TV Goes to Court

Mrs. Mary Ann Clemens, a septuagenarian, admitted that she had lost control of her car and run down a neighbor while he was out for a stroll. The neighbor, Arthur McCall, suffered a separated shoulder and nerve injuries to a hand. He sued for damages. Up to that point it was a routine case. But no sooner had the lawyers presented their opening arguments before the common pleas court of Sandusky, Ohio, than a recess was called and two 18-in. TV screens were set up. After that, the twelve jurors simply sat back, stared at the tube for 2 1/2 hours, listened to live summations from the lawyers, then retired to decide on their verdict. They awarded McCall $9,600.

TV is no stranger to U.S. courtrooms. Video tapes of drivers arrested for drunkenness are now regularly used in a number of states, including Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado. Illinois' Cook County will start the same kind of program this week. In Michigan, seven trials were recently taped live for possible use by appeals judges as a supplement to the written record. But in Ohio, Judge James McCrystal felt that the time had come to prerecord all the testimony for a trial. Attorneys for both sides agreed.

No Objections. The unprecedented undertaking involved far more than technological gimmickry. Taping in the courtroom at times convenient to the various witnesses, the two attorneys put their questions without the judge being present. They were free later to arrange the witnesses' testimony in whatever order they wished; McCall's doctor, for example, testified first but appeared last on the final tape.

Judge McCrystal then went over the entire recording in his chambers, considering objections from the two attorneys. Freed of courtroom pressures, he had time to consult precedents, and anything he ruled objectionable was deleted from the tape. On the other hand, if an attorney's objection was overruled, his statement of objection was erased. This system eliminated the common legal trick of introducing improper testimony in the hope that jurors will be unable to forget it.

The system also reduced the opportunities for lawyers' histrionics since the camera focused on the witness. Despite the camera's presence, witnesses seemed less nervous than they ordinarily are in court, and jurors reported no difficulty in assessing their credibility. The judge and lawyers did not even have to remain while the jury viewed the tape. It all took only one day, whereas a regular trial would normally have consumed at least 1 1/2 days.

Ohio judges who studied excerpts at a judicial conference two weeks ago were favorably impressed, though they doubted that the technique could soon be extended to criminal cases. One reason: a defendant's right to confront his accusers. There were a few minor problems for civil cases too. Conditioned to breaks and commercials, the jurors found the nonstop viewing taxing; next time, said Judge McCrystal, he would order a five-minute recess every half-hour. McCrystal also suggested that to reduce monotony, witnesses should be taped "on location," in their offices, at the accident site, in the hospital. All in all, though, said one juror, "it was much easier to keep my mind on what was going on."

Adds Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas E. Brennan: "Our technology is already in the 21st century. It is time for the legal profession to embark on a bold new adventure."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.