A ‘Not Guilty’ Plea for TV in Court : Simpson trial: It’s long because of extraordinary factors that wouldn’t change even if the county pulled the plug.

It’s easy to blame TV for the painfully long O.J. Simpson trial. Why not? It’s an easy target. TV bashing is popular among politicians looking for votes, popular among pundits who criticize the proceedings while no doubt wishing they were a part of them, even popular among the public, which says TV coverage of the Simpson case is excessive while secretly watching every minute of it.

But to argue that the TV camera in the courtroom is the cause of the trial’s length and expense is absurd. Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, seconded by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, argues that because the trial is being broadcast, the attorneys and the judge all make long and repetitive arguments and speeches in the hope that everyone will see how brilliant, fair and hard-working they are. Consequently, an issue that should be dealt with in a day takes a week, one argument turns into four, and the bills the county pays for court services, juror sequestration, security and so on keep adding up. So, if there is a second trial, the TV camera must be banned to keep things moving along.

Did we miss the board meeting when the supervisors voted that the goal of all trials was not the pursuit of justice but to spend as little as possible while moving as fast as possible?

The fallacy in the anti-TV rhetoric lies in the belief that the attorneys, judges and witnesses perform, if you will, because of the camera’s presence. It’s my view that they perform in spite of the TV camera, not because of it. These are high stakes. The defendant could spend the rest of his life in prison. The victims’ families want the truth to come out so that someone pays for their agony. Every element of the trial needs to be handled in detail, camera or no camera.

The supervisors’ misguided attack on TV ignores the real reasons this has turned from a trial into a marathon. For example:

Simpson has the money to pay for a “dream team” and other experts; does anyone think that these people would cut corners if the camera wasn’t there? Perhaps the supervisors should make a rule that in future trials, each defendant is only allowed one attorney.

Is it TV’s fault that the district attorney has assigned a platoon-size group of prosecutors, each of them with a particular area of expertise? Perhaps the supervisors want to tell the D.A. that in the future, they’ll pay for only one prosecutor per trial; if he wants more, he’ll have to guarantee a win.

Is it TV’s fault that Judge Lance Ito was assigned to this case? This is a man with admirable patience who in his early handling of the trial was inclined to give everyone as much time as they wanted to discuss or argue or plead or insult or compliment. He could have told the attorneys, as U.S. District Judge John Davies did in the Rodney King civil rights trial, “You have 20 minutes with this witness.” Perhaps the supervisors want to control which judge handles which case, and make sure that only judges with short tempers and little patience are assigned to controversial cases so the county won’t have to pay big hotel bills for sequestered juries.

And is it TV’s fault that the most carefully designed, intensely personal jury selection in memory was apparently done so poorly that many days of valuable court time have been spent on investigations of “juror misconduct” and dismissals?

And if the biggest expense the supervisors are worried about is the cost of juror sequestration, why don’t they pass one of those resolutions they like so much requesting that a Los Angeles hotel simply donate rooms? Why not? The prosecution team is receiving donated services from its jury consulting firm, and the courts are receiving all of their computer and evidence presentation technology basically for free as well.

Sure, blame TV for the length of the trial, the cost, the snail’s pace, the stressed out jurors and the possibility that we and O.J. Simpson might have to do it all over again. Blame the single TV camera mounted on the wall, not much bigger than the still camera mounted next to it or the security camera already there. Blame the TV camera and the live feed going to stations all over the country for doing more to educate people about the reality of the legal system than any book, magazine, newspaper article, previous trial, lawyer, judge or pundit has ever done. Certainly more than any politician has ever done.