THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Insightful Analysis Is Some TV Lawyers’ Strong Suit
On a clear day you can hear forever.
If you’ve caught some of the O.J. Simpson trial on television, you know that--according to hundreds, perhaps thousands of attorneys providing reasoned, objective analysis--Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. hasn’t a prayer. Marcia Clark’s goose is cooked. The defense has its back against the wall. The prosecution has its back against the wall. Judge Lance A. Ito’s rulings have been measured, appropriate, impeccable. Judge Ito is out of control and sure to be reversed by a higher court. Judge Ito is a master on the bench. Judge Ito has his back against the wall.
Ah, lawyers. There are times when you’d love to line some of them against the wall and then, as Ralph Kramden used to say, “Straight to the moon!”
Although you’re automatically suspicious of a lawyer when you can see your reflection in his suit, it’s the high-toned kind that you should watch out for. Months before the start of this trial, and before Cochran and others had joined Robert L. Shapiro on the Simpson team, that famed buckskin cowboy of defense attorneys, Gerry Spence, was global on CNN with a rapt Larry King, giving viewers from Indiana to Indonesia the skinny on the then-unfolding case.
Simpson, said Spence nonchalantly, “probably isn’t guilty.”
Whether Simpson’s probable innocence came to him in a vision or a dream or a phone call, or whether he was acquainted with Simpson personally, we may never know, for Spence was never asked just how he had acquired this profound insight from his Wyoming base. However, it’s worth noting that shortly after Spence issued his exonerating verdict, media reports listed him as one of the name attorneys then being considered for the Simpson defense team. Had he used his TV stage with King to cover his bases in case he did subsequently sign on to help defend Simpson?
For whatever reason, Spence never joined the defense, and his appearance on CNN may be unrelated. Nevertheless, this incident reminds us--as legal eagles soar on TV as never before--that a lawyer’s shingle guarantees only that the owner has passed a bar exam. Thus, keep in mind that some of TV’s present squadron of paid legal “consultants” may fit the label Cochran has applied to the LAPD: “A cesspool of contamination.” Do any have hidden agendas, biases or personal allegiances that influence their comments on the case? There’s no evidence of that. Yet it’s an important consideration, for even though the trial is just getting under way, what they and others covering this story say on TV, combined with sound bites selected for newscasts, may contribute mightily to shaping public expectations of a verdict. And may contribute to public frustrations should the verdict not meet those expectations.
Enough of lawyer bashing, however. Whatever their prejudices, if any, some of the O.J.-watching attorneys currently available on Los Angeles TV have performed commendably, despite being under constant pressure to deliver instant judgments as if every blip of trial minutiae were somehow conclusive.
A precise, concise former-prosecutor-turned-TV-journalist, Manuel Medrano, continues to do an outstanding job at KNBC-TV Channel 4. Medrano is a natural teacher; witness his summary of Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden’s work with a witness during Tuesday’s opening day of testimony.
Medrano to viewers: “What questions did Chris Darden ask? You can’t remember. All you can remember (are) the answers, and that is the mark of a good (courtroom) storyteller.”
At KABC-TV Channel 7, low-key Southwestern Law School professor Karen Smith makes the A list, as do criminal defense attorney Jay Jaffe and USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky at KCBS-TV Channel 2, where reporter Harvey Levin’s own background as an attorney makes him a valuable component of the station’s trial coverage team. And at KTLA-TV Channel 5, reserved attorney Al Deblanc has been articulating legal issues in an easy, understandable manner.
For memorable legal commentary overlaid with theater deluxe, though, no one in town approaches the trial coverage of KTTV-TV Channel 11. It seems these days that half the people on TV are stand-up comics, the other half lawyers. At Channel 11, both intersect productively in the person of veteran criminal defense attorney Luke McKissack, whose most famous client has been Sirhan B. Sirhan, imprisoned slayer of Robert F. Kennedy.
Complemented by the solid, crisp anchoring of John Beard, McKissack has been the heart of the station’s excellent gavel-to-gavel trial coverage. Throw in Jane Wells--an irrepressible reporter careening through the halls of the Criminal Courts Building like a loose cannon--and you have a Channel 11 group to remember.
Yet there is no evidence of hamminess here. McKissack’s sense of humor, for example, is a bonus that slides out effortlessly, usually to make a serious point. Whether solo or paired with another attorney (his present partner is the competent Maurice Oppenheim, a former prosecutor), McKissack is that rare legal analyst who loses no smarts while substituting the language of the lay person for ponderous lawyerese.
Totally at ease in front of the camera, McKissack is especially adept at putting himself inside the shoes of both sides and articulating in plain talk the strategies that he believes each hopes to advance: “Johnnie Cochran must make hay with this witness. He’s gotta damage him.” Nor does McKissack straddle any fences. On Deputy Dist. Atty. Clark’s landmark addendum to her opening statement: “She took her blade and just sliced the defense in sections.” On Cochran’s questioning of another prosecution witness: “First year out of law school you wouldn’t do that bad.” On Simpson after the first day of image-tarnishing prosecution testimony: “The halo’s probably around the knees at this point, probably around the ankles.” Plus, McKissack can be just as stinging when the target is the prosecution.
Although this cesspool of opinion is no way to make friends in the legal community, it’s a great way to make friends of viewers.