dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (05/07/84)
This evening NBC aired something called "You Are The Jury". It
was a reenactment (sort of) of a murder trial, with the viewers
being permitted to phone in a verdict to a 900 number (50-cent
call).
I feel the way NBC went about it made a farce out of the show and
a mockery of the justice system. From about fifteen minutes into
the 53-minute (including commercials) trial, we were told that
the "lines were open" and we could phone in a verdict.
The way the trial was presented, it was absolutely impossible
to make a rational decision until all of the evidence had been
presented and argument presented by counsel. From the point at
which one might be able to make that decision, we had "one minute"
before the lines were closed. (I wasn't interested in calling.)
Then we were told that 87% of callers had "found" Joe Landrum
not guilty, and 13% guilty. We were not told how many callers
there were, nor how many called after the evidence had been presented.
The figure of 87% is totally meaningless because of the way in
which the data was collected. At the very least, the phones should
not have been opened until all evidence was presented, argument
had been made, and the judge had charged the jury. As it was,
NBC did a disservice to the judicial system and the jury who
decided the case by implying that armchair viewers with a fragmented,
incomplete view of the case were better able to decide than a jury
which heard all of the facts (undoubtedly over many days) and
deliberated as a group for many hours.
I found several things disturbing about the presentation:
- the judge did not elaborate for the viewers/jury as
to the concept of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt",
a crucial element of such decisions;
- presenting "testimony" through video flashback is
hopelessly unrealistic. It instantly puts the viewer
on Landrum's side. In court, one is required to tell
what happened; one doesn't have the luxury of presenting
videotapes of one's family life.
- as a "jury", we were not instructed as to the law on
insanity, or temporary insanity, in the particular
jurisdiction. How on earth can you make an informed decision
without such knowledge?
There were some other inconsistencies:
- the psychiatrist who testified didn't indicate whether
and to what extent he had examined Landrum. His testimony
was given in something of a vacuum. Since this testimony
was absolutely crucial to the defense it could be expected
to have been presented better.
- the prosecution would normally produce their own expert
psychiatric witness, who would have examined Landrum.
- the focus by the prosecution on Landrum's having gone
to the house with the intention of shooting Ed didn't
make much sense in light of the surprise Landrum indicated
on finding Ed at his sister-in-law's house. (It's a little
far-fetched to suggest he would have feigned surprise in
order later to claim he had no intention of shooting him,
especially since we "saw" that he only shot him after being
taunted.)
All in all, I think the idea of re-enacting a trial has merit, but
the approach NBC took was far too superficial.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
dave at Toronto (CSnet)
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave