In loco mass media
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?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on March 8, 2010 at 8:08 am, and is filed under psa. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 year ago
I definitely take your point about the dangers of letting the ignorance of the system snowball, but I don’t think a lawyer making a statement will change that.
Anyone willing to listen to reason probably wouldn’t need it, and those making the comments aren’t the most reasonable in the first place.
Not to mention the dangers of getting a lawyer in front of a camera and microphone (or just a journalist’s notepad) – it seems like Popehat’s rule #1 should apply to lawyers as well.
about 1 year ago
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve long believed that we shouldn’t waste our time talking to the press. The dangers are apparent and obvious and some lawyers get it wrong, so wrong.
BUT. Having said that, I really think we need to start examining ways to effectively get a simple message across. I recognize that the mob mentality prevails on unregulated message boards such as those affiliated with news websites and people are more prone to make outrageous comments, but the prevailing sentiment is still valid: why do these people plead not guilty and take up time and money when it’s so obvious they committed the crime?
I guess it wouldn’t be necessary if those charged with accurate “reporting” did their jobs well.
about 1 year ago
Well. I actually jumped on your site to comment on a post weeks ago about child molestation and the Roman Polanski case but I discovered this little gem instead. I was about to attempt to explain what it’s like to work for almost no pay because you idealistically believe that what you do makes a difference and the public is served by it – even if at the very least it presents a cautionary tale – hey, see this, not a good plan, you can wind up killing someone, hurting your family, destroying your life. But I won’t bother. Instead I’m posting the link to my story which is my response to the Polanski post. When you’re finished reading it, tell me again how much I don’t care about getting it right or would appreciate an explanation of a legal concept. http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2010/03/10/news/doc4b9715d4e1058351019657.txt
about 1 year ago
Assuming you’re the author of the story you linked to, I have to commend you on a well written article. It is engaging and descriptive, giving the reader an accurate picture of the struggle in the courtroom.
Other beat reports could take a cue from the job you did here.
I haven’t read your other work, so I can’t comment generally, but thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts that you initially wanted to share, though.
about 1 year ago
Yes, I’m the author and a self-proclaimed legal geek. I read your blog regularly but frankly was afraid to post because I am a reporter. I’ll be honest, I work for a small paper and it’s usually me verses seven Courant reporters when a big case comes along. I struggle every day to get it right. Most times I succeed, sometimes I’m lucky if my sentences have verbs simply because I am so dedicated to this job I can’t let anything go. Thursday I covered two murder trials (including the Mercado case) and a murder arraignment. Also don’t forget, we’re dealing with editors who want colorful descriptions and no legal verbiage. Try explaining “pre-sentence investigation” without using the words “pre-sentence investigation.” There are times, for instance when I read your post, when I say to myself, does everybody honestly think my job simply encompasses explaining gore in the splashiest terms possible with no context or thought for how this does shape the community? I do understand why you feel that way. I see my peers at other papers miss the point, carelessly rehash incorrect details and misquote people day after day. But I wanted to point out, sometimes it’s a function of who the reporter is (or how lazy they are) and sometimes it’s a function of juggling too much at once. It would be incredibly helpful if defense and prosecuting attorneys at least offered some details or nuances to those of us who do try to accurately reflect what’s happening in the courtroom. As for the “Pro Forma” thing – yes, the public really is waiting for that defendent to grandly announce at his arraignment, “Sure I strangled the Bioche and I’d do again tomorrow if I could.”