Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions: Introduce Us to Your Russian Friends!

Yesterday it came to light that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two meetings with the same Russian diplomat that Michael Flynn had talked to during the transition period. ICYMI, those meetings led to Flynn’s firing from the Trump Administration.

Sessions did not mention these meetings at his confirmation hearing–in fact, he said that he didn’t know anything about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now Democrats are calling for Sessions’ resignation, but Republicans say he didn’t do anything wrong, as he was only asked about the Trump campaign’s alleged communications with Russia, not his own communication. The Russian ambassador in question, Sergey Kislyak, is considered to be one of Russia’s top spies and spy-recruiters. Sessions reportedly met with him on two occasions; once in July during the Republican convention and then again in September. Sessions was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during both of these time periods.

Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his contacts with a country that’s actively trying to undermine our democracy. So yes, he should resign.

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Will the #BernieTrumpDebate ever happen?

Looks like the #BernieTrumpDebate is one big pipe dream. Donald Trump told Jimmy Kimmel last night that he’d love to debate Bernie Sanders for charity. Now that would be great TV! While many sources say the debate will never happen, seems like Sanders is up for the challenge:

Has Casey Anthony been outed by her attorney-slash-lover?

Remember Casey Anthony? The Florida woman accused of killing her young daughter is back in the news. New documents report that she paid her defense attorney, Jose Baez, with sex. What’s more? Baez supposedly ratted out his client, saying she actually did kill her daughter. Anthony was found not guilty in 2011. We’ll see what this new information does for her so-called innocence!

Years later, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman are making headlines. smh #Florida pic.twitter.com/ppWYMwI5Lt

— Gavin (@renovargas_) May 26, 2016

Elizabeth Warren Hits Trump Right on the Money

Warren seems to have made it her personal mission to make sure Trump never reaches the White House. At the Center for Popular Democracy, Elizabeth Warren and her “goofy” self took to the mic to slam the presumptive GOP nom, calling him a “small, insecure money grubber.” Ouch! The mudslinging has never been more real!

Taiwanese president criticized for being single…Seriously?

These days women are criticized for pretty much everything, especially women in powerful positions. This week a Chinese military official criticized Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen for being unmarried, claiming she was “extreme” and “emotional” because she didn’t have a husband. Should Tsai’s relationship status influence her politics? NOPE. Should China mind its business? YAS. Keep stuntin’ Ing-wen!

Taiwan president accused of being “extremist” and “erratic” because she’s single: https://t.co/NPhhu96dJj pic.twitter.com/Z8YV8WSSpm

— Women in the World (@WomenintheWorld) May 25, 2016

Marijuana Legalization is on the Come-Up in W. Virginia

Delegates in a West Virginia special budget session introduced a bill legalizing marijuana in the state. The bill would decriminalize the drug and permit use, growth, and possession of certain amounts by those over age 21. West Virginia faces a financial crisis and the hope is that legalization would alleviate the money problems.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It was the event that no one could stop talking about between 1994 and 1995. Everyone around the country was glued to the television to see what would happen to O.J. Simpson, once-beloved celebrity and accused murderer. Before O.J., there were televised trials of Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others. And since O.J., we’ve televised quite a few high profile trials. For celebrity buffs, Lindsey Lohan’s streamed on TMZ. There was, of course, the horrifying Casey Anthony case that captured national attention during the summer of 2011. Most recently, spectators were able to watch the Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman proceedings from their homes.

In fact, media streams of famous court cases have become rather ubiquitous in American culture. But should they be? We’ve turned everything from Congressional debate to young children in beauty pageants into must-see TV. Should trials be the same way? Read on to learn about the debate over televising trials, and the arguments for and against allowing cameras into courtrooms.

 What are the rules about filming trials?

In the United States, the general rule is that photography and broadcasting of criminal trials in federal courts is banned but can be overridden by a law or another court rule. Many judges decided to ban broadcasting and photography from courtrooms after the O.J. Simpson trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that televising trials is not a violation of constitutional due process.  In certain cases, jury deliberations are publicly broadcasted. The broadcasting of criminal trials is very controversial and even the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Supreme Court have differing views about its propriety.

 What’s the argument for putting criminal trials on TV?

Proponents of televising criminal trials assert various arguments, including that since many Americans have no personal experience with the criminal justice system and many learn about current events entirely from television, televising criminal trials is vital to individuals’ understanding of the legal system.  U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that:

Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works.

Furthermore, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice argued that religious worship and ceremonies are televised and there is no public consensus that religious practices are denigrated when broadcast so there is no reason to assume that the legal process will be.

Even if being televised can make witnesses nervous, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nervousness makes potential discrepancies and inaccuracies easier to notice and reluctant witnesses can be persuaded by the legal action that brings them to court e.g. police escort and subpoenas. Finally, though there is an ongoing study, there is no evidence that televising criminal cases has more impact on a criminal trial than the presence of an audience, which is generally permitted.

What’s the argument against televising trials?

