Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VAN DAM vs. Westerfield, 6-24-02: Televised proceedings a far cry from O.J. fiasco!
Union Tribune ^ | June 24, 2002 | Alex Roth

Posted on 06/24/2002 9:06:32 AM PDT by FresnoDA

Televised proceedings a far cry from O.J. fiasco

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

June 23, 2002

In retrospect, it's hard to pinpoint the most cartoonish aspect of the O.J. Simpson trial. Maybe it was the sitcom-style insults traded by the attorneys, or the ringing cell phones in the courtroom, or Johnnie Cochran making up rhymes during closing arguments.

All of it broadcast live on television.

The Simpson case was a public-relations fiasco for the California courts – and many people blamed the television camera. It became conventional wisdom in the legal community that televising trials was a bad idea. The camera would cause the attorneys and witnesses to grandstand, the argument went. It would distract the jury. It would cause the judge to freeze like a deer caught in the headlights.

Yet consider the David Westerfield trial.

Not since the Simpson trial have so many San Diegans tuned in to watch live coverage of a criminal case. And what they've seen is a thoroughly professional proceeding.

The attorneys are competent and focused. The judge is decisive and clearly in control. The closest thing to histrionics are Judge William Mudd's occasional rants about how miserably the Padres are playing.

"You're dealing with four very professional, highly prepared, highly qualified, very experienced attorneys, an excellent judge, and the proceedings are going smoothly," said Aaron Katz, past president of the San Diego County Bar Association. "I think the trial gives a very positive impression of the justice system, which is always a good thing."

Many First Amendment proponents say the case proves that letting cameras into a courtroom can be a healthy way to keep the public informed. They also argue that the camera wasn't to blame for the excesses of the Simpson case.

"Most of the arguments against cameras in the courtroom have to do with some alleged loss of decorum, and study after study shows that not to be the case," said Lucy Dalglish of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Still, many judges remain wary. They worry about jurors becoming intimidated by the presence of a camera, even if their faces can't be televised. They worry about attorneys and witnesses hamming it up. They worry about the possible effect of a live broadcast on the level of public chatter about the case.

"From my experience, it's very difficult to try to overcome those distractions," said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Reid, former supervising judge of that county's criminal courts.

The televised trial has been making a comeback recently. For years after the Simpson case, many judges shuddered at the idea. No judge wanted a repeat of the O.J. circus, and none wanted to be known as the next Judge Lance Ito.

"He was subject to a lot of ridicule, to a lot of critics and a lot of negative attention that other judges felt took away from the dignity of the court system," said Jerrianne Hayslett, a recently retired spokeswoman for Los Angeles Superior Court.

In the immediate aftermath of the Simpson trial, the number of Los Angeles judges willing to permit television cameras in their courtrooms "plummeted."

"I don't know any better way to put it," she said.

No television cameras were allowed into Simpson's subsequent civil trial, in which he was found liable for wrongful death in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend. The trial was handled by another judge.

The backlash wasn't limited to California. In 1995, the South Carolina judge presiding over the Susan Smith trial banned cameras from the courtroom after Smith's attorneys expressed concerns about an O.J.-style media circus. Smith was convicted of drowning her two children.

"I have come to the inescapable conclusion that in the court's discretion there is a substantial likelihood of interference to the process and is a substantial risk to this case," Judge William Howard ruled at the time.

Immediately after Simpson's criminal trial, then-Gov. Pete Wilson pushed for a ban on television cameras at criminal trials in California. Instead, the state Judicial Council came up with a new set of regulations giving judges discretion to permit or prohibit them as the judge saw fit.

Before the new regulations, it was unclear whether judges had the legal authority to keep the cameras out of their courts, said Justice Richard Huffman of the San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal. He headed a task force that made recommendations on the issue to the Judicial Council.

"Now the court clearly has the power to say yes or no, or to say at some point, 'No, it's not working; turn them off,' " Huffman said.

In addition to California, 24 states either allow unfettered television access to criminal trials or give the judge discretion on the issue, said Dalglish, executive director of the journalist association.

The remaining states either won't let criminal trials be televised or have such restrictive rules that it's a practical impossibility. In Minnesota, for example, a criminal trial can be televised only if the judge, the prosecutor and defense attorney all agree.

Officials at Court TV, the New York-based network, say many judges in California and other parts of the country seem to be overcoming their post-O.J. reservations. Court TV reporter Beth Karas cited "a backlash against the backlash" in recent years.

"It was, 'We're going to show Judge Ito how it should be run,' " she said.

In recent years, Court TV has been able to televise a number of high-profile cases around the country, including the Michigan murder trial of assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian and the Florida trial of Nathaniel Brazill, who was 13 when he shot his teacher to death.

In several other high-profile cases – such as the recent trial of Andrea Yates, the Houston woman who drowned her five children – judges have allowed television coverage of only certain portions of the trial, such as opening statements and sentencing.

