A Surprising Interest

A short while ago I read somewhere of a lady who had decluttered her entire house during the months of nursing her infant child.  She said the thing that prompted her to do so was a television habit she developed during middle-of-the-night feeds.

During those months she developed a passion for true crime documentaries and was continually amazed at the crime scene photos of people’s houses.  She became concerned that if a murder happened in her own house she’d be embarrassed to know that investigators would see her house in just as messy a state as those on the television.  So, after she had finished her baby’s late night feeds, she would spend a while cleaning and tidying her home.

Well, I have a guilty secret to reveal:  I’m not a viewer of midnight crime documentaries, but I am a listener to live streams of grizzly court cases.

It all began a few years ago when a famous actor took his far less famous ex wife to court on charges of defamation.

I’m sure you probably know to whom I’m referring. It’s difficult for anyone in the world not to have heard of this actor.  Personally, I think I’ve seen maybe three of his almost one hundred films.  Until his defamation case, I’d never heard of his ex wife, although I had heard at some point that he had been accused of domestic violence. Whilst this was a defamation trial, I suspected the domestic violence charges would make up a large part of it, and I was interested to know how a court handled such situations.

Initially I decided not to attempt to follow the case as I didn’t want to have to wade through all of the sensationalistic and biased reporting of the matter.  But I then heard that the trial would be televised.  At first I was hesitant to watch any of it as I was unsure of my opinions about the public having access to court proceedings.  However, I succumbed to the temptation.

To begin with, due to the time differences, I found myself sitting up rather late to view the proceedings live.  At some point however, I discovered a lawyer who had her own YouTube channel, who was watching the case and explaining things as it rolled along.  I soon reverted to listening to her videos on replay. 

It was fascinating.  She often had other lawyers join her, all giving their viewpoints and sharing their knowledge from their own experiences in various courts and jurisdictions.

Despite my short time of employment as a law clerk several decades ago, I had never actually had to sit in a courtroom during a case.  My only knowledge of how these things go was from fictional American television legal dramas.  I also had a vague memory of my amazing Dad saying that court cases are like plays.  “He would say that.” I thought.  “He’s a theatre man, afterall.”

But watching the actor’s trial a few years ago confirmed Dad’s observation.  Everything is essentially scripted.  Every person has a role and each role has a specific purpose.  Each character has their own cues and dialogue. Everything happens in a set order, in specific scenes.  All of the material is sifted before the trial begins and much is left on the cutting room floor, so to speak.  

Watching the actor’s trial a few years ago caused me to develop a great admiration and respect for the academic arguments between lawyers, before, during and after a trial.  I also became fascinated by the drama of a trial, particularly when one of the performers goes wildly off script.  My own responses to the proceedings I also found quite intriguing.  

Once the first character rests their case, usually the audience is relatively convinced that they are innocent.  Then the other character presents their case, and, usually, various elements of doubt are formed in the audience’s mind. 

What happens though, when the second character doesn’t seem to produce any evidence of their innocence, or worse, when they dig themselves into an ever deepening hole and their counsel is unable to reel them back in?  As an audience member, I’m feeling unbalanced and somewhat cheated.  I want the seemingly guilty party to bring some material that brings me to their side.

But I’m also drawn to the metaphorical train crash that is happening in slow motion.  I can’t bear to watch, but I can’t tear my eyes away from the scene.

This week, while I’ve been painting my kitchen, I’ve been listening to a court case that is currently happening in the U.S..  It’s of a mother who is presently serving three life sentences:  One each for the murder of two of her children, the other for conspiracy to murder her affair partner’s wife.  She also has another conviction for fraud.  Her 5th husband (you read that correctly), her affair partner, is on death row, having been previously convicted of the same crimes.

This latest case has her being her own lawyer, by her own choice, defending herself against a charge of conspiracy to murder her 4th husband, who unfortunately died.  Straight after this trial is complete she will be in court again, for charges of conspiracy to murder her niece’s husband.  Thankfully he survived.

I know. You’re wondering if I’m the same Nikki who writes for Miss Ramblings each month.

  I assure you, I don’t listen to these cases for the grizzly bits.  I listen to them for the academic wrangling between the lawyers and the drama when the various actors go off script. 

This case brings various ethical questions into play.  As I understand the law in most of the United States, everyone is to be afforded the right to legal representation, to a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  Everyone is also entitled to represent themselves in their own trial, if they are deemed competent to do so.

This lady though, is already serving the rest of her life in prison for her previous crimes.  Some people view her latest trial as being a waste of tax payers’ money, and if she loses, she could then appeal her conviction, which brings even more cost to the public purse.  If she manages to win her current case, her punishment remains the same as the one she is presently serving, so there is also a lot of time wasted by holding this trial.

One of the things that I find fascinating in this case is the dance that all of the players - judge, lawyers, and lay and professional witnesses alike - have to perform in order to protect this lady’s legal rights, and to avoid appellate issues.  It is a very fine balancing act.  I greatly admire the restraint of the family members of the victim who could so easily expose to the jury during their testimony, the facts that would cause a mistrial, when they probably just want to have a knockdown brawl with the defendant.

I know that I have often felt the same while I’ve performed my own balancing act on my ladder as I’ve painted my kitchen walls. The collateral damage from such crimes is almost beyond comprehension, and the strokes from my paint brush very much reflect my feelings regarding the matter.

In recent years I’ve been told sincerely that I would make a good lawyer and a good podcaster - two labels I would never have considered for myself.  At my age though, I’ll stick to what I do best, and that’s not painting walls - or keeping my house clean for marauding murdurers…

Nikki