The Performance of the Law: Time to Go to Clown School

In recent years the media establishment that we currently live under, also known as the 24-hour news cycle, has struggled to find issues to keep viewers entertained. Knowing that there was not enough “breaking news” to keep their airwaves filled, the mainstream media went looking for a new source of news and found it in the courts of America. At first, as trials became a common element of newscasts this new access to government was applauded by many among us. As a broadcasting element it helped to educate American’s about the legal process and clear up much confusion that was caused in people’s minds by shows such as “Law and Order.” Over time, however, a disturbing trend occurred in our courts. The trials became more about those conducting them then they were about those being accused.  

The first evidence of this decline in courtroom behavior surfaced during one of the most famous trials in the last fifty years of American history. That trial was O.J. Simpson’s murder hearing.  Like the heralds of old Johnnie Cochran and his defense team in this particular case trumpeted in a new era of American justice. One in which the lawyer, Judge, and witnesses were seemingly more important than the accused. Many among us remember those famous words from this trial, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Very few though when asked can remember anything that the defendant said in this case, except for his proclamation of innocence. Almost all can remember his friend Kato Kaelin and the controversy that arose around his testimony. They can also remember Judge Lance Ito and the celebrity status that he found through hearing this case. These examples, however, are negligible when one considers what happened to our courtrooms after the media realized the ratings that they could obtain from nonstop coverage of a high profile case.

The realization of the ratings that were possible manifested itself very quickly in the form of a slew of new courtroom shows. Of these, however, the most famous in the current day would be Judge Judy. 

Described by some as a “spitfire” and others as a “hack,” Judge Judy is certainly one of the most memorable characters that have graced the televised courtrooms in our country on a daily basis. Sitting on her bench she brings her own brand of no nonsense jurisprudence to television screens. The question though is that given her short tempered nature and joke cracking demeanor towards plaintiffs and defendants, is she truly conducting herself in proper way for a Judge. I would say no for this reason. By joking about those that she sits before and cutting them off mid-sentence she is showing that the court itself does not take the proceedings seriously. This translates into mainstream America believing that this is proper behavior for a courtroom. A pattern which can be seen recently with NFL star Chad Johnson and his now infamous slap on his lawyers buttocks in the courtroom to show that he thought his council was doing a good job.

The examples given to this point can in some ways be shaken off as “unique” given that we don’t see this kind of behavior every day in our courts. However, I would say that they were just the beginning with what we have seen in recent months from the court room dramas that have unfolded on national television; mainly the trials of Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman. In the case of Arias it was not the judge or her defense lawyer that tried to gain notoriety and fame from being a part of the case. It was in fact the prosecution who in this case was called by some a “showboating attorney.” His most noticeable transgression against what many call proper behavior occurred when he started signing autographs outside of the courthouse. An act which defense council in the case thought was grounds for a mistrial, although the Judge did not. This kind of behavior was not limited to this case as we can look to the current trial of George Zimmerman.

In the opening statements of the Zimmerman trial both the prosecutor and defense made very questionable remarks. The prosecution in the case during their opening statements used a “shock and awe” approach. Repeatedly swearing and using racial slurs in an attempt to get a reaction out of the jury. Although a point can be made that he was not doing this for the benefit of the jury but more for the benefit of the T.V. audience at home in an attempt to give a better show. Defense council in this case opened with a knock knock joke. Almost showing that he did not understand it was a murder trial and not a comedy night club he was speaking at.

While I do not support a return to powdered wigs for all in involved in the legal process I do cringe a bit every time that I see a new lawyer come onto television and try to make their mark. At first, cameras in the courtroom were and should have been celebrated among the citizens of America. It was a level of access that we had never been able to achieve in regards to the legal process. However, as my Grandma used to say “our chickens have come home to roost.” In a society that is so media driven, should we not have known from the start that lawyers would stop performing for their clients and start performing for the camera? Is this where we want the American Judicial system to go in the future? Let me know what you think about this issue in the comments below.