Is the Courtroom Becoming a Film Set?
Ronan Meleady
Law and Politics
University of Limerick
When we think of the dramatisation of law, perhaps the best example is that of the Depp v Heard trial. Two extremely well-known celebrities, on opposite sides of a televised court case. In the past, it would have been just that, a court case that got coverage on your cable television, in the newspapers, but one which would not take the entire media over. In the modern day, millions watched on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and beyond as these two individuals’ personal lives were torn open by lawyers, while social media analysed, dissected and parodied the witnesses' testimony and cross-examinations, leading to a trial on the issue of domestic violence actually becoming a serialised piece of entertainment for the general public to watch.
The popular claim is that the courts and the practice of law in general have turned into entertainment, but this implies a change in how the Courts operate, a shift in the rules and foundations of the legal system. This is not the reality. Instead, the media ecosystem has grown and developed to a stage where the distribution and dissemination of content exists in a different way than we were previously prepared for. The Court itself has not become a film set, but the audience has moved from the court’s gallery to the algorithm.This change feels unprecedented, but the principle underlying it is not. The idea that justice belongs to the public, not to the courtroom and its practitioners alone, is as old as the jury itself. In Irish Times Ltd v Ireland, we saw the Supreme Court affirming that the requirement under Article 34.1 of the Constitution, that justice be administered in public, is not merely procedural, but brings with it a right of access for the press and the public to observe the workings of the courts. This was not a concession to the modern media landscape. It is a constitutional commitment that predates this “new media” by decades. Treating the public's consumption of legal proceedings as a new and dangerous development is not identifying an issue, it is attempting to argue against a principle the Irish courts have long since settled.
None of this is to say that this digital age poses no challenges to the administration of justice. It clearly does. Jurors, even where given strict instructions to avoid outside material, will be exposed to social media commentary if they set foot onto any platform, which can colour their views of a trial before evidence has a chance to persuade them one way or another. Witnesses who are aware that their appearance is being filmed may tailor their testimony to an audience beyond the courtroom. Lawyers, well aware that their performance is going to be clipped and circulated, may begin to advocate to the cameras rather than the court. These are very serious concerns, and dismissing them out of hand would be intellectually dishonest.But where these problems originate matters. None of them are born in the courtroom itself. The rules of evidence have not been rewritten. Judges still have powers of contempt. Witnesses still must testify under oath. The adversarial system remains present. The concerns and problems are real, but they belong to the “platform layer”: to the algorithms that amplify, the companies that package, and the audiences that consume without context. To treat the courtroom as the source of these problems is to reach for the wrong cure to this “illness”, restricting public access to justice in the name of preserving it. That does not protect the constitutional principle. It dismantles it. If we recognise that the issue instead lies in how legal content is amplified, published and consumed without context, our solutions must be directed there too. The law of contempt, built for an era of newspapers and evening broadcasts, must be extended to account for the reality that a single individual with a platform can now prejudice proceedings far more effectively than any traditional publisher ever could. When an algorithm serves up a fifteen-second, out-of-context clip of a cross-examination, viewers without a legal framework are easily misled. A judge excluding emotional testimony, for instance, is quickly framed by commentators as a "cover-up" rather than the routine application of the rules of evidence.
These issues come from the fact that most people have no framework for understanding what a trial is, what it is designed to do, and why it operates the way it does. Public legal education is an intervention that helps address the root of the problem rather than its symptoms.The Depp v Heard trial is not evidence that the courtroom had become a film set. It is evidence that the world outside the courtroom has changed in ways the legal system has not yet fully caught up with. The answer to the question posed is No, the courtroom has not become a stage, and treating it as one misdiagnoses every problem worth solving.
The institution is intact. The challenge is external, and so must the response be. Protecting the integrity of the judicial system does not require us to draw the curtains; it requires us to educate the gallery
Amielia McGovern
Law and Criminology
Maynooth University
Is modern media creating an environment in which the accused stands not only before the judge, but also in the court of public opinion?
A judge may reject this notion, however, modern desire for all the nitty gritty of celebrity and true-crime culture argues otherwise. From the infamous ‘Baby killer’ case of Taylor Parker, to the shocking defamation trials of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, can we as an audience get enough of court room drama? I for one, cannot. What does this mean for courtrooms and are they at risk of becoming a ‘spectacle’ to the public? From fictional dramas to documentaries, there is a demand for courtroom entertainment. However, while transparency promises accountability, an excessive amount of media attention can risk turning legal proceedings into a public spectacle.
Media
How we view courtroom “drama” and access information on courtroom proceedings is changing. It is important to note that during proceedings jurors receive instructions to avoid media for the protection of fair trial. In a traditional sense, we are all familiar with newspaper and television news reporting. However, we are not to confuse members of the press with ‘commentators’ or ‘influencers’ in today’s online world. A journalist will report on the proceedings, but an influencer will try interpreting these proceedings through a social media platform. Podcasts are only the beginning when it comes to commentary made available instantly upon the announcement and commencement of high-profile cases. The legal system demands clear categories; guilty or not guilty or indeed, insane, or sane. Social media is being utilised to influence the public on narratives within cases.
