As Seen on TV

Posted in Hype on Thursday January 10 2008 @ 1:44pm

Like a two-year-old too close to a cat's tail, we'll bite at f/k/a's questions:

1. Are jurors "influenced" by popular culture representations of law and lawyers?

There are few legit studies on point. Judge Shelton's is the most recent of which we're aware. Most of the evidence is anecdotal; much is pure speculation. One can see why -- it's more fun to discuss this than, say, interlocutory appeals.

Folks may emerge from voir dire thinking "Wow, that was way more boring than that Pauly Shore flick," but most people are keenly aware of the differences between tv, reality, and reality shows.

We know that being in the hospital is less hilarious than it appears on an episode of Scrubs, that one does not open wrapped presents by lifting the lid off the box, and that most Brits are nicer than Simon Cowell.

Judge Connor and I make this point in our article, Dial M for Misconduct: The Effect of Mass Media and Pop Culture on Juror Expectations. TV and movies misrepresent every profession. Real EMTs convulse when doctors on E.R. rush outside into the Chicago winter to help patients out of the ambulance. Forensic specialists titter when tv crime scene investigators neglect to wear gloves or a mask. Archaeologists marvel at Indiana Jones's seeming lack of a Marshalltown trowel. (My law-enforcer brother does, however, watch Cops!)

2. Do lawyers and judges think that jurors are being influenced by popular culture representations?

Court-o-rama's unscientific poll (methodology: we read a lot of articles) found that prosecutors are most concerned with the "CSI effect." Further research is needed to tell whether this is because they experience more jury trials (and, obviously, more criminal trials) than the average lawyer, or because they are self-conscious about never having as much evidence as Jack McCoy.

Wishful thinking may be a factor. Family court judges may want their friends and family think they are as compassionate, interested, and non-bored as Judge Amy Gray. High muckity-mucks in big firms might secretly want to be Denny Crane. (Is there a TV show about the glamour of blogging yet? Hmm, maybe after the writers' strike is over...) Face it: our tv counterparts are funnier, better-looking, and have cleaner houses.

3. How does the influence of popular culture representations change the legal system?

The two are intertwined. Trials are story-telling and spectacle. Even before tv, the public was engrossed in the notorious trials of the day, be it Fatty Arbuckle or the Scopes Monkey Trial. Clarence Darrow was as recognizable in his time as the late Johnnie Cochran is in ours.

This is good in that it's a way for the public to learn about the legal system. The last time we heard about Keifer Sutherland he was doing time for DUI, not fighting evil presidents. The public just learned more than it probably wanted to know about involuntary commitment from Britney Spears. Before her untimely death, the Widow Anna Nicole made probate sexier than a pair of Guess? jeans. These are great teaching moments.

It works both ways. Lawyers and judges (yes, you!) are couch potatoes and movie buffs, too. A judge once told me that she wished the lawyers appearing before her were as prepared and succinct as they are on tv.

Popular culture gives lawyers one more thing to over-analyze, which is fabulous. We were dorky enough to run straight to the library to find out whether the rule cited at the end of Legally Blonde really existed. (FYI, there is such a rule in Massachusetts, but it seems to give the judge more discretion than one might guess from watching the movie.)

Sometimes the marriage of law and pop culture can be as doomed as Whitney and Bobby. Things go horribly wrong due to poor reporting, armchair jurisprudence, and scenery-chewing lawyers and judges. TV coverage tries to be minute-by-minute, but we want jurors to conduct thoughtful deliberations. Commentators omit useful facts or talk down to their audience, resulting in mass misinformation. Because the court system is not as exciting as tv requires, producers take a Bedazzler to reality. The public is not well-served by these types of avoidable catastrophes.

See the long and short of lawyer films, David Giacalone, f/k/a (January 8, 2008). Thanks to Mr. Giacalone for thinking of us!

Note: we have an under-used comments section here at court-o-rama; feel free to add your thoughts!

Permalink to this post.
4 comment(s)...