Normally, I’m not one to advocate speaking to the press about anything related to a specific case. I’ve normally attributed the following reasons to this belief:
1. It’s not necessary
2. Most lawyers aren’t good at it, so why take a chance
3. The media almost always gets it wrong and writes whatever they want anyway, so why bother?
But with the proliferation of online news sites and the constant availability of news that makes any little story worth reporting on, I’ve begun to re-examine whether my reasoning is still valid.
More than any other, I think it’s reason number 3 above that has led me to believe that perhaps we should be making an effort to speak to the press after an arraignment or the resolution of a case. For far too long, I’ve complained about the lack of nuanced reporting from those assigned to the court beat. For far too long I’ve lamented the fact that these seasoned reporters can’t seem to get their basic facts straight and tell the story in a legally consistent manner.
One would imagine that in these days of fiscal conservativeness, the one or two reporters assigned to courtrooms throughout the State, per newspaper, would have seen enough to learn the basic workings of the judicial system and would have learned to report accordingly.
Alas, it is not so. Day after day I read newspaper articles that seem to make a jumble of basic criminal procedure.
If this were in a vacuum, perhaps the problem might not be so evident. But along with the explosion of online news portals comes the ubiquitous “comment” form. And as far as I can see, the comment sections of most of CT’s major newspapers are populated by, shall we say, the lowest common denominator (and I’m putting it mildly).
A simple story on the arraignment of an individual leads to vituperative comments about the waste of resources for someone so obviously guilty; pronouncements are made about the hubris of an individual who pleads not guilty at his first court date.
These, ladies and gentlemen, are the jurors of tomorrow. These anonymous commenters will one day be in your jury pool, having already made up their mind about your client’s guilt, sitting in the jury box, stewing over why they even need to be there.
Such fundamental misunderstandings about the role of the system and its functioning only snowball. Unless someone steps in and does something. Lawyers talk a lot about jury selection and how one of the goals during voir dire is to indoctrinate a potential juror about the different rights afforded defendants, the standard of proof and the workings of the court system.
Why not take a few preventive steps as well? Speak to the press after that arraignment and inform them that the client has entered pro forma not guilty pleas, which is done in every single criminal case regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Speak up after a trial has folded on the eve of evidence and explain just how weak the State’s case was and how the resolution was fair to both sides. The press isn’t going to do it. Why shouldn’t we?
« Hide It
recent comments