Looking at the effects of both allowing and barring television coverage of legal proceedings, Cohn (the Thomas Jefferson School of Law) and Dow, a retired CBS News correspondent, examine landmark televised trials, including those of O. J. Simpson and William Kennedy Smith, and analyze the impact of CourtTV and the history of cameras in American courtrooms. Interviews with judges, attorneys, jurors, and legal scholars shed light on the subject. This paperback reprint features a new preface by the authors, on the effect of excluding television cameras from the trial of a September 11th terrorist. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
This book is the first comprehensive analysis of the free press-fair trial debate over news cameras in the courtroom--one that discusses the issue from a historical, legal, and social scientific perspective. It incorporates the key aspects of the debate in one volume, examining witness privacy and protection, defendant reputation, the purported educational benefits of televising trials, the coverage of trials from an entertainment or voyeurisitic perspective, and whether any proposed benefits of televising trials are negated by potential negative costs to the participants involved or the audience in general.
In the last quarter century, televised court proceedings have gone from an outlandish idea to a seemingly inevitable reality. Yet,debate continues to rage over the dangers and benefits to the justice system of cameras in the courtroom. Critics contend television transforms the temple of justice into crass theatre. Supporters maintain that silent cameras portray "the real thing," that without them judicial reality is inevitably filtered through the mind and pens of a finite pool of reporters. Television in a courtroom is clearly a two-edged sword, both invasive and informative. Bringing a trial to the widest possible audience creates pressures and temptations for all participants. While it reduces speculations and fears about what transpired, television sometimes forces the general public, which possesses information the jury may not have, into a conflicting assessment of specific cases and the justice system in general. TV or Not TV argues convincingly that society gains much more than it loses when trials are open to public scrutiny and discussion.
This updated edition of The Illustrated Courtroom came to be because the world of court art has evolved so dramatically since our book's first edition. Trial art is now a fixture both in the 24/7 news cycle and in the fast-moving online world. And numerous epic news stories that broke in the past few years proved hard to ignore. We welcomed the opportunity to include some notable examples. The #MeToo social movement exploded internationally in 2017, signaling massive support for victims of sexual assault. Uber-powerful Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein's precipitous fall was at its heart, following decades of rumors of his sexually predatory behavior. In February 2020, I drew Weinstein being found guilty of rape and criminal sexual acts then sentenced to 23 years in prison. Artist Aggie Kenny's work is also featured in this book. She and I covered multimillionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein's July 2019 arraignment on sex trafficking charges in New York. Epstein was first convicted as a sex offender back in 2008 but unlike in 2008, in 2019, he faced major prison time. However, on August 10, before he could stand trial, he was found dead in his cell. The story and theories on how Epstein died gripped the nation. We court artists have always needed nerves of steel plus an aptitude for speed and precision, but now, with the Internet's meme culture, our work is ever more closely scrutinized. Any perceived failure to produce a good likeness of a famous face triggers a flood of criticism. In 2015, an artist's rendition of New England Patriots' football star Tom Brady at the #Deflategate proceedings-which followed allegations that Brady's team had cheated by using under-inflated balls-was pilloried as unflattering and unrecognizable. The illustration swiftly went viral. Its artist was heavily criticized as parodies and memes erupted, ridiculing her artwork. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the courts has been significant. Courtroom artists faced a whole new challenge, people's faces behind masks, behind barriers or on video. Limited seating in courtrooms due to social distancing. At the Britney Spears conservatorship, hearing some lawyers made their arguments via video, while others were in court wearing masks. Artists drew the R.Kelly sex trafficking trial from a blurry video feed piped into an overflow courtroom. These episodes alone are proof positive that we courtroom artists now inhabit a whole new world
Combining the practical knowledge of a renowned director with the perspective of a historian and media specialist, Christian Delage explores the conditions and consequences of using film for the purposes of justice and memory by examining archival footage from war crime trials from Nuremberg to the present.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
While reading what top legal reporters say about some of the most important U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in recent history, go to this website to listen to audio and hear for yourself the very style and delivery of the oral arguments that have shaped the history of our nation's highest law. See Preface for full instructions. Contributors Charles Bierbauer, CNN Lyle Denniston, scotusblog.com Fred Graham, Court TV Brent Kendall, Los Angeles Daily Journal Steve Lash, Houston Chronicle Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com Tony Mauro, American Lawyer Media Tim O'Brien, ABC News David Savage, Los Angeles Times Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News Nina Totenberg, NPR Timothy R. Johnson teaches in the Department of Political Science and the Law School at the University of Minnesota. Jerry Goldman teaches political science at Northwestern University and directs the OYEZ Project, a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court, at www.oyez.org. Cover sketch by Dana Verkouteren "Supreme Court oral arguments are good government in action. A Good Quarrel brilliantly showcases this important aspect of the Court's work." ---Paul Clement, Partner, King & Spalding, and former United States Solicitor General "Few legal experiences are as exhilarating as a Supreme Court oral argument---a unique art form that this superb collection brings vividly to life." ---Kathleen Sullivan, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, and former Dean, Stanford Law School "[A Good Quarrel] shines a brilliant spotlight on the pivotal moment of advocacy when the Supreme Court confronts the nation's most profound legal questions." ---Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner, Akin Gump, and Lecturer, Supreme Court Litigation, Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School "A brilliant way to understand America's most important mysterious institution." ---Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School
This book explores some of the most glaring misunderstandings about the U.S. Supreme Court—and makes a strong case for why our Supreme Court Justices should not be entrusted with decisions that affect every American citizen. Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is Not a Court and its Justices are Not Judges presents a detailed discussion of the Court's most important and controversial constitutional cases that demonstrates why it doesn't justify being labeled "a court of law." Eric Segall, professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law for two decades, explains why this third branch of the national government is an institution that makes important judgments about fundamental questions based on the Justices' ideological preferences, not the law. A complete understanding of the true nature of the Court's decision-making process is necessary, he argues, before an intelligent debate over who should serve on the Court—and how they should resolve cases—can be held. Addressing front-page areas of constitutional law such as health care, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and freedom of religion, this book offers a frank description of how the Supreme Court truly operates, a critique of life tenure of its Justices, and a set of proposals aimed at making the Court function more transparently to further the goals of our representative democracy.
