There is a pretty good show on a public access channel in the DC area. It’s the GMU TV channel (George Mason University).
At 10pm every Wednesday evening there is a guest host leading a discussion panel with regard to media & law and their role in society. The panelist include some very noteworthy guests including (last night) some circuit court judges, prominent lawyers (one of them has argued multiple times in the supreme court), the chief of a major California newspaper (Oakland, I think), and one Superior Court Justice - Scalia.
The topic of conversation on last night’s program was how lawyers present cases. More importantly how they present truth in the interest of the client.
Without going into too much detail, it became very evident that in a court of law, the determination of truth is not necessarily what’s at stake. What’s at stake is the interpretation of truth that best suits the plaintif and defendant. The lawyers admited as much and so did the judges. The judges went further on to say that short of obvious deception by either legal counsel, it is not their job to clarify for the jury any specific aspect of an argument being put forward by the lawyers.
Specifically, Justice Scalia said that the main objective of a trial is to come out with a final verdict. Usually, that also implies uncovering the truth, but not in all cases. The jury must decide which argument is more compelling while the judge must ensure that the legal proceedings are followed according to the laws set out by the legal system. In other words, as long as lawyers play by the rules they can spin arguments and evidence almost any way they want in the interest of their client. This despite their knowledge of fact that are contrary to their angle of spin.
Justice Scalia went further to say that, though this system is not perfect, it has been around for a couple of hundred years and seems to have served society with some degree of fairness. He suggested that the Civil Law system may have some advantages but it is far more dependent on the judge than the legal counsel and thus is far more dependent on the competence of the judge as opposed to the lawyer. He further noted that if you happen to lose a case because you chose a bad lawyer, the blame falls completely on you and not the legal system.
Now I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but surely, given all the great legal minds that we currently have in this country, couldn’t someone suggest a better, more honest/fair system?
I must admit that I would not know where to begin to make changes but I’d like to hear some of your comments (especially from the legal eagles among us).