Guest Blog: A Few Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Backlash
By Dan Trigoboff
The media’s excessive and often sensational coverage of Casey Anthony’s murder trial was surpassed by its excessive whining afterward. Faced with an opportunity to learn from their own disconnect with the jury, many of the trial’s “experts” chose instead to bash the jury, persisting in the same self-centered “analysis” that led to their present embarrassment. No surprise here; faced with an opportunity during the trial to teach viewers about the elements of specific charges, evidentiary burdens and legal presumptions, the self-aggrandizing experts deferred there, too, misleading the public to the point of shock at the actual verdict.
This is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of the jury’s findings. I did not follow the trial closely enough to reach a strong conclusion. But I did pay attention to the coverage-not always willingly; it was hard to avoid–and found myself frequently stunned by commentators’ leaps of logic and fact, and sudden expertise in psychology, body language and prognostication. Of course, you’ve got to be pretty smart to say so much, so badly, and still get paid a lot of money.
Yet, for a lawyer-journalist like myself who has written about coverage of trials for decades, the media’s humiliating performance has a silver lining, perhaps leading to a cable box. Right or wrong, the Casey Anthony verdict demonstrates that jurors need not be affected by media bias or sensational coverage. Restricting the media’s ability to cover courts is neither advisable nor necessary.
Fifteen years ago, as a writer and editor at this magazine, I wrote numerous commentaries endorsing increased access for journalists to courtrooms, including cameras in the courtroom. Nearly fifteen years before that, cameras in the court and reporters’ access to the courts was the subject of my law school thesis. Many in the mid-90s blamed an overly aggressive press for the unpopular verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, and federal and state judges took it out on TV networks and stations looking to televise trials. I argued then, and now that the media-especially the cameras in the courtroom-exposed, rather than caused the flaws in the system, and that we’re better off knowing than not knowing.
The historical argument against such access considers the power of the press to influence the public, taint a jury pool, and deny criminal defendants the constitutional right to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment comes further down in the Bill of Rights than the First, but it’s a primary and essential right nonetheless.
The media, no doubt, can play a role in what people think, and what people think about. And if ever there was a case where the media demonstrated clear, even overwhelming bias, this was it.
But courts have numerous ways to counter, even negate the media’s influence without cutting the media out. Judges can move highly publicized trials to distant communities, or stay home and import jurors from those distant communities (obviously interest the Anthony trial went well beyond local boundaries). Judges can restrict key players in a highly visible trial from talking with the media, without restricting the media itself. And they can sequester the jury, as was the case here. Of course, jurors were exposed to massive publicity before they were impaneled, but voir dire is available to eliminate potential jurors who cannot dismiss prior publicity and render a verdict based on the evidence presented. We would hardly want jurors who are totally uninformed on current events.
Some have already inexplicably tried to blame the presence of cameras for the unpopular verdict in this trial. I would argue here that viewers who had paid more attention to the trial itself and less to the pre-judging commentators would have been less surprised by its outcome and better equipped to make up their own minds. Just like the jurors.
It would be nice to argue that the extensive coverage of this trial demonstrates the unique ability of the media, particularly television, to educate viewers about the principles and intricacies behind our legal system. I can’t meet that burden of proof. But I can argue successfully, I think, that the media did a really lousy job, meeting the lowest expectations of bias and influence on public opinion, and it had no impact whatsoever on the right to a fair trial.
Dan Trigoboff, a former writer and editor at Broadcasting & Cable, teaches media law and journalism at Methodist University in Fayetteville, N.C. He is currently an advisor to the North Carolina Open Government Coalition.
LIN commented:
ROLL HER IN DUCT TAPE AND LET HER DIE. LET IT BE LIVE TV.
Dee commented:
I thought the coverage was fair especially by Nancy Grace.
CJ Scholar commented:
Mr. Trigoboff,
I couldn't agree more with your comments. There were so many lessons that can be learned from this trial, both from the judicial players and the media involved.
As I was returning from a trip to Atlanta on the day the verdict was announced, I heard various commentators on the radio discuss the trial. During one call in show, I was amazed at the objectivity of the callers. I had expected callers to be less than objective based on the mediaâs emotional and less than objective reporting of the verdict. To my surprise the vast majority supported the jury decision........the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to meet the âproof beyond a reasonable doubtâ standard.
My view of the media became more cynical as I listened to media interviews with the key players. On Wednesday evening one network interviewed a juror, defense counsel Jose Baez, and prosecutor, Jeff Ashton. The interview with the juror was especially interesting. The reporter keep posing questions that inferred the jurorâs decision did not provide justice. Well, the reporter does not understand the American judicial process or he was baiting the juror to reveal something to caste doubt on the juryâs verdict. As a criminal justice educator, I thought the role of the jurors is not to administer justice or punishmentâ¦â¦it is to hear the case of the prosecution and defense and determine if the defendant is guilty using the âproof beyond a reasonable doubtâ standard. This juror clearly understood her role, and that of the other jurors, as not dispensing justice, but excluding personal emotion and bias to determine if the accused was guilty of the crime. The juror never took the bait.
In my judgment the media coverage of the trial was at times less than an objective and professional. I heard a number of critics state that listening to daily updates by high profile courtroom analysts was at times like listening to an announcer calling a horse race. Clearly, the media must cover these trials, but it must strive to provide unbiased reporting within a framework of objectivity. Iâm afraid that in this trial the media, especially court analysts, got caught up in the emotion and national attention of this trial. It appears they had already presumed Casey guilty and were analyzing why a jury should and would find her guilty. When the verdict of not guilty was announced, they felt a great injustice had occurred. One commentator even went as far to state it was the work of the devil. This was the time that media analysts needed to step up and take control of the situation. They needed to explain in a fair and objective manner why the jury could find Casey Anthony not guilty. Sadly, personal emotions and biases clouded any objective reporting when the verdict was announced, leaving the public confused and outraged.
I feel the trial revealed to us the good, the bad, and the ugly of the American judicial process and those who play key roles in the process -- the media not excluded. As emotional as this trial was, I felt it was very distasteful for the defense team, the accused, and friends to have a post-trial champagne party celebrating the win, especially when it was in clear view of the media and public. Defense team member Cheney Masonâs finger to the media only fueled the emotional fires. If there was to be a celebration, it needed to be a private location away from public and media scrutiny. This celebration only incensed those who were already felt justice had been denied and a guilty person went free.
We will learn from this trial, regroup, and continue to improve upon the system and how the media should cover it. It is essential that we not forget that the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is the rudder that steers the judicial process through both calm and rough waters. Iâm proud that the process worked even though I personally believe Casey Anthony was culpable. As one caller so aptly stated, Casey Anthony will have to answer one more time to the crime, but before the ultimate Judge. This time justice will be served and the final judgment cannot be appealed.
The most important lessons from this trial, however, may be for the media. Turning a high profile trial into a three-ring circus is inexcusable. Justice and fairness within a process that holds the accused is presumed innocence until proven guilty must be the standard. There were many opportunities for the media to rise to the occasion and shine, but they failed to do so. Time will only tell how well the media learned the lessons of the Casey Anthony trial.