Andy Thibault

     [Back to Columns & Stories]

lTelevise trials to create true people's court

By RICHARD MEEHAN With ANDY THIBAULT
Norwich Bulletin
October 22, 2006

Accountability for judges became a hot-button issue for the legislature this year after the former chief justice withheld and delayed publishing a controversial decision about access to court records.

Reformers have proposed a long list of solutions, including a pilot program allowing the broadcast of certain criminal trials. Judges and lawyers are equally torn about the idea this staid and stodgy state would permit such complete public access. In recent years, there has been an onslaught of TV dramas attempting to portray the criminal trial process. Celebrity trials such as O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson captured our attention, almost like an addiction.

"Boston Legal," "Ally McBeal," etc., have created an almost farcical view of the process. Hollywood has created an unrealistic sense of what occurs in a trial.

The furor about sealing files and allegations of backroom politics in the judiciary demonstrates the system needs revamping. What better way to put lawyers and judges on our best behavior than by allowing the public to watch what we do on TV.

I (Meehan) recently became a frequent guest commentator on several programs on Court TV. As a cable network, its potential audience has swelled to almost 90 million viewers. People not only watch, but also comment on multiple message boards. These are not shut-ins. Many comments are insightful, provoking intriguing debate.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial. When the framers of the Constitution penned that, they were concerned about the secret Star Chamber proceedings they fled in England. Colonial trials were conducted in hamlets and villages and probably often attracted many, if not most, of the residents. The framers determined only an open court system could guarantee the freedoms they envisioned this new Constitution was to create.

Our courts can't accommodate the majority of residents of a community affected by a sensational trial. The medium of television would serve the interests of the public now. Televising trials would hold lawyers and judges to a higher standard of professionalism.

The public does not know after every trial in this state the lawyers are provided a survey to grade the conduct and demeanor of the trial judge. We fill out the forms anonymously and return them to the Judicial Branch with no real certainty anyone takes them seriously. Why not let the public judge our judges, or at least have the opportunity to form an opinion whether someone belongs on the bench when it is time to consider reappointment.

See lawyers' makeup

As for lawyers, people should see what we are made of in the courtroom. When I (Meehan) started practicing with my dad 32 years ago, there was no lawyer advertising, no full color Yellow Pages ads or billboards screaming, "Hire me -- I'm the best." People chose litigator's largely by word of mouth and referral from the family lawyer. Reputations as trial lawyers were earned in the crucible of the courtroom. Now it is often a question not of ability but the size of a firm's advertising budget that places certain lawyers at the forefront.

Let people see us in action and judge for themselves. In the nearly two years I have been watching Court TV carefully, I have yet to see a trial -- civil or criminal -- in which the lawyers were preening for the cameras. Juror identities are kept from the camera and judges can control whether the face of a witness and that person's voice should be identifiable. The dignity of victims and the rights of the accused are matters requiring great deference.

Last year, this state held its first execution in more than four decades. The number of capital prosecutions is increasing. Let the public understand the magnitude of certain crimes. In particular, sentencing's should be broadcast. I brought my son's junior high class to court where they watched a teenager sentenced to three years in prison on a drug charge. The click of the handcuffs as that youngster was taken into custody was a dramatic message to these youths about the consequences of drug use.

This is why those farmers added the Sixth Amendment. It truly should be the people's court.

Link: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061022/OPINION/610220324&SearchID=73260629112030

Bridgeport attorney Richard Meehan Jr. is past president of the Greater Bridgeport Bar Association and appears regularly on Court TV. Andy Thibault is author of "Law &Justice In Everyday Life" and a private investigator. This column examines political corruption and the inner workings of the court system. Web site: www.andythibault.com. Blog: www.cooljustice.blogspot.com

Back to Top