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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 821-840 next last
To: UCANSEE2
"similar only meant it was human hair"...LOL, but that's what was implied.

All this talk about "hair trace evidence" and today, that's all I could find around my home. Hair on the clean clothes that I ironed, hair in the sink, kitty cat hair on this and that. I'm getting paranoid over this hair talk...ugggghhh.

sw

321 posted on 06/24/2002 3:23:51 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Besides, can't hair just get tracked into the MH from his house when DVD was selling cookies and running around his house and pool. Then turn on the air conditioner and they can fly anywhere.
322 posted on 06/24/2002 3:24:43 PM PDT by Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: spectre
The only evidence that have is a drop of blood, a grocery list and an absence of fingerprints..

If they can give a logical explaination for that blood he walks IMHO

323 posted on 06/24/2002 3:25:02 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Lucky
"Probably the white hairs came from DW's beard"..

Oh, and not from the Beard that Damon shaved off? LOL!

sw

324 posted on 06/24/2002 3:26:43 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"One hair that was similiar to Danielle's"...

Shame on the prosecution...I'm embarrassed for them.

This tactic has been used repeatedly. (They say SIMILIAR and hope the jury think that means exact match. What they didn't say was SIMILIAR only meant it was a human hair.)

SIMILAR...(sp)

That is a common term in the SWINGERS world...they look for similarity.

Two eyes, two hands, two arms, two feet, two legs....well, I will stop there....

FDA


325 posted on 06/24/2002 3:26:59 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
If they can give a logical explaination for that blood he walks IMHO

I'll second that. I still think that we will hear about a dog scratch at the park when the MH was in the neighborhood. THAT will be the key.

326 posted on 06/24/2002 3:27:08 PM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
"who was it that posted info on the developers using the same carpet "in all the houses" Feldman is trying to lead the jury into that direction."

I know I raised it long ago. Have seen at least one other raise it since.

327 posted on 06/24/2002 3:28:11 PM PDT by theirjustdue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I'm waiting for the word "similiar" to creep into the blood DNA match as in "similiar to Danielle's or her Mother's or Brother's"...or everyone else's.

sw

328 posted on 06/24/2002 3:29:42 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: spectre; All
Did Feldman finish with her before court ended for the day? She looked like she was about to cry when I had to turn off the TV and run to the store.
329 posted on 06/24/2002 3:32:30 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: spectre

 

Beard...I don't have no stinking beard.....dude!!!!


330 posted on 06/24/2002 3:32:35 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: theirjustdue
Five total carpet fibers is all they have from a very common carpet color and style? I am not convinced at all. If Westerfield had been in the VD house, there would be far more.
331 posted on 06/24/2002 3:34:58 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: theirjustdue
They ya go...I knew one of you did. He's doing what he's paid to do..
332 posted on 06/24/2002 3:35:34 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: theirjustdue
they = there....tis getting tired.
333 posted on 06/24/2002 3:36:14 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: demsux; All
The dog scratch is vital to the blood evidence.

Unless the van Dams were the first to bring it up, when they gave the LE a Missing Persons Description, then how did anyone know the dog had scratched Danielle? I've asked this before. Did Brenda tell the LE or did Westerfield?

You all keep in mind, that Brenda testified that the scratch was about 3 to 4 inches but that "it didn't bleed".

Seems like one of you Sleuths would know how the dog scratch came into focus?

sw

334 posted on 06/24/2002 3:36:57 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Another thing to throw into the mix: In DW's initial statement to police, he indicated when he heard Danielle was missing, he went to look in his pool, because he usually left the back gate unlocked so friends could use the pool in his absence. On his way out to the back, he noticed his back door was unlocked. If he told the truth, his house was open to anyone and everyone from Saturday through MOnday.
335 posted on 06/24/2002 3:38:45 PM PDT by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
You da man, Fres!

sw

336 posted on 06/24/2002 3:39:30 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~

 

they = there....tis getting tired.

Tired?  Tired?  You have had over a week off on vacation...now...chop-chop...get to it....LOL


337 posted on 06/24/2002 3:40:14 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Lol, now there you go, that would be something. Maybe, Feldman's investigators are testing for BVD or PDVD.


338 posted on 06/24/2002 3:40:16 PM PDT by Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Here's a nice summary...

http://www.websleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID4/727.html

Collected the following trace evidence:

Item #5 – in DW’s washing Machine – orange and blue fibers

Item #6 – top of DW’s dryer – dog hair

Item #7 – inside of DW’s dryer – orange & blue fibers

Item #9 – Pillowcases from DW’s master bedroom – orange fibers

Item #9C – Fitted Sheet from DW’s master bedroom – Danielle’s hair

Item #9D – Flat Sheet from DW’s master bedroom – 2 Blonde human hair – Danielle’s

Item #13A – Lint from dryer in garbage – 3 human blonde hairs, 18 dog hairs (that were all the same)

Item #60 – Carpet area, motor home, near night stand – found light colored carpet fibers (from Danielle’s bedroom)

Item #74 – Hallway carpet in motor home – found 1 blonde hair, 3 light colored carpet fibers, 2 dog hairs

Item #77 – Motor home bathroom sink – 1 blonde hair (Danielle’s)

She then went with Annette Peer to the motor home to search for more trace evidence on February 6, 2002 – they found the following:

Item #155 – Bath mat in motor home – found human head hairs blonde – sent to FBI for comparison, light colored carpet fiber, 1 dog hair

Item #74 – Blue towel covering the bath mat, as well as another towel on the floor in the motor home

Item 93A – comforter from the dry cleaners – dog hairs

After this she showed a chart showing the length of the hairs and other characteristics that were examined by the human eye, the hairs were of various lengths, with the longest around 8” (the same as Danielle’s haircut) and none of the hairs were color treated.

Hairs from Layla the Van Dam Dog

Item 13A - Lint trap from DW's dryer – 18 hairs

Item 74 - Hallway carpet, motorhome - 2 hairs

Item 155 - Bathmat, motorhome - 1 hair

Item 6B - White towel on DW’s dryer - 1 hair

Item 93A - Striped comforter (from cleaners) - 2 hairs

The last was the hair sample taken from Layla, the Van Dam’s dog

All of these hairs were confirmed as coming from Layla…

339 posted on 06/24/2002 3:42:09 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
LOL get back to work... :)
340 posted on 06/24/2002 3:43:19 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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