Fiction_vs_Reality

Fiction versus Reality In many books, TV shows, movies, and so on one can find representations of the courtroom. Some of the characters that are described in the books, TV, and movies are based on true stories though most of them are entirely fictional. Within America much of what individuals discover about life is learned through the TV. Individuals support their lives on what is happening to the fictitious characters that they view on TV, often time mistaking the fiction characters as real life people. Most people have never been in an actual courtroom, though they will form opinions about the courtroom because of the books they have read or watching popular TV shows like Law and Order or Criminal Minds; basing their opinion on fictional legal matters off of these materials. With the inability to actually view the court procedures our Americans have misinformed idea of how things really work in our criminal justice system. Fictional Courtroom Procedures In shows like Judge Judy, or Judge Mathis before the cases are submitted over the internet and approved by the actual TV shows, the applicants have to have an existing docket number to prove there is an actual case that was filed from the individuals own area court system before it will be presented to the TV shows. The producers of shows inspect the claims for excitement and suspense rather than what the case is actually about or whether it’s a good claim. Court cases heard on television must chosen by the individuals employed by the television station though they must be true and also supply an impractical story that is will to entrap and shock the viewers to improve the show’s ratings and keep viewers watching. As with many of these courts TV cases are shown on Judge Mathis, Judge Brown, and Judge Judy many of these judges do try to mediate between the two sides in front of them, but most of them do not get as personally involved in the case at all. Another difference with court TV series the plaintiff and defendant represent themselves. Without any legal knowledge or guidance these court cases are heard in court with the single voice of a judge basing their decision on the information provided directly by the plaintiff and defendant along with any witness they may have present. There is no opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. The victim prosecutes and controls the action unlike a real proceeding. Victim and perpetrator appear on equal terms. As for the individuals in the background of these shows they are just random people that are paid $60 a day to sit and watch cases (Leon, 2010). Judge Brown, Judge Judy, and Judge Mathis are or were individuals on the bench previously or that recently retired. The one real thing about these shows is that the court cases still follow the laws set forth in the Constitution which accurately depicts the reality of a courtroom. The victim need only prove that the perpetrator is liable. The bailiff of the courtroom within the television cases is often viewed as the individual with the gun and the authority to maintain the outbursts of those in the courtroom. Though the bailiff is accurately portrayed, their realistic duties within the courtroom exceed that viewed on television. The bailiff is responsible for transporting the defense if they are apprehended and responsible for ensuring that all individuals within the court remain calm. Law & Order is one television series that comes to mind when thinking about the fictional portrayal. In the series, which includes many depicts many different areas of the law, police investigators and prosecutors work together to catch and convict criminals. Law & Order uses current headlines and shows the process from two vantage points. The series highlights the process of crime investigation and the trial process, including interviewing of witnesses, arresting the criminal, preparing of witnesses and evidence, negotiating plea bargains, and conducting the people’s case in the trial (IDMb, 2008). Real-Life courtroom procedures Within the real life courtroom process the courtroom clerk will ask the question of if the claimant wants a temporary judge to decide the case or not. If the claimant does not want a temporary judge then the clerk will most often give the claimant another hearing date with a permanent judge or court commissioner. After the witnesses take their oath, the clerk will ask the claimant to leave the courtroom with the defendant to share evidence and try to settle the case. The defendant will have to give the plaintiff a copy of all the papers, which will be given to the judge. Afterwards, they return to the courtroom and await the case to be called by the clerk. When the case is called the plaintiff and defendant will approach their respective tables with witnesses. If both parties agreed to settle the case, the judge will be immediately informed. If the plaintiff and defendant have found themselves close to a settlement then the plaintiff may ask the judge to have the hearing postponed to a later time so the process of settling is not rushed. If the case could not be settled, the plaintiff will have a few minutes to present the case and answer questions. Later, the defendant will have a few minutes to present the case and answer questions. The defendant will tell the judge about the documentation or evidence that will be required to be shown to the court. The judge will ask for a copy of the evidence given to the clerk. The clerk will mark the papers as evidence and provide them to the judge. The defendant is not allowed to interrupt the plaintiff or the judge and the plaintiff is not allowed to interrupt the defendant or the judge. If either party fails to say something during a turn, each party must wait until the judge or the other party stops talking and ask permission to speak. Following a decision each party will receive a copy of the decision which will be mailed to the defendant and the plaintiff. In real life trials containing a jury and attorneys, the process is often lengthy and not as surprising or outspoken as the cases on television which allow for outbursts of the plaintiff and defendant to make for more entertaining television. The discovery process of the court trial allows for both the defense and the prosecution is informed on the proceedings of the trial, what is going to be presented, and the witnesses that will be called (The Law Office of Michael Steinberg, 2010). Witnesses whom will be called are known by both sides of the trial and the interrogations subpoenas, and depositions are taken care of before the trial begins, all information being available to both sides of the case. The trial allows for the parties to have a source of presenting their evidence, making their arguments both as story of each side and the arguments made by the legal teams, the evidence is proved to be valid and the information is recorded. Depending upon the case the judge or jury will base their decisions on the law and the information that has been provided throughout the trial. If there is ever a time when the trial outcome is disagreed upon then the trial can be taken to the appeals court for a reevaluation of the legal standing of the court decision. Conclusion Although much of the information viewed from the court trials of Judge Brown, Judge Judy, and Judge Mathis show a slightly inaccurate view of real court trials the information does provide education to society. Many people of the public fail to understand the significance of these court decisions or how these decisions affect the plaintiff and defendant (Durahni, n.d.). Through the television court cases the audience does not fully understand the laws and rights of court participants, the roles of the judge and jury, or the accurate process for court proceedings. Though the depiction of the courtroom on television is that of a lenient courtroom, the entertainment accurately provides viewers with real cases and real verdicts along with the knowledge of viewers that the judicial system is there to provide individuals with legal assistance. Is the fictional courtroom truly so fictional' Not exactly, because even though the characters that are portrayed are fictional, the process usually is very similar to the real court system. In most television series, books and movies, the defendants need to go through the same process before, during and after trial. They might leave certain aspects out, as many trials can take days or even weeks, but the idea remains true to how things are supposed to happen in the justice system. Fiction does give most citizens a good idea of how things go in the actual court system, but fiction makes the jobs of many courtroom participants much harder. Sadly technology in the fictional courtroom process is much more ahead then technology in the real life courtroom. Most of the time prosecutors cannot present a “smoking gun” as evidence, and many of their cases are built on circumstantial evidence. However, many juries do expect prosecutors to present them with overpowering evidence, and this means that prosecutors have to put more time into educating jurors and others on the abilities of the police and other investigators. This is valuable time they could also spend on other cases. In my personal opinion, every criminal series, book or movie should come with a disclaimer that says “Please remember much of this technology does not exist in real life!” References Durhani, A (n.d.). Court TV: Good News for Law Students. Retrieved June 18, 2010 from http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/669/Court-TV-Good-Source-for-Law-Students-/ The Internet Movie Database. (2008). Browse IMDb. Retrieved on September 19, 2008 from http://www.imdb.com/Browse/finddata Leon, H. (2010). April Fools Special: Cracked Gets On 'Judge Joe Brown Show'. Retrieved on June 18, 2010 from http://www.cracked.com/article_16106_april-fools-special-cracked-gets-judge-joe-brown-show.html#ixzz0rMaJHjYW The Law Office of Michael Steinberg (2010). Developing a Defense Strategy. Retrieved June 18, 2010 from http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/defensestrategy.htm