-
A Heartbeat Away
October 10, 2012 | 15 comments
-
A Facebook Marriage
May 22, 2012 | 32 comments
-
Money Badly Spent
February 15, 2011 | 17 comments
-
Blagojevich and Scalia
August 18, 2010 | 35 comments
-
His Swallowed Pride
June 24, 2010 | 63 comments
A Further Perspective
Cameras in the Courtroom
Trials and soap operas are two very different things. It’s time to learn the difference.
I have never had much of an opinion about cameras in the courtroom. On the one hand, I often wish I could see court proceedings without having to waste a day sitting in the courtroom — especially Supreme Court arguments, which are practically impossible to get into.
But, on the other hand, the Casey Anthony case has made me realize the destructive nature of cameras in the courtroom. For months, Americans sat staring at their TV screens catching snippets of the Anthony trial. They saw only the best highlights from the arguments, the most compelling of the witness testimonies and a host of evidence (only some of which was ever admitted in court and presented to the jury). Then Americans sat in their living rooms, pieced together everything they saw, and convicted Casey Anthony in the court of public opinion.
And maybe she should have been convicted. I don’t know. After all, I’ve only seen the trial from news clips, too.
But twelve people sat in that courtroom for weeks and listened to every argument and heard every bit of testimony and saw only the admissible evidence. They sat and listened. Then they convened and discussed what they saw, and all of them agreed — unanimously — that they could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It’s pretty hard to get twelve people to agree on anything, but in this case they were all certain. They did not have enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony, even of manslaughter.
Now Americans are outraged at the jurors, as if from these news clips — and the news commentary that inevitably goes with it — they somehow know more about the case than any of the twelve who sat through the whole trial. The news media makes money by selling a story, captivating an audience, and triggering their emotions. A trial decides a person’s fate and, in this case, their life.
Now we’re all concerned that Casey Anthony, who very well may actually be guilty, will make money off the case. And it is almost universally agreed that she shouldn’t.
But in order to make money off of her newfound fame, someone has to spend the money. Lots of people have to spend the money. People have to buy her book or watch her interviews.
But without cameras in the courtroom, most people wouldn’t even recognize her if they passed her on the street. She would have no fame to sell.
If we had instead seen courtroom sketches instead of live video, we wouldn’t be so captivated and she wouldn’t be so famous or recognizable. It still might have been a well-known story, but it’s hard to get so engaged when you’re looking at sketches. Why were we so engrossed by the Casey Anthony trial? Live television.
There are certainly merits to having cameras in the courtroom. But it also merits some thought on who really benefits from them. If we are simply going to make celebrities out of criminals — or even out of lawyers and judges — then I’m not sure the benefits are really worth it. There may be value in live video feeds, but most of that value can be realized from written articles and courtroom sketches as well.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Russ Ferguson
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/19/cameras-in-the-courtroom
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.19.11 @ 7:14AM
There are two generations at least that do not believe anything they have not seen on a screen, and conversely believe everything they see on a screen. They believe reality teevee is real. That is what this circus was about: selling deodorant and feminine hygiene products and Viagra to people by showing them a soap opera and calling it reality.
masly | 7.20.11 @ 2:33AM
once the anger at the jury and defense attorneys subsides, try to keep these thoughts in mind. Sometimes bad people get away with doing bad things. But in the end, they really don't. It may just be that you don't get to see the lynching that accompanies it.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Judge| 7.21.11 @ 2:15AM
Casey Anthony is a lying, child-murdering whore and no jury or commentator can change that.
Cindy Anthony is perjurer who lied to protect the murderer of her grand-daughter.
Jose Baez is a lying shyster who is an accessory to murder.
Tina B| 7.19.11 @ 7:26AM
I don't know. Many a school teacher on summer vacation watched the trial or DVRed it for later consumption. Many of us, of course, knew even more than the sequestered jury did, by way of investigators working for the media, or online. We saw and heard things after court was over every day, which the jury did not.
We had the sense to put two and two together and not make three. I listened to the jury formen, face hidden in an interview the other night. Good grief, if he had said the words "gray area" one more time I think I woulda kicked over my new LCD TV.