Court of Public Opinion
Cases can now be live-streamed and broadcast over the internet, jurisdiction dependant. Ireland does not allow for the routine broadcasting of criminal trials. However, members of the public are free to enter and view any case held in the courts with the exception those in camera (private). It is the online viewing and scrutinising which poses a risk to the fair procedures of trial. While media coverage can improve transparency, the increasing entertainment value attached to criminal proceedings risks transforming justice to spectacle. In first year of law at university, as students we learn the principle of justice should be open and transparent, and fair in a way that promotes accountability and public trust. Courtrooms have traditionally been a formal space in which judges hear cases, juries weigh evidence and a decision is held on the legal dispute. As a university law student, we learn early on of the principle of double jeopardy and the legal protections an accused has. Double jeopardy protects a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime after an acquittal or conviction.
As a criminologist: labelling theory
As a criminologist, understanding the public’s interest in crime is significant. Labelling theory argues that an act becomes deviant when others label or perceive it as such. This theory particularly pays focus to how this label of “criminal” or “guilty” can shape future interactions for that individual within the justice system. With the accessibility of social media and an ability to reach audiences instantly, what does this mean for our “Court of Public Opinion” and more importantly, what does it mean for our victims? To be perceived as “guilty” before receiving a verdict or even after an acquittal, may be detrimental to the individual. There is no regulation in the “Court of Public Opinion.” The possibilities of traumatisation are there through repeated media exposure alone but heightened when we are to consider the public speculations around victim credibility.
The law offers a chance at acquittal; the internet never does.
Uinsín Mac Cárthaigh
Law plus English Literature
University of Limerick
On what was my third ever attendance at the Circuit Criminal Court, at call over a defendant was called from custody into the dock. His barrister then interrupted her opposing counsel to explain that she has been instructed to come off record, much to the Judge’s dismay, the case having been delayed several times. The defendant wished to represent himself. The judge thanked him for his time, recommended he sought legal advice from fresh lawyers and dismissed him. A shouting match ensued whereby the Defendant pulled from a folder several instruments relating to Human rights. Regardless of the strength of some of his arguments, the Judge heard none of them, insisting that this matter was not for call over, and that the Defendant was not ingratiating himself by disrupting. Heartbreakingly, he then insisted, “So, what? My rights mean nothing in this country anymore?” to which he was sharply told “Not during call over.”
This had a major impact on my perception of litigants in person. I admired this man’s bravery, but it did bother me how dismissive this must have appeared to him. But at the same time there is never enough time to explain the process intricately to everyone. And while he is well within his rights to represent himself, I think it stands to reason that the media’s role in promulgating American ideals of arguing with the Judge at all costs may have created a desire in this man to see more done, prompting him to lose patience with the system and his own lawyers. This is something that he cannot be blamed for, but I do think a certain (however problematic) deference to the law has been lost in this new era of a kind of accessibility fallacy.
There exists now an attitude of trying to engage as is done in US- American media. In Family Law matters, people talk of “taking everything he has” despite this never having been a feature of Irish law, or further by one’s confusion at not having a cause of action, it is unsurprising that many people are also now choosing to represent themselves, in the absence of affordable or free lawyers. And all of this has resulted in several cases of things going wrong or miscarriages of justice because the engine of social media, and its traditional counterparts have convinced someone that a greedy lawyer will take all their money, won’t argue their case properly, and won’t lie on their behalf, like the protagonist lawyers on TV will. Instead, people place themselves within the narrative as their own protagonists, as underdogs who must rise above what has befallen, when they are by any metric often as much an instrument in their own demise as the hero. When this is paired with the internet’s habits of over intellectualising and overanalysing the reality of a situation, the coverage of a trial reads like a press tour in Hollywood, and the outrage at the outcome is worse than if our allegorical hero were to die at the end.
Historically, the practice of law and its manifestation in courtrooms and at the hangman’s platform have drawn people to view the law as a spectacle. It is, of course a constitutionally protected affect of the legal system that justice be administered in public under Article 34.1, and consequently, the public takes an interest. It is no surprise that the Courts were a valuable form of early entertainment. To walk into the Criminal Courts and see the lawyers in action, spinning tales and warping words, and all, to your eyes, putting the bad man behind bars. So while it could always be said that the drama of the trial of Oscar Wilde in the 19th century, the impassioned cross examinations of Edward Marshall Hall in the early 20th century, or the drama of the criminal trial of OJ Simpson in the 1990’s were spectacles befitting a film set, it must be said that the public perception of the law has become more involved over time.
However, there is something be noted that in spite of this, most barristers now advocate in court in a manner that is quite direct, concise, and legally precise. There is much less room for style in advocacy than there once was, with perhaps a particular exception to the opening and closing speeches of a criminal jury trial. This, in my view of things, is not a response to the dramatisation of the courts but certainly would appear to run in contention to the idea. If barristers are no longer expected to smith together a tale so grand the jury cannot help but acquit, how is the law becoming more of a spectacle, rather than a more formal and procedural engagement? As to the implications of all of this, the industry now takes on the extra burden of not only serving the public, but also of justifying itself. The Bar, in particular, with their rules of public conduct are placed in the difficult position of requiring a maintained distance from the public, while coming under fire for doing just this, serving the defendant that social media has tared as guilty, while taking their money and bowing to an idiosyncratic system that isn’t being harsh enough or logical. The lack of understanding people have for the legal field is the real issue at hand and would not be solved by the removal of social media from the space. Social media is an educational tool, but given the fallibility of human conscience, and our desire for drama, it has failed and created an echo-chamber which empowers as much as it miseducates.
The system is overrun but reasonable, but if social media was to be believed, it simply hates the everyman and is too busy self-gratifying to notice the public is in danger.