The Court of Sensationalism: The media needs to stop using criminal justice cases to capitalize off of

Tears streamed down Kyle Rittenhouse’s face as the verdict was read. He had been tried for first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree intentional homicide. The list of dropped charges was seemingly endless, but the camera kept rolling. The video would be released to the public within minutes and be viewed hundreds of thousands times.

But with the public shoving their opinions about every word or action that comes out of the trial down the jurors’ throats through social media posts and protests, the trial’s outcome could possibly be attributed to bias — even if the result was a conviction. This bias doesn’t mean that the jurors had a personal agenda, it could have been caused by subtle influences and heuristics.

The news network MSNBC was even banned from the courtroom because a man claiming to work for them was suspected of following the jury transport van upon the request of his boss in New York, though he claimed no intention of pursuing the jurors.

Media and the press have capitalized on the criminal justice system in recent years, creating an excessive amount of newscasts, articles and social media posts. The trial took precedence over other news and one statistic snapshot found in the book “Tabloid Justice: Criminal Justice in an Age of Media Frenzy” in the ‘90s showed that CBS spent 46% of its broadcast on a given tabloid crime, and NBC and ABC spent 45% and 31% while the trial was happening, respectively.

By no means should we completely stop reporting on trials. They’re a public form and the people have the right to information, but displaying every word the witnesses say and providing constant updates and footage can have major impacts on the outcome of trials, like in the case of O.J. Simpson, and how the public responds to the case, through talk and radio shows and social media nowadays.

Public attention on a trial can infringe on the defendant’s right to due process. Trials must have an impartial jury to judge the trial, and there are no outside influences coming into the courtroom. Both of these aspects are quite vulnerable, and the case of Sheppard v. Maxwell shows that. In this case, a retrial was allowed because of the extreme behavior and sensationalism exuded by the press.

The media’s sensationalism can be traced back to 1979 during Ted Bundy’s trial — which drew media involvement due to his eccentric actions like marrying his girlfriend while she was on the stand and being his own defense rather than using a lawyer. The people started to see that the trials shown on TV were a new and interesting form of entertainment.

The excessive use of media to promote the trials of controversial criminals happens often enough that most judges don’t allow cameras in their courtroom, because it can put the fairness of the trial at jeopardy, mainly through improper “evidence” that is found through reporting and assumptions made by the press. Not to mention it can result in publicity stunts from the people involved in the trial and create narratives that romanticize the involved parties or create martyrs.

And this is no good for not only the people directly involved with the case, but for the people that take time to get sucked into it.

The use of trial footage in tabloids and news sources feeds a hungry public — one that jumps at any chance to take a side on something. Cases like these have clear and defined sides, making it a perfect storm for partisan views of the public to have no substantial gray area separating them.

In the conviction of Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh’s baby, a major result of the trial was the condemnation of television, camera and audio recordings in courtrooms, adopted by almost every state, for almost two decades. It was the response to news outlets creating biased articles and media against Hauptmann under trial in order to warp the truth of the case. Criminal justice had been exploited in a brand new way.

The “ban” that followed the Hauptmann trial case has since been either ignored or experimented with by courts. Several states, such as Texas in ‘65, would create the path towards the slow allowance of recording equipment based on the judge’s discretion and several notable cases like Estes v. Texas to see if the ban was still necessary. The conviction of Estes would later be overturned citing media disruption.

In state superior courts, the presiding judge has the power to decide if television cameras are allowed in the courtroom during the trial on a case-by-case basis, and California Rule 1.150 lists 19 factors for the judge to consider in that decision. Additionally, 48 states allow for any method of audio or visual coverage in their courtrooms, and almost 40 states directly televise trials.

Television exposure creates a lot of material for the media to work with. When given the opportunity, the public can jump at the chance to misconstrue words through these cases, whether that be through documentaries, newscasts or cable networks. When it comes to Rittenhouse, social media was the catalyst of the divide his trial accentuated.

The double murder case of Kitty and Jose Menendez in 1989 — a couple shot and killed by their sons, Eric, 23, and Lyle, 20 — is yet another example of public division by the media that leads to deep interpersonal barriers and creation of unnecessary arguments.

The public was divided between those who believed the brothers killed their parents to end a cycle of abuse, and the people who believed that the testimonies of the abuse were pure fiction. The divide has since sparked many documentaries and analyses, not to mention a whole movie — glorifying and capitalizing on the horrors of the situation.

Those defending the brothers raised them to an unrealistic pedestal — sympathizing with their alleged abusive home life.

If you look at clips from the day that Ted Bundy was executed, you’ll see people waiting outside of the Florida State Prison, tailgating and selling T-shirts like it was a sports game as they await the death of a man they never knew. They were only children at the time of Bundy’s trial.

Another memorable factor in the Menendez brothers’ trial was Erik’s lawyer, Leslie Abrahmson, who fueled the media’s excessive coverage surrounding the trial. Abrahmson didn’t hesitate to respond to reporters’ inquiries when they were in recess, and different sides of the case viewed her actions very differently.

Many say she’s outspoken and dedicated in her work, while others paint her as a picture of chaos, aggressive with the prosecution and devilish in her strategies. One of the lawyers on the prosecution went far enough to say that if she was given a gun and two bullets in the courtroom she would “shoot Leslie twice to make sure she was dead” on a TV series called “Dominick Dunne’s Power, Privilege, and Justice” — which is concerning to say the least.

The show is a direct representation of the “Hollywood-ization” of trials, where they can be a performance to the audience in some way.

This mass behavior of viewing reality more as plot points is prevalent in the case of O.J. Simpson. In a poll conducted during the trial, 74% of Americans could recognize O.J. ‘s houseguest and friend Kato Kaelin, but only 25% could recognize the vice president of the United States. It’s not that shocking, considering the courtroom drama surrounding it — from Mark Fuhrman’s racism to the gloves found on the scene — captivating 17 million people in the preliminary hearings alone.

O.J. was found not guilty, and the judge and jury has suffered the wrath of people that disagree. Though, the question has to be asked — was the public the reason he was acquitted?

A common trend of all of these cases of sensationalism is the televising of the entirety of the trial. To be fair, there are a lot of major trials that aren’t televised, but giving the people access to every bit of it while it’s occurring simply shouldn’t be happening, to uphold the justice in courtrooms and allow them to do their jobs.

And to keep people who did horrible things from either the onslaught or the reverence of the public.