TV’s Smith Trial: Welcome to Law 101

On television, a courtroom. . . .

But no theatrics. No flamboyant attorneys. No fierce duels between opposing sides. No emotional outbreaks. No shocking revelations producing gasps from spectators. No smooth flow of testimony and evidence building toward a suspenseful conclusion. No high drama. Not yet, anyway.

What’s going on here?

A real trial--not “L.A. Law,” “Law & Order,” “Matlock,” “Divorce Court,” “The Judge,” “People’s Court” or “Perry Mason”--is what’s going on here.

“This is not a television show. . . . “ Judge Mary E. Lupo cautioned jurors Monday at the start of William Kennedy Smith’s televised rape trial in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Indeed. Evidence of that--and how the presence of a stationary TV camera at the rear of a courtroom is not necessarily intrusive or even a factor--came early Tuesday morning when CNN felt compelled to cut away from its live coverage of the trial when prosecutor Moira K. Lasch and Palm Beach police officer Peggy Irvine began tediously presenting undramatic evidence to the six jurors from a chart.

From a TV perspective, the behavior of Lasch and Irvine was inexcusable. They stood with their backs to the camera.

Where was a theatrical director when you needed one? Where was Judge Wapner?

“This is tedious and not very visual,” said CNN anchor Bobbie Battista. “When the testimony moves to the next phase, we’ll resume our live coverage,” said CNN anchor Bob Cain. That didn’t happen for nearly two hours, when Irvine--now facing the camera--was again questioned on the stand by Lasch.

Using pool footage from cable’s toddling Courtroom Television Network, CNN has been airing extensive coverage of the Smith trial, which is expected to last two to three weeks. And in the process, CNN is probably angering at least some of its viewers who believe that a global news network should not be committing vast chunks of air time to an event that is essentially nothing more than a celebrity trial.

Yet precisely because Smith is the nephew of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and a member of a storied family whose activities preoccupy not only the tabloids but also much of the nation, this case has assumed a raucous life of its own that is impossible to dismiss.

“Kennedys On Trial!” the syndicated tabloid series “Hard Copy” screamed Monday. “What Anne Knows!” shouted the syndicated “A Current Affair,” referring to the alleged victim’s friend, Anne Mercer. What followed on “A Current Affair” was Mercer telling reporter Steve Dunleavy about the state of mind of her 30-year-old friend who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Smith on March 30 at the Kennedy family’s Palm Beach estate.

So that was what Anne knew. “A Current Affair” also planned to impanel its own “shadow” jurors who will give their daily impressions of the trial that Dunleavy said had shot a “wintry blast of ugliness” through West Palm Beach. Perhaps he was speaking of his own show.

Ironically, the West Palm Beach “media circus,” as circusy “Hard Copy” reporter Diane Dimond referred Monday to the press frenzy engulfing the case, has seemed a universe away from the courtroom on the screen, which resembles an isolation chamber.

In fact, if not for Lupo’s single reference to “unscrupulous” reporters who might seek to contact jurors, there would have been no hint that, just beyond the courtroom doors, there was media madness.

Trials “are oft times boring, very boring,” said Charles Jaco, CNN’s man in West Palm Beach. He’s right. Yet there’s something fascinating about watching an actual legal proceeding. So it’s a shame that the Courtroom Television Network, which is offering the only true gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Smith trial, presently has no outlet in the Los Angeles area. (It can be seen on Southwestern Cable in San Diego.)

When CNN judges this trial too boring, or when there’s a recess, Jaco chats with trial attorneys Greta Van Susteren and Abbe David Lowell in Washington D.C. or gives his own assessment of what’s happening. At one point Tuesday, he speculated about the alleged victim testifying. There was a possibility that she would be called to testify that day, he said. And if she did testify Tuesday, it would mean either that the prosecution was in trouble or that the prosecution planned all along for her to testify Tuesday and, therefore, was not necessarily in trouble. Jaco presented one more possibility: The alleged victim would not testify Tuesday. Yes, that about covered it.

Jaco has a tough job. If it comes to a choice between him and the trial, however, the trial wins hands down.

Tedium and all, the coverage so far has offered a terrific lesson in the legal process, from Lupo’s opening remarks to the jury (“You may say, ‘Gee, judge, what’s the evidence?’ ”) to the prosecution and defense clashing on whether the jury should hear from other women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Smith. Lupo said no.

In contrast to TV lawyers, there appear to be no smoothies or theater majors in this courtroom, even though, as Susteren noted, having Kennedy family members sit behind Smith appeared to be a move to impress the jury. These attorneys often refer to yellow legal pads when speaking. They speak with long pauses. They sometimes stumble. Whereas the attorneys of TV drama usually win with charisma, the attorneys in this case may have to resort to making legal points instead of acting points.

It may not always be as compelling, but it’s real.