He sounded rehearsed, of course, and he sounded lame. After 30 minutes I was sure he was a pompous young man who would probably spend the rest of his days defending his leadership over the lamest jury since the OJ trial. At least we know they were racially biased, but what is the Anthony jury's excuse.
Casey was guilty of only lying? Puh-lease.
If only drawings had been aloud, we would never have seen for ourselves that the young woman is at least guilty of child neglect for not calling the cops to find her precious child missing for 31 days. We might have believed, like the jury said they did, that Casey was only guilty of lies.
They may have been blind, but those of us who saw much of it on TV know better. We have eyes in our heads and brains to process what is reality, and what is fiction. Hello, Jose Baez, can you hear me?
Sandy| 7.19.11 @ 8:00AM
Thank you for bringing up the foreperson interview with Greta. He has been described as a good looking, very confident young man. Your description of him being a pompous young man doesn't even hit it. He sounded very arrogant and came across as though he was the one that made the decision of not guilty of anything, and convinced the rest to go along with him. When he said that George may have even been responsible for Caylee's death, it proved to me that Jose's ploy to put George on trial, right from the get go, to take the focus off the real criminal, worked all to well. Mr. Foreperson may be arrogant, confident, and a ponpous arse, but he proved that he was dumb enough to fall for a never proven story, and that makes him a dumba$$. I do give credence to the theory that some jurors may see a benefit in deciding one way or another for the money value for their interviews. The guy who hired an agent, and is prostituting himself for the highest payoff for his interview, has proven that tenfold.
I am praying that Judge Perry finds Baez in Contempt of Court. It would be some justice to see Baez in jail while his lying client walks free.
Tina B| 7.19.11 @ 7:27AM
Excuse me, that was supposed to be allowed, not aloud.
Sandy| 7.19.11 @ 7:45AM
Mr. Ferguson- Obviously you are mistaken and uninformed. The entire trial was televised, every minute of it, not just snippets or the best highlights as you claim. The viewers had an opportunity to hear things the jurors did not, including the sanctions against Jose Baez for ignoring the judges rules. They heard the same testimony from every witness and expert. They saw the same evidence presented by by both the prosecution and the defense. The viewers and the talking heads saw and heard the same thing the jurors did. It was a circumstantial case, and obviously someone/someones on the jury convinced the rest of the jurors that unless they had a video tape of the actual moment of Caylee's death, the taping and bagging of the body, and the person throwing the bag in the swamp, they had to ignore everything else presented.
If nothing else comes out of this case but the reform of jury selection, it will have been well worth it for the American people. This was a death penalty case, and the jurors were expected to be death penalty qualified. That is the law. Yet, there were at least a few who openly said they did not agree with the death penalty, and they were still selected as jurors. One of the jurors already served on 2 other criminal cases (stealth juror?). One had a husband and son that were arrested and jailed for drug charges. Juror number 3, by accounts from someone sitting in at the jury selection process, was said to really really want to be a juror on that trial. Every one of those jurors knew what case they would be sitting on, and knew it would be the most high profile case since OJ. The chance to profit from interviews, books, movies was a great incentive to serve on that jury.
Over the years, defense attorneys, and prosecutors alike have studied the research on jury selection, and know exactly what kind of juror they want sitting on that jury. The defense wants people who are not highly intelligent, easily persuadable, and sympathetic types of people. The prosecution wants people who are able to apply reason and logic. It is no longer a jury of your peers, it is a jury specifically chosen by the lawyers.
Some how, some way, the process must change. On the initial vote for manslaughter, 6 were in favor, and 6 were not. Someone in that deliberation room successfully changed the minds of the other six to get a not guilty of anything verdict. The few that have spoken, including juror number 3, who went public the next day, incited even more people when she claimed that she did not think the defendant was innocent. She was one of the original 6 who were in favor of manslaughter, which would not have included the death penalty. She said that in the end, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey of anything. What???
