Televised Trials and Simpson Case

Charles Nesson and Jonathan Zittrain believe that televised criminal trials are here to stay (Commentary, Sept. 11), and that the best way to deal with that fact is for “judges to recognize the legitimacy of this goal,” “help trials play better on TV without compromising the fairness of the process” and for judges to “curb the lure of celebrity” of the participants.

If anything, the Simpson case, which they cite as an example, has spotlighted exactly why criminal cases should not be televised. The trial has lasted, for a single defendant, over eight months, and is now only (supposedly) nearing its culmination. The prosecution, with much evidence, took over six months to present its case. So much for the idea of a speedy trial.

The authors tell us that the Simpson case has “demonstrated the tremendous educational potential of televised trial.” It seems to me the interests of the society are better served if the defendant and the state are able to conduct that focused search for truth without grandstanding by participants in front of the cameras, reaching into millions of homes, and making household names of even the most insignificant participants. The stakes are far too great for the victims and defendants in criminal proceedings.

Nesson and Zittrain cite the military as an example of how learning to deal with live camera press coverage can be turned into a positive. In fact, this is misleading. What the military did, after Vietnam, was to revamp how to fight and win wars, not calculate how to get the best press. I suggest that if the legal profession were to legitimately correct its glaring deficiencies, highlighted by the cameras of the “trial of the century,” then perhaps a cohesive argument for future televised criminal trials could be made, eventually.

MIKE McGLOTHLIN

Long Beach

*

* On Sept. 7, Judge Lance Ito dealt a crushing blow to the defense, ruling twice for the prosecution. He ordered the prosecution to begin its rebuttal Sept. 8 at 2 p.m. Marcia Clark whined, had a tantrum and said she couldn’t begin until Sept 11. Judge Ito said do it tomorrow or rest your case. He then ordered her into chambers, where he recanted and let her have her way. Ho hum! Deja vu all over again.

The real tragedy continues to be blatant disregard for the jurors. Anyone who has served on an extended jury knows that until they speak up they are forgotten. Seemingly the only thing important to the officers of the court is the dance!

GENE HOLLY

Redondo Beach

*

* Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran is right. How could Judge Ito selectively compensate a jury member at taxpayers’ expense (Sept. 13)?

Fairness is central to the judicial system; and the jury is as important as the lawyers or judge. So the fair thing to do is to pool all the monies paid to lawyers, judge and jury members and split it equally among all those people. Wouldn’t that make Cochran a lot happier?

WILLIAM HSIANG

Irvine

*

* I have only sympathy for the Rip van Winkles of our time--the Simpson jurors. As they surpass all records for months spent sequestered away from our O.J.-drenched society, they will emerge soon from their exile into a society that knows more about the trial than they ever will. Paradox of paradoxes: The elaborate legal game we call the justice system seems to demand that the most ignorant about this sordid affair--the jurors--should be forced to make the decision and then face societal derision should they make the wrong choice. Does ignorance really mean objectivity? What a choice!

LARRY MARTINEZ

Santa Barbara