Opponents of televising criminal trials argue that it creates numerous procedural difficulties that waste the court’s time and may prejudice the defendant. These include the necessity of judges monitoring the manner of the broadcasting. It is also difficult to sequester juries to prevent them from watching the trial on TV. Broadcasting trials makes it more difficult to impanel an impartial jury if a second trial is necessary. There is an increased need for marshals and being broadcast has a significant mental effect on witnesses, jurors, and court officers.

If criminal trials are televised then they become spectacles for the public and the solemnity and dignity of the judiciary will be compromised for the sake of entertainment. For example, after an expert witness testified in Jodi Arias’ case, she was attacked online and the media coverage could have possibly swayed what weight was given to her testimony.

Televising the conduct of judges and lawyers creates a virtually universal conflict of interest within the court system. The Court’s officers will be tempted to consider their television appearance in addition to the needs of their client. It is even possible that a lawyer could weigh his interest in having an attractive TV appearance higher than his duty to his client. Lawyers may try risky strategies in order to impress a potential television market, and judges may behave in ways that are most conducive to their political aspirations even if they are not warranted by the law. If a highly controversial criminal trial (e.g. the George Zimmerman trial) is televised and the verdict is not popular with a significant portion of the public, then an officer of the court or juror could be a target of disgruntled viewers.

Conclusion

We now have the ability to broadcast basically whatever we want. Trials are public for the most part–family, friends, and others who know or do not know the parties are often able to go and observe the proceedings. Televising trials allows everyone to have that access to the justice system, and promotes transparency and understanding. That being said, broadcasting trials and the resulting media coverage and analysis could have potential to affect the trial itself. While justice may very well be blind–should our knowledge of court cases be? It’s not an easy question or an easy answer, but one that will have to be answered very soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

United States Courts: Cameras in Courts

Maryland Courts: Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland

Supreme Court: Chandler v. Florida

Additional

RTDNA: Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide

WJBO: Televise Criminal Trials? Of Course?

Guardian: Televising the Courts: the Time Has Come

Voice of America: Chinese Courts Put More Criminal Trials Online

Townhall: Say No to Televised Trial

CJ Online: Time to Tune Out Televised Trials

Debate: Should Criminal Trials be Televised?

DebateWise: Cameras in Courtrooms

Examiner: Zimmerman Case Coverage Highlights Flaws in Media

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a chance that we may see a familiar name in the news cycle in coming weeks. A woman named Zenaida Gonzalez is suing the now infamous Casey Anthony for defamation. During the 2008 investigation of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, Casey Anthony’s two-year-old daughter, Anthony made a number of false statements about what exactly had happened to her child. One of these statements was the allegation that a nanny by the name of Zenaida “Zanny” Fernandez-Gonzalez had stolen her child while working for Anthony.

It was later determined that no nanny by the name of Zenaida Gonzalez ever worked for Anthony. During the 2011 murder trial, Zenaida Gonzalez herself testified that she had never even met or heard of Casey or Caylee Anthony. She also claimed that she had been having problems finding employment since Anthony’s false allegations hit the media. Anthony’s mother Cindy Anthony claimed that the wrong Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez had been found and asked to testify, but given the relative obscurity of the name as well as a complete lack of evidence to prove that Anthony had ever hired someone by that name, her statements were not taken seriously.

Anthony was acquitted of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse on July 5, 2011, but was found guilty of giving false statements to the police. Now Gonzalez is suing Anthony for the false statements that accused her of kidnapping a toddler she had never even met. Anthony is slated to be deposed by Gonzalez’s attorneys from the Orlando based firm Morgan & Morgan on Wednesday October 9^th. This deposition will be public.

Anthony’s attorneys have attempted to block this deposition on two grounds claiming first that they were not properly given notice to prepare and second that Gonzalez’s claims lack merit. Early last week, her attorneys filed documents asking that a judge grant a protective order so that Anthony will not have to answer questions under oath. They have also moved one step further, arguing that if she must testify, she should be able to answer questions remotely, and that the deposition should be sealed from the public.

If Anthony is forced to testify, she may have to answer questions about the disappearance of her daughter Caylee—Gonzalez’s attorneys are claiming that Anthony cannot plead the fifth to avoid incriminating herself in this case. This would be the first time that Anthony is forced to answer questions under oath.

This civil suit, or one of the other civil suits that Anthony is facing, could provide answers to questions that have never been fully answered since the disappearance of Caylee Anthony transfixed the world. Anthony is also being sued by Roy Kronk, the man who found Caylee’s body. Anthony accused him of being involved in her daughter’s death immediately after his gruesome discovery. In addition she is being sued by a non-profit called Texas Equusearch that spent resources searching for her daughter after, they claim, Anthony already knew Caylee was dead.

The situation at hand is in some ways eerily reminiscent of the 1997 OJ Simpson civil case. After Simpson was found not guilty in 1995 for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, the families of the deceased sued him for damages and won. Certain testimony made by Simpson during his criminal trial was proved to be incorrect. While this is obviously a slightly different situation, the ability of Zenaida Gonzalez and others to compel Casey Anthony to testify in a separate civil trial may give those who knew Caylee closure, much as OJ Simpson’s case gave some closure to Brown and Goldmans’ families.

[Tampa CBS Local]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FL Gov’t PD via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Casey Anthony May Be Deposed in Civil Suit appeared first on Law Street.