Listening to the jury foreperson, juror number 11, who literally indicated that George could have been the murderer, proves that a defense lawyer can get up in opening statements, say anything, even knowing they have no chance of proving what they are saying, but effectively taint the minds of the jury. There was no more proof that Cayless drowned other than a picture of her opening the door, and a year old picture of her walking up the ladder to the pool with her grandmother, which was even less proof of a drowning, than the prosecution evidence of an overdrugged Caylee so her mother could party all night long. There is definitely something very sinister about the way the foreman bought every word Jose Baez said, even though he never proved the drowning or that George ever molested Casey. He threw some hard evidence in the trash, and bought a sob story from the defense.
I hope and pray, for the future of our criminal defense system, that Judge Perry does in fact follow through on his threat to hold Jose in Contempt of Court, which he said he would consider at the end of the trial. If he doesn't, there will be no stopping criminal defense lawyers from tainting every jury in order to allow criminals, and murderers to walk free. The entire system has become a sham and a travesty of our legal system, which will now favor criminals over the victims. Casey was not the victim, Caylee was.
Dave| 7.19.11 @ 9:12AM
Very well-said, Sandy. Thank you.
MATT M.| 7.19.11 @ 9:46AM
So she is not guilty of the serious charges and has served her time. Get over it and move on to your real Soap Operas. Let her make some money.
By the way it is Foreman, not Foreperson. When I served as Foreman of our County Grand Jury I insisted that I be addressed as Foreman not Foreperson.
froglegs| 7.19.11 @ 9:57AM
Actually, foreperson is incorrect and should be foreperdaughter in this instance.
Steve A| 7.19.11 @ 10:16AM
Matt, good thing I was not on the jury with you. I would have called you whatever I wanted & you would have had to go cry about it to someone.
KyMouse| 7.19.11 @ 10:37AM
I always thought it should be "Foreman" and "Madam Foreman." (Or should that be "Madame Foreman"?)
There are cases just as dramatic as Casey Anthony's going on all over the country, including crimes against children, yet this one was chosen for wall-to-wall coverage. Why this one? Because networks saw its potential entertainment value?
PolishKnight| 7.19.11 @ 10:48AM
I didn't like the jurors' thinking: They said that the defense's incest abuse claim was invalid and then only considered the poor circumstantial evidence and had to acquit.
I view bad defense theories AS evidence. If someone is arrested near a bank after a robbery and says they were walking their pet alligator, and there is no pet alligator, that lie is evidence to me that they have something to hide. She may not have testified, but she allowed her lawyer to make this argument. This argument proves that she was involved enough to make up the lie. The fact that the defense's argument is invalid means that the duct tape on the child's mouth was put there by a murderer. Therefore, she was lying about a murder that she was involved in. That's conspiracy in the least.
Next, there's the smell from her car. She denied the body was in the trunk based upon her defense's story. That is a lie.
She is clearly guilty of manslaughter in the least.
Sadly, juries are sometimes bamboozled by the law and the judge's instructions can make matters worse. "Follow the law" means they sometimes think too rigidly. They threw out the defenses' argument without penalizing them for making it in the first place. I've seen this kind of thinking before from simple minded/thinking jurors but then again, judges are often not much better.
Regarding the cameras: I think the case would have been sensational without them and if the reporting was strictly done with those cartoons and transcripts. It was a fantastic case. In the USA today, thousands of babies are murdered by their mothers every year even as family courts treats women as saints. The mountain met Muhammad.
no name| 7.19.11 @ 11:26AM
Perhaps we shouldn't vote neither... after all lots of people get worked up over politics, the time wasted argueing over who would be best for the job should be left to a few well instructed to pick the best for the job. I belive the legal field has about reached its max potential, only the most knowing harvurd law professors would understand. when it takes that long to read what should be simple instructions to a jury, that only a harvurd professer could understand and other professers would argue with those instructions and then inform the jury they had to read them again in the jury room.......GIVE ME A BREAK!!! With two holidays falling within the trial, the jurors most likely found her not guilty by reason of wanting to get out of there, with action of doing the lest harm. When defense can make up plain lies about how the crime "actually" happened can challenge every bit of evidence with paid experts do anything and everything to drag out, extend and prolong the trial. The right to a fair and speedy trial does not extend to the one on trial only. The right to a speedy trial should and does extend to the public as well, This is to ensure justice is carried out. Not in this case though, the guilty walked. The public and citizens of this country were wronged, as was Caylee Marie Anthony. This little miscarriage of justice has opened many eyes.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 7.19.11 @ 11:36AM
Please, OH Please, take away my freedom so someone, somewhere doesn't have an uninformed opinion on a matter no one cares about or will remember a month from now!
