On The Merits
What’s the best way to avoid having your criminal case tried in the media? Apparently, being a member of the media can help.
Jane McGarry, a longtime and much-beloved anchor for 30 years on Dallas NBC affiliate KXAS-TV, was booked into a Dallas County jail at 3:00 a.m. on a recent Sunday morning based on suspicion of driving her Porsche while intoxicated. Like anyone else, McGarry is presumed innocent and entitled to a trial to determine her guilt or innocence.
And that’s exactly what her employer has done. KXAS refused to comment on McGarry’s arrest other than to say the station was “investigating the matter.” On Monday night, long after other news outlets were reporting the story, KXAS soberly announced that it was “confirming” McGarry’s arrest. KXAS decided not to publish McGarry’s mug shot, nor did they air unflattering file footage, or post fancy graphics, or rely any of the other sensational techniques that unfortunately permeate many local news broadcasts. The tone of the station’s report was not the usual indignant disapproval of drunk driving, but much more somber, like someone great had died.
The sleepy reporting on the McGarry situation could have been excused except for the fact that it was buried behind a long, sensational report on the assault charges filed in the Deion Sanders divorce case, which included unflattering file footage, fancy graphics, etc. Yes, like McGarry, Sanders also is a celebrity, but his kids (and arguably his wife) aren’t and he no longer plays pro football. The interest in Sanders’ divorce, like McGarry’s driving exploits, is purely prurient. KXAS’ reporting of their stories is a striking example of the disparate ways some media outlets decide to deliver the news.
Here’s hoping for a media future where DUI defendants and divorcing couples are given the same consideration in the eyes of the media, regardless of whether celebrities or reporters are involved.
Posted: 5/10/2012 9:54:53 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
You hear a lot about lawyers behaving badly, but for every lawyer who misbehaves, there are many more doing great things for the profession whose efforts, unfortunately, don’t grab the headlines. Two of those lawyers will soon be honored by The Texas Center for Legal Ethics for promoting the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in the legal profession.
Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill and Houston appellate lawyer Kevin Dubose recently were named the 2012 recipients of the Chief Justice Jack Pope Professionalism Awards, which will be presented on June 1 by Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson at the Annual Texas Supreme Court Historical Society Dinner in Austin (for more information, contact Bill Pugsley at the TSCHS at tschs@sbcglobal.net).
Former Justice O’Neill, who served on the Texas high court from 1998 until her retirement in 2010, is a longtime champion for pro bono representation for low-income victims of domestic violence in Texas. Mr. Dubose is responsible for the concept, initiation and execution of the project that culminated in the creation of the landmark Standards for Appellate Conduct, which became the nation’s first set of ethical standards for appellate practice in 1999.
The Pope Awards are named for former Texas Supreme Court Justice Jack Pope, who recently celebrated his 99th birthday. One of the founders of TCLE, former Justice Pope was the inaugural recipient of the Pope Award in 2009. And, like this year’s honorees, he has spent his entire career – in his case, 75 years – working to promote professionalism and high ethical standards in the legal profession.
Posted: 5/2/2012 6:29:11 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
The John Edwards trial began today in North Carolina, and there is no chance that the media would overlook a criminal trial involving a former presidential candidate and vice presidential nominee who cheated on his likable wife while she was dying of cancer. But the real impact of this trial is its precedential effect on campaign finance law. And the media have done a decent job of trying to highlight that point.
Basically, the government is arguing that payments made by Edwards’ friends to his mistress, Rielle Hunter, to keep her story secret amounts to illegal campaign contributions that were not reported. In order to win, the prosecutors will have to convince a jury – and in all likelihood, an appellate court if they win at trial – that the primary purpose of the payments was to keep Edwards’ political prospects alive rather than to simply keep his wife in the dark about his extracurricular shenanigans. This aggressive stance has sent some chills through the political class, as it could greatly increase the definition of campaign donations to include virtually anything that, while personal in nature, also has a collateral benefit to a candidate’s political viability.
The other teaching moment here is the choice faced by criminal defendants who truly believe they have done nothing illegal. The media have described Edwards as “rolling the dice” by refusing a plea deal involving minimal jail time and the opportunity to keep his law license in lieu of risking a long prison term if convicted. But what is a defendant supposed to do? Accepting a plea deal means pleading guilty in open court, which is very difficult for those who believe – as Edwards and many independent legal experts do – that no law was broken. The only way, frankly, to prove the prosecution wrong and to avoid a criminal record is to go through with the trial, regardless of the risk.
But that’s what trials are supposed to do – sort out the facts and apply the law. Along with the salacious stuff that will certainly dominate coverage, let’s hope the media keeps their eyes on that ball as well.
Posted: 4/23/2012 2:50:44 PM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
The law and the bright lights of the media collided in a big way yesterday with the long-anticipated press conference by the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Media representatives from around the world gathered to hear Angela Corey announce that she would pursue second degree murder charges against Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman. As we have noted before, the press – aided by those who have already reached their own conclusions based only on media reports – likes to consume itself with endless speculation about what the outcome should be, despite not having the benefit of an actual investigation.
During her first appearance on the national stage, Corey passed with flying colors by setting forth clearly and articulately how the criminal justice system is supposed to work and why it is and must be completely different than how the press would handle things. Among her relevant points:
• A criminal charge is based upon application of the law to the evidence, not because of media coverage or public opinion
• A prosecutor’s mission is to seek the truth
• Prosecutors have strict rules regarding what they can and cannot discuss
• In the criminal justice system, facts are revealed carefully and painstakingly in a court of law to protect the rights of everyone involved
• Everyone should refrain from judging the case until “due diligence and due process takes its course”
That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Of course, some cynics will suggest that Corey’s comments are words only and won’t be followed. Perhaps, but that will become clear as the case unfolds and the eventual trial takes place. Even prosecutors, who have a tremendous amount of power, can be severely punished when they violate their oath.
If this were the Old West, Zimmerman might already have been hunted down by vigilantes or strung up by a mob. We’re fortunate that we live in times like these, where the case is in the hands of a prosecutor who understands both the need for justice and the rights of the accused as she seeks to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Posted: 4/12/2012 2:42:10 PM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
A trio of cases decided in Georgia over the past 15 months and a recent lawsuit filed against a San Antonio firm are perhaps signaling a new paradigm in cases involving claims of online defamation, a favorite topic here at “On the Merits.”
Because of the broad protections afforded by the First Amendment, few plaintiffs in years past were willing to take on the time and expense of pursuing a defamation claim. But the expanding Internet and the accompanying amount of vitriol from bloggers and online commenters have given rise to a new breed of plaintiffs who are more willing to ask the courts to punish those accused of defamation. In the three Georgia cases, individuals who posted online comments on message boards and news websites were hit with damages ranging from $400,000 to $900,000. An attorney who won one of the verdicts attributed the high-dollar awards to the “public outrage over Internet nastiness.”
The advent of the internet removed the traditional middleman – an editor or TV news director, perhaps – whose job was to filter out the questionable, tasteless and outright slanderous content from reaching the world at large. As a result, both individuals and businesses have had to deal with unprecedented nastiness. These lawsuits demonstrate that the legal system is prepared to deal with the new world order, and with laws that are as old as the republic.
Posted: 4/12/2012 6:55:07 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments