None exhibited an inability to tell fact from fiction when it comes to courts.
JUDGE JUDY NOVEMBER 11 2015 TV
This drew a laugh from the whole group because evidently everyone has had the sameĮxperience of encountering a “Law & Order” episode of some sort almost every time they turn on the TV and begin grazing through the cable channels.Īsked of every prospective juror, none of their answers disqualified any of them from this jury (those dismissed were let go for any number of other reasons, including yours truly). Noted that the show (and presumably its spinoffs) is “on all the time,” which makes it difficult to miss. So jurors would usually answer yes - they have seen “Law & Order.” But you got the feeling that none of them took the show very seriously. No distinction was made between the original “Law & Order” and any of its spinoff progeny (only one of which is still around and making new episodes - “Law & Order: Special Almost no one admitted to being a regular watcher of “Law & Order.” In their answers, People expect lawyers “to be like actors on TV,” she said, “but we’re not like the actors on TV.”Įveryone was intellectually capable of discerning the difference between a TV show and real life. The courtrooms and lawyers depicted on the show are different from what jurors will see in a real-life trial.įor most of us, this distinction may seem plainly obvious, but theĪttorney’s repeated questioning about the TV-viewing habits of these prospective jurors implied that in the attorney’s experience, people who watch courtroom dramas on TV don’tĪlways know the difference. The context of her question was this: She explained that she wanted prospective jurors who watch the “Law & Order” shows to know that
0 kommentar(er)