ALL trials (including Supreme Court hearings) must be televised so we can watch the weasels at work. Only the cleansing light of day can keep the corruption away.
Remember, Judges are lawyers, politicians are (mostly) lawyers and lawyers are lawyers. The system is rigged and YOU lose!
JLK| 7.19.11 @ 12:15PM
It looks like society is putting Casey on house arrest,going right over the heads of the 12 know nothings.
J.C.Eaton| 7.19.11 @ 1:49PM
I presided over thousands of cases and the only ones the media wanted to televise or record portions of were the ones which would pique the curiosity of the fevered viewer. I don't care what amuses viewers, I care what TV does to the participants of the trial process. It cannot help but influence the lawyers, inasmuch as good trial lawyers have a lively portion of actor built into them. It gives added incentive to make their schtick that much more florid. It affects the jurors...either because it fuels their fears or other instincts, or it runs the real risk of diluting their concentration. A couple posters have opined that the players in trials are scurrying vermin who need to be exposed for the pests that they are. They are mostly wrong....truly great lawyers have as much or more respect for the trial process as these heated commentators and take their oaths in deadly earnest. My ineluctable conclusion after watching the various media forms try to televise proceedings for nearly a quarter-century is that they are mostly hard-working stiffs trying to get some fodder for their nightly programming. Not much more. Oh sure they habitually argue right to know and First Amendment as if they were talking about Moses' tablets, but basically, it's nothing more than competitive TV. This has turned into a rant but there is good reason to prevent television infiltration. It doesn't help the search for the truth...it may debiliitate it.
Tired Taxpayer PRM| 7.19.11 @ 3:41PM
When the accused is hit with many charges and over charges so the state can get him to plead to a lesser charge in order to keep conviction rates up (see everyone charged with a crime in the last 20+ years),
When the state refuses to reopen the case, even when it is proven that the prosecutors lied or withheld evidence (see Dr. Stephen Hayne in Mississippi),
When the police interrogate suspects for hours upon end until they confess just to make it stop,
When people and businesses are forced into bankruptcy just to fight a frivolous lawsuit,
When lawyers lie (and lie and lie and lie) (see silicone breast implants, Edwards’ channeling of dead babies, and the health lawsuit lottery),
When lawyers file class action lawsuits just to enrich themselves (see almost every class action lawsuit ever filed),
I am then forced to conclude that, on the whole, the criminal justice system in America is criminal and has nothing to do with justice. There are no truly great lawyers except in their own minds. They gamed the system for their own profit and now want us to thank them for it.
When Craig Watkins became the first elected African-American district attorney in Texas history in 2006 he established a Conviction Integrity Unit to find cases of wrongful conviction. Because of this, Dallas County has the highest exoneration rate in the country. Are prosecutors all across the country following his lead? NO!
I will stick with weasel until things change for the better.
Occam's Tool| 7.19.11 @ 7:12PM
"Another triumph of American Justice!"
Brought to you by Vermin T Maggot, Attorney at Law.
David| 7.19.11 @ 1:50PM
If a person takes a nap when the sun is shining and wakes 2 hours later and everything outside is wet, he can REASONABLY conclude that it rained while he was sleeping. He does not have to see it, does not have to explain in terms of physics or science why or how it rained. The person simply KNOWS that it rained.
Likewise, the prosecution did not have to PROVE HOW Caylee Anthony died. Everyone KNOWS that she is dead; that Casey was the last one seen with her; that Casey never would have reported her missing; that Casey LIED about her whereabouts for 30 days; and that the child was found with 3 strips of duct tape around her mouth and nose.
Call me ignorant, but what the flip does the jury think happened to that child? People are in jail for murder in cases in which there was no body. All the jury has to understand is that Casey had both the means and the opportunity to kill Caylee. They did not have to know HOW the child died. People watch too many CSI type shows where all sorts of OBJECTIVE evidence is used.
