Courts Are Not Circuses
In a February 4, 2010, article in the Toronto Globe and Mail about what is going to be a “high-profile” trial for murder, under the headline
A shocking school slaying rendered sterile in court
Christie Blatchford, who should know better, complained that the Crown’s opening statement “managed to render murder dull.” She wrote:
This is modern Canadian justice, where even such a shocking killing is rendered sterile, the poor victim barely given a nod, all in the name, presumably, of a prosecution so measured that no one will ever again be wrongfully convicted – or at least not because a Crown attorney thundered inappropriately and inflamed a jury.
and
Against all odds, the real-life principals of Law & Order Canada, undoubtedly following all the correct legal principles to the letter, have managed to render murder dull.
“Presumably” to avoid wrongful conviction? “Sterile”? Sterile for whom? The judge? The jury? Certainly not for the judge. Ms. Blatchford might have had a point if her purpose was to suggest that that the opening was so dull that it might have resulted in the jury not paying attention. However, there’s no reason to believe that was her point. If it was, she didn’t say that. As such, I think it correct to conclude that she didn’t mean “so dull that the judge and jury missed the point”.
Would Ms. Blatchford have complained in the manner she did if the victim of the killing was an admitted serial killer?
With all due respect to Ms. Blatchford, trials should be dull (in the entertainment sense) and even more so trials for murder. The purpose the “Law & Order” TV franchise is entertainment not truth. The purpose of the real criminal law & order franchise — the justice system — is truth.
It seems to me that, rather than complaining, the Globe & Mail and Ms. Blatchford ought to have commended the Crown for avoiding sensationalism, for honoring the standards of proper prosecutorial conduct in the pursuit of justice even if the result was that the Crown’s opening statement was, for her “dull”.
The comments about the article, on the Globe website, make the same points, albeit more pointedly and in fewer words. There are 5 shown under the “latest comments” heading.
Ms. Blatchford still has to keep her readers entertained, regardless of accurate correlation to the truth