitz.
Idiot O’Reilly, unfortunately, reaches a more mainstream conservative audience than Grace, and I later saw his comments echoed on a heavily read conservative political website I regularly visit where my pro bono Quixotic mission is to educate non-libertarian conservatives about criminal justice issues.
The day after the Ashton session, Laura Ingraham was on and agreed with the verdict. O’Reilly went on and on about how Laura, a former “white collar” defense attorney and J. Thomas clerk, was wrong, he knows better than any attorney. I recommend wathcing the clip just to see Laura’s taking a deep, deep breath body language.
Finally, we now have Mitch McConnell chiming in using the Anthony verdict to show why it would be catastrophic for the country to try the latest terror suspect in federal court, because, you know, those federal criminal trials are such a cake walk for defendants.
There is some hope that my initial thrill at the verdict won’t continue to backfire into a reactionary misperception that “now all you have to do is bury a body so it decomposes and you get off.” The foreman (minus name and face) was on Greta and will be again tonight. The duct tape issue was explained well for the first time. It floors me how many people think the body was found with duct tape glued against the skeletal mouth and nose. In fact, a piece was found on matted hair, and the other pieces were at least 9 feet away. This photo should have been showen in full to the public. And the 33-year old foreman reveals in more detail how the media-sanctified George was viewed with great “suspicion” by the jurors with some even thinking he may have murdered Caylee, and all concluding he lied in his testimony and knew much more than he was telling.
It amazes me how little these jurors knew about the case before being selected, how critical that was to the verdict, and why at the post-verdict news conference, head SA Lawton so lamented that pretrial publicity prevented them from using wonderful Orange County jurors.
So on her BEST NIGHT Nancy Grace draws less than 1% of the American population. I must say, I find that stat encouraging. Now remind me why the other outlets give her a podium when she is so unpopular?
Either I am crazy and everyone else is sane – or the other way around. So far the evidence supports the latter position rather conclusively.
Quote: “minus death by natural causes”
Actually there’s no good reason to assume this. Don’t forget the Cynthia Sommer case – her fit, Marine husband dropped dead and she was promptly convicted of poisoning him with arsenic (why not chloroform?) – a compliant ‘expert’ found enormous quantities of it in his body.
Oops.
She’s now suing everyone involved for $15 million although the courts are, of course, rigged against her once again. I hope she wins big.
Little children do die sometimes of unknown (or natural) causes or by accident.
Interestingly, I looked up Ms. Grace’s bar status, as well as the Georgia State Bar Association’s rules. Ms. Grace is currently listed as “inactive” — notably, the bar rules state that someone “inactive” may not “hold themselves out as an attorney,” or similarly, make or provide legal statements or advice. It seems that at minimum the bar association might have something to say to Ms. Grace about the status of her license, given her penchant both for referencing her (former) position as a prosecutor, and providing legal commentary.
I’d also suggest that her vitriolic and continuous references to Ms. Anthony as “tot mom” are strong evidence of conduct detrimental of the character and civility of the profession.
I think you’re on to something. Any Georgia lawyers around who feel this is worthy of a grievance?
Notice the little blue “reply to this” link at the bottom of each comment? It’s only visible to sane people, and it helps to make their responses to other comments comprehensible to other sane people.
I clicked on the link in the email notification. Why it chose not to thread the reply is unknown to me.
PS: “Caylee’s Law”? Because not reporting a death should be a felony while improperly disposing of human remains will still be a misdemeanor (FL)? And you wonder why I think most people are barking mad?
Oh, Diogenes. I understand you so well.
Never trust an email.
Why go so far afield? Why wasn’t Allred censured in California? Or Distaso who clearly misstated his own witnesses’ testimony in his closing (Scott Peterson)? Or Judge Fidler for using both feet to tip the scale in the Phil Spector cases? Plenty to go around.
Nancy Grace has her own show. Nancy Grace was used as a daily legal analyst by ABC. Others are transitory puffs of smoke in comparison to the permanent smog of a Nancy Grace. That’s the difference. Certainly others deserve it as well, but none do as much harm to thought as Grace.
:shrug:. ‘Dr’ Laura is a gym instructor. Nancy Grace is a putz.
Nancy Grace is a putz with sufficient legitimacy to make all ignorant feel validated.
Can we put Nancy Grace in a locked room with Judge Judy and hope they’ll beat the **** out of each other?
Since she cuts off all who don’t slavishly agree with her, appearing on her show is like discussing esoteric philosophy on Jerry Springer. Unless you can get her into a neutral arena you have no chance debating her. We can only hope she’ll fade away – or have an apoplectic fit and attack herself.
A nation with enough people who thought Sarah Palin would make a competent vice president … I’m not holding my breath on reason prevailing.
Thanks Scott. Nancy Grace was a disgrace as a prosecutor and disgusting in her lynch mob coverage of Duke lacrosse case. But she’s hit a new low. We must all hold her feet to the fire.
My Dad is an attorney in Georgia. I’ll pass it along 🙂
I despise Nancy Grace at a cellular level. Her braying accusations based on absolutely nothing during the Duke Lacrosse case, as well as her conspicuous absence when the case blew up in Nifong’s face told me all I need to ever know about her.
Add to that the Anthony trial and the OUTRAGE at a defense verdict and she becomes, unbelievably, even more intolerable. I can’t even see commercials for her show without yelling at my television, but maybe that says more about me than her.
If I were allowed only one yes-or-no question to select a criminal jury, it would be that: “Do you watch Nancy Grace?”
I watch Nancy Grace, but I don’t enjoy it.
Hmmm. I’m no lawyer but my question would be, “Why do you think the defendant is innocent?”
I keep having this picture of Grace in nursery school with a square peg, a round hole and a hammer — screaming in frustration.
The clerk will give you your work excuse on your way out.
[walks away whistling…]