The Law: Trialevision

Considering all that the likes of Perry Mason, Owen Marshall and Billy Jim Hawkins have done over the years for TV, it seems only fair that TV should contribute to the administration of justice. A few states, including Colorado, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, already make some use of video-taped testimony to avoid delay for both the court and the witness; after testimony is recorded at the witness’s convenience, it can be introduced at any time. But such piecemeal use of TV is timid indeed compared to an undertaking that concluded last week in Sandusky, Ohio.

Following through on earlier experiments, Common Pleas Court Judge James McCrystal decided that all the testimony in 14 related civil cases should be taken on video tape. As a result, panels of jurors showed up at the courthouse to watch a few hours on the tube, then rendered verdicts without ever seeing a single witness in the flesh. Opening and closing statements plus jury instructions were given live by lawyers and judge. The jurors were otherwise left in the courtroom—glued to a TV monitor.

During the taping, two cameras cut neatly from attorney to witness, with closeups and insets of exhibits to break up the visual monotony. Objections raised by counsel were noted, and later the judge reviewed that part of the testimony; if he sustained an objection, the court clerk simply erased the offending questions and answers. Otherwise the testimony was unedited.

The project seemed to be a success for everyone involved. Myrtle Shattuck spoke for most jurors: “It is easier to concentrate on TV than if we had the people here.” The attorneys found several advantages. More precise opening statements were possible, said Lawyer Thomas J. Murray Jr., because “I knew exactly what my witnesses were going to say.” Assistant Attorney General Robert Oglesby said that he was more relaxed when questioning a witness in front of a camera instead of a jury. The witnesses were more at ease too. All the cases decided involved appropriation of land for the widening of a major highway. Though the jury awards were higher than what the state had offered, Oglesby agreed with the judge and opposing counsel that the results would not have differed in conventional trials.

Efficiency is the major gain of trial-evision. The lawyers and witnesses could get together at their mutual convenience. Some witnesses appearing in more than one trial were able to tape all their testimony at one session. While juries watched the televised evidence, the judge and attorneys tended to other business, including other trials.

Two a Day. Judge McCrystal spent less than three hours reviewing the objections in the 14 trials; under the regular system he would have had to sit through 52 hours of testimony. Where the evidence is critical to the instructions to the jury, “I’d have to hear the testimony,” McCrystal explained. But “it’s just not necessary in a routine case.”

Moreover, the 14 trials were completed in eleven working days; normally, McCrystal estimated, they would have stretched over 40 to 45 days with delays. He thinks that he could double his docket without adding personnel.

“There’s no reason why I couldn’t conduct an average of one taped trial each court day while conducting a conventional trial at the same time.”

Criminal trials may never be suitable for widespread video taping because of a defendant’s intricate array of constitutional rights. Bitterly contested, emotionally charged civil cases would probably also present problems. “Video tape is just too mechanized,” says Chicago Criminal Lawyer Warren Wolfson.

“The witness should have to sit there and look at the jury.” Sandusky Attorney Murray also misses “the excitement of the live trial.” But he believes in video tape so much that he persuaded his firm to put in a fully equipped studio.