People are convicted of murder every day on CIRSUMSTANTIAL evidence. Common sense should rule, and it is clear this jury had NONE.
Occam's Tool| 7.19.11 @ 7:13PM
How come she didn't get slammed with severe neglect?
Riff Raff| 7.19.11 @ 2:11PM
Hey, the jury has rendered a verdict. It's over. They did their job. I just want to know if Miss Anthony is available!
Occam's Tool| 7.19.11 @ 7:14PM
It's Astounding...Time is Fleeting...Madness takes its Toll....
Thank you, Riff Raff.
David| 7.19.11 @ 2:15PM
Another thing the moronic jury failed to even consider: How would an innocent person act; and how would a guilty person act?
Again, it's simply common sense.
Occam's Tool| 7.19.11 @ 7:25PM
david,
when does common sense have anything to do with law? For your reading delight...
1n 1995, a man attempted to sue the City Of San Diego and Jack Murphy stadium 5.4 million dollars because the only bathrooms available were unisex and he didn't wish to urinate in front of women.
Al Adab| 7.19.11 @ 3:50PM
The American populace con no longer distinguish between reality and entertainment. Witness the rise of "reality TV". Every show is staged. How real can it be with a camera crew, lighting techs and sound people all around, yet the public (sadly many voters) eat it up. When Court is used to gain an audience and to entertain the masses are we not all too close to bread and circuses?
Big J| 7.19.11 @ 7:28PM
I would be stretching the truth if I said that I thought the jury in this case was wrong. I sincerely believe that Casey (and possibly George and Cindy as well) had something to do with the death of Calee, and all or some helped to cover it up. Whether it was intentional or accidental, who lied and about what remains a mystery to me. All the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change that.
The cold hard truth is that she has had her day in court - she has been tried and judged by a jury of her peers - and she is free. I don't think they made the right decision, but I don't live in Florida, and I was not selected for the case in question.
I'll tell you what I do believe: Casey, George and Cindy (as well as the brother, whatever his name is) are held to a standard that our criminal and civil courts cannot impose. These folks have to wake up every morning, look in the mirror and try to justify what they have done, if anything. Worse than that, I believe that God reserves special punishment for those that harm the innocent, especially children. This includes mommies that don't wait until their kids are 2 to murder them (as an aside: Casey would be hailed as a hero if she would have taken care of her - ahem - problem just 2 1/2 years earlier. Just exercising her "choice", don't ya know).
So, once the anger at the jury and defense attorneys subsides, try to keep these thoughts in mind. Sometimes bad people get away with doing bad things. But in the end, they really don't. It may just be that you don't get to see the lynching that accompanies it.
And for you moms out there that are especially angry (as is mine): it might be helpful to remember all of the untold (and uncovered by the media) thousands of children that are left in dumpsters by their mothers because mommie's on crack, poor, already has 7 kids, etc. As sad as it is to admit, the Casey Anthony case was not all that uncommon. It was just sensationalized.
POST American| 7.19.11 @ 10:56PM
----'90's Show' demoralization and DIS-traction
ALERT!----
Meanwhile, the Globalization-RED China TREASON agenda and the American eco takedown op chug on ----UNMENTIONED.
You have been warned.
eileen| 7.20.11 @ 10:11PM
Obviously, Russ, you didn't get the *full* background on this case before writing your piece.
Agree with those who said Jose Baez's opening statement was convincing to these jurors ... imo, they were extremely lazy as this case was rife with evidence they did not want to take the time to *see*.
weddingdresses | 7.21.11 @ 6:02AM
Meanwhile, the Globalization-RED China TREASON agenda and the American eco takedown op chug on ----UNMENTIONED.
Michaela45 | 5.3.12 @ 6:45PM
I disagree with the conclusion of this article. There are many aspects of trial that can't be captured with simple audio transcripts or sketches. For example, consider a law student who wants to learn more about litigation techniques, in that situation video recordings would be immensely helpful. But media cameras do tend to be distraction for a trial in some cases. See also: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/.....courtroom/