Court TV – Law Street

Apparently Sarah Palin Doesn’t Need a Law Degree to be the Next Judge Judy

Alexis Evans — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:55:51 +0000

Sarah Palin Courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Flickr]

Americans struggling with real-life small court claims may soon have a new television bigwig to try their cases in the court of public opinion. Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is rumored to have plans to add court TV judge to her reality television resume by starring in a new Judge Judy-style court room reality show.

A “source close to the process” told People that Palin signed a production deal in February with the Montana-based production company Warm Springs.

A signed production deal would imply that Palin could soon begin filming a pilot of the show to shop around to networks.

But wait a second, don’t you have to have an actual J.D. to be a judge?

Well, not exactly.

Technically court TV shows are essentially dramatized arbitration cases on TV sets that look like small claims courts. When not using actors, producers of these shows typically try to contact parties with pending litigation in small claims courts, and give them the opportunity to settle the case through arbitration on TV instead. Arbitration is a type of dispute resolution where parties mutually agree to let a third party arbitrator settle the case for them outside of court. This type of legal proceeding is ideal for people looking for a faster and cheaper litigation alternative. Arbitrators, however, are not required to have a law degree to settle cases.

For more information read “What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows” here.

While the actual job qualifications vary from state to state, most arbitrators are required to hold at a minimum a bachelor’s degree and complete training through a basic 40-hour course and 20 additional hours in advanced coursework.

Even without a law degree, cases settled through arbitration are legally binding and in most cases cannot be appealed.

Many court TV judges like Judge Judith Sheindlin, aka Judge Judy, and Judge Joe Brown do have actual law degrees, but it is entirely possible for Palin to become a court TV judge without one.

It also doesn’t hurt that she already has plenty of experience in front of the camera after working as an on-air contributor for FOX News and starring in her TLC reality show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” in 2010. In 2014 Palin also launched “Amazing America with Sarah Palin,” an outdoor-themed show on The Sportsman Channel.

According to People’s source, “Palin’s telegenic personality, wide appeal and common sense wisdom make her a natural for this kind of format and she was Warm Springs’ top pick for this project.”

Since these are merely rumors that we’re talking about here, and no confirmation has been released from Palin’s camp, it’s hard to say what direction Palin could take with the show.

Needless to say if this does become a real show, I will be watching with same intrigue of someone watching a house catch fire. You know before you see it that it’s probably going to be sad, but at the same time you can’t make yourself look away from the flames.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apparently Sarah Palin Doesn’t Need a Law Degree to be the Next Judge Judy appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI: Top 10 Issues of 2015

Anneliese Mahoney — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:30:26 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jon S via Flickr]

Here at Law Street, we cover the big issues that matter to our readers–from entertainment, to politics, to the law. ICYMI, check out our top issue briefs of the last year, and make sure you start 2016 just as informed as you were in 2015.

#1 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Image courtesy of eric pakurar via Flickr

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem? Read more here.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Issues of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows

Noel Diem — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:30:42 +0000

Image courtesy of [Terry Ballard via Flickr]

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times, TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw.

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict?

John Gomis — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:44:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [Sarah Sphar via Flickr]

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.