Court TV has been broadcasting the Westerfield trial live across the nation, with few if any distractions in the courtroom. Under state law, cameras aren't allowed to show the jury. On the judge's strict instructions, the network also has made sure not to inadvertently record any private conversations between Westerfield and his attorneys.

Mudd allows one television camera and one still camera in his court. The cameras provide pool footage to all the other networks and newspapers.

"The camera in the courtroom itself becomes a nondistraction after the first three minutes," said retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Hiller Zobel, who presided over the 1997 trial of British au pair Louise Woodward, convicted of killing 8-month-old Matthew Eappen. Hiller allowed that trial to be televised.

Yet the fact remains that every move the attorneys in the Westerfield case make, and every ruling Mudd hands down, are transmitted live to hundreds of thousands of viewers, many of whom are following the case like a soap opera or sporting event. It is this level of scrutiny that makes many judges nervous.

"I know it affects me," said Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf in Seattle, who sometimes lets television cameras into his courtroom. "You cannot as a human be unaware that there may be a hundred thousand people watching or a million watching or more, depending on the case."

In high-profile cases, a judge might feel reluctant to take certain action – such as reprimanding an attorney for improper behavior – out of a fear of "what it's going to look like on the evening news," Alsdorf said.

There is also the fact that live television coverage breeds a level of media intensity that wouldn't otherwise exist. The Westerfield trial is a perfect example. KUSI-TV and KGTV's News Channel 15 cable outlet have been broadcasting the trial live. KUSI also uses the footage to broadcast an hourly wrap-up Monday through Thursday, along with legal analysis from lawyers who have been following the case. KFMB/Channel 8 does a nightly summary as well.

The live feed also gives the other networks the opportunity to break into their regular programming for important witnesses. These networks have their own legal analysts to dissect the day's footage for their viewers.

"The producers are there, so they have to do stories to justify their existence, so trivial things become headlines," said Hayslett, the retired Los Angeles court spokeswoman. "It just feeds upon itself."

One person's trivia, however, is another person's important news story. If some people think the Westerfield trial is being overly dissected on the nightly news, others think the public is getting a valuable education about the workings of San Diego's criminal justice system.

Without the live coverage, all the news about the case would be filtered through the print media.

And so far, at least, the reviews are positive. Katz, the former San Diego bar president, said the attorneys in the Westerfield case appear highly organized while the judge has made effective use of humor to "ease the tension of a very, very serious case."

"The trial is being handled with dignity and grace," he said.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 821-840 next last
To: Greg Weston
No way you can get an aquital with the fingerprints and DNA.

Where is DWs fingerprints ?
Where is DWs DNA ?

681 posted on 06/24/2002 9:46:38 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Are you saying that MizSterious has been banned again? Or did I misunderstand the meaning of your post? It's late, I'm tired and easily confused these days.
682 posted on 06/24/2002 9:46:54 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Didn't the Supremes just decide a few weeks ago, that simulated, or animated, or cartoon kiddy porn wasn't illegal. (BTW, I don't agree, but I think that's the current law). We may never hear another word about kiddy porn during this trial.
683 posted on 06/24/2002 9:47:06 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
If he can fly why go to the RV in the first place?

He has a hidden compartment in the RV that contains a casket that he sleeps in during the day. That is why he kept the MH curtains closed during the day while at the beach. SUNLIGHT BAD. (/sarcasm)

684 posted on 06/24/2002 9:47:29 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
LOL!
685 posted on 06/24/2002 9:48:20 PM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
In his home.
In his home.
686 posted on 06/24/2002 9:48:40 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
the prosecution team are a bunch of idiots aren't they?

Not necessarily idiots, just people that have a lot (like power) to gain by pressing this case.

687 posted on 06/24/2002 9:49:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Rheo; All
It getting late enough here, I need to either go to bed or start breakfast. I think I'll go to bed and hopefully get UNconfused on some of the evidence? tomorrow. Goodnight all.
688 posted on 06/24/2002 9:50:22 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Sorry, that's wrong.
In his lawyer's new home.
In his lawyer's new home.
689 posted on 06/24/2002 9:51:19 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Karson
Goodnight Karson!...or I'll have bacon and eggs over easy please.
690 posted on 06/24/2002 9:51:36 PM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
What the heck does "bared" mean, in this context.

Why are you rubbing this in JR and AM's face?

691 posted on 06/24/2002 9:51:58 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Yes , the SC, yours and mine ruled that it's legal to have cartoon kiddie porn.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what kind of porn will be testified to in court.

692 posted on 06/24/2002 9:52:34 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Something weird about pizza story as well. (Day 2-June 5)Damon's testimony- about the pizza "they" all sat and ate that Friday evening.
Feldman,Q: "Do you know if this was new pizza or pizza from you guys?"
Damon,A: "Pizza from Noon."
Well I thought Brenda ordered that "LARGE" Pizza at 5:00pm. and picked it up at 5:30pm.

Something weird about Damon knowing the two neighborhood guy's for a year and Damon testifies that they are cousins. (Keith and Rich)

Feldman,Q: "Who is keith?" Damon,A:"Keith is his cousin."
According to Keith and Rich. They are ex-brother-in-laws...

Also,Damon testifies that after they found Danielle missing he became or didn't know what he was doing and when he did it. Well according to his statements he wasn't in his full faculties the night before as well. If I were to find my doors open in the middle of the night. I would have had to check on my kids to find out if they were up and opening the doors. The fact that he didn't tells me that he was far from being the main protector of his family. Has anyone thought that maybe "they all" were doing some kind of psycho-delicate drugs that night. Maybe none of the pizza eaters can remember what happened after 2:30am....
693 posted on 06/24/2002 9:53:50 PM PDT by juzcuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Mrs.Liberty
Tsk Tsk....sweat=guilt

sweat=probable cause
unolled hose=guilt

694 posted on 06/24/2002 9:54:16 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
. If the entire SD LE is a bunch of corrupt jerks, who purposely targets innocent civilians for whatever reason..to get the glory of solving a crime in the end..God help us all.

I would venture to say that most of the SD LE and many LE's all over the country are very fine, caring, law upholders.

That there may be some crooked cops, and a DA that targets innocents (or just easiest targets) to gain something is very likely true.

695 posted on 06/24/2002 9:55:31 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Karson
Someone on one of the FR threads a couple weeks ago mentioned he found it on the web..I went and foung it too. Type in the Damons name and surfing..it should come up..
696 posted on 06/24/2002 9:56:05 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: All
Just a bit from a link I posted a while back - don't know if anyone checked it out or not - but it's fairly short and intersting. It's about interviewing techniques...
http://hometown.aol.com/liesee ker/trad.htm


15. Joe, how do you think you'd do on that lie detector test?

(Innocent people do not hesitate to say they would pass such a test. Guilty suspects express doubts about passing.)

16. Joe, is there any reason that are investigation would show that _____ (your fingerprints, footprints, skin, et.) was found at the scene of the crime?

(Innocent people will make a firm, immediate denial.)

This last question is referred to as the "Bait Question." It's designed to make the suspect believe there is evidence against him, and to weaken his resolve. You will most often see a deceptive or guilty suspect exhibit his greatest amount of stress when answering this question. The evidence can be real, or something thought up by the interviewer.

You should now score the questionnaire. If more than a third of the responses are indicative of a deceptive or guilty suspect, you should continue the interview. The best way to do this is to leave the room for a period of approximately five minutes. Obtain a file folder and place the suspect's name upon it's outside, and place old reports or other documents inside the folder. You should then re-enter the interview room and confront the suspect and state:

"Joe, our investigation clearly shows that you did do this thing. I'd like to sit down and talk to you about this. Can we talk?"

When making this statement, you should stand with your legs apart in a dominate stance, hold your hands about waist high and about body width apart. This is called the Confrontation Statement. When making it, you will want to appear as confident as possible, leaving no doubt in the suspect's mind that you have no doubts as to his guilt.

After the suspect agrees to speak with you, you must now use an interview technique designed to gain a confession. If the suspect is not free to go, then now is the time to introduce Miranda warnings.


697 posted on 06/24/2002 9:56:24 PM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Barb and Bill Libby are the two immunities

You mean two who have asked for or gotten immunity from prosecution?

698 posted on 06/24/2002 9:56:48 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
" But on the bright side he can frantically clean his cell all he wants.".....You know you usually come off as having a chip on your shoulder, but that is genuinely funny.
699 posted on 06/24/2002 9:58:32 PM PDT by skipjackcity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Here's the opening statement.

. finally, we'll get into why this happened and one last count that we have, possession of the child pornography. not only did the officers search and find what we've talked about so far, but there were other people involved in that search, people who are familiar with computers, how they work, how you can get inside them, what they can tell you. these people were also part of the search team from the san diego homicide department. and these people went also pursuant to this search warrant to the defendant's house. they went to the defendant's upstairs area. they went to the defendant's office where he has his initials on the wall and his computers on the table and his work manuals on the bookshelves.

and they found an envelope stuck up in this bookshelf that had computer things, floppy disks, they'll talk the computer talk to you. and they pulled those out, and they looked at what was on there. and when they did, they found the evidence that supports the child pornography count.

they also found the evidence that indicates why he took her. he had pictures that he had downloaded, taken off the internet and organized, systemized, and labeled.

not only of naked young girls, many of them nude, standing in sexual poses, obviously under eighteen, he had young girls actively involved in a sex act that he had preserved. he had animations, drawings, if you will, of little girls in pigtails, dressed like little girls, being attacked by males, orally, digitally, anally, and vaginally. he also had videos that he had downloaded and preserved, some of which you will see, four or five. some of them have sound. and you will hear what is going on. and you will see what is going on on those videos. and what you will see is basically adult males sexually assaulting a young female. certainly dressed to look like a young female.

700 posted on 06/24/2002 9:58:38 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 821-840 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson