I happened to catch a glimpse of some sketches from the Peterson trial, and I couldn’t believe how amateurish and awful the art was. Each person in the courtroom was rendered with hideous, ogrish facial features, apparently by the hand of a drunken six-year-old who failed finger painting. Nobody looks anything like they do in real life. The sketches from the Martha Stewart trial make Martha look like the creature from the black lagoon! Why the hell can’t any of these people draw?
How does one get a job doing this type of work to begin with? Do unemployed painters and cartoonists struggle to get the contracts? What if professional artists like Gary Larson, R. Crumb and Daniel Clowes did these sketches; wouldn’t that kick ass?
I remember a Daily Show report that featured courtroom art that was nothing but stick figures. Evidently this has been true for a while. Look at these pictures of the Patty Hearst trial. And just to show this artists versatility look at his awful pictures of subway construction. The prices seem kind of high to me.
Are the sketch artist members of the press or are they employed by the court? If they are just the press, I would think your drawing skill matters a lot less than your connections. And I can’t imagine there’s a lot of turnover to let newcomers get a shot.
Here in the UK, courtoom sketch artists aren’t allowed to sketch in court, by law. They have to memorise and make notes, then duck out of the courtroom to do the actual drawing.
I had to do some Court drawings in New Zealand a few years ago for a tiny local TV station, on a very very high profile trial. I hadn’t done anything like it before, and I didn’t think my pictures were particularly good, especially since newspapers and other TV stations had their more experienced artists also there.
But the writer from a hugely significant national publication saw my drawings and asked me to provide some more for his article.
Anyway, the point is that talent is not really as important as skill - basically you get who you can on short notice and hope they can do the job adequately.
I am guessing that it is poorly paid and spotty employment, so good professional artists go into advertising, etc. I have also been stunned at courtroom sketches that appear to have been done by the judge’s 12-year-old niece. I am a moderately accomplished sketch artist, and could knock off a decent on-the-dash sketch of Martha Stewart or Scott Peeterson no problem—but could I afford to make a career of it? Nope.
Actually, they did this much earlier in the early years of Saturday Night Live, back when Chevy Chase was hosting Weekend Update. The first time I saw it I thought it was hilarious.
I have to admit that I don’t understand the reasoning that allows sketch artists but not photographers. But then again, I still don’t understand the reasoning against letting jurors keep notes – certainly their notes can contain errors, but so can the memories they’re forced to rely on in the absence of notes.
And, just for the record, I’ve generally been pretty impressed by the quality of the courtroom sketches I’ve seen.
Good point. The sketch artist might be in the courtroom for the duration, but presumably wants to catch the people involved at climactic moments, like when a verdict is read. They only have a brief interval of time in which to do that.
My lawyer friend says it’s so that the jurors don’t get all wrapped up in their notes, rather than paying close attention to what people are saying. Also, handing them a pad of paper and a pen is basically an invitation to them to start doodling, writing out a grocery list, writing notes to one another, etc.
They do not have to rely entirely on memories; they do have the transcript to refer to.
It’s no the ideal system, but then, no system of justice that involves human beings ever could be perfect.
Yeah, but transcripts aren’t the same as notes. IANALawyer, so I have no idea how transcripts can or can’t be used. Can every juror read them at will? If not, they’re not the same as notes. I’ve also heard of cases where jurors could not use transcripts, and really did have to rely on memory. Is this true?
I worked at a TV station who had one reporter who was a decent sketch artist, so they sent him to cover trials in addition to his other reporting.
He worked on the fly, trying to get his sketches done while he was taking notes. Throw in the fact that he was using a variety of colored pencils (TV is in color, after all) and I thought he was damn good to get anything more than stick figures.
The ban on courtroom photography goes back to the big old Graflex and similar cameras. They really were a distraction. I suppose a miniature digital camera could be nearly invisible, but if all the reporters pulled theirs out and started shooting at a given moment in the trial, jurors could pay extra attention to that moment, and place greater importance on it than other points.
Regarding the original OP question, I saw an interesting segment on the local news about one of the artists who’s doing the Peterson trial drawings. Apparently, the key for these artists is to be able to draw FAST. But they also have to decide WHAT to draw in real time. They have to pay attention in court, pick out what they think are the important moments in the trial proceedings, sketch out out the scenes and people really fast, color them, and then post them on a board outside the courtroom for all the news cameras to pick up. Considering how quickly they have to make judgments about what’s interesting or relevant in a trial, draw everything quickly, and provide something for the news media by deadlines, I was impressed by how these court artists do their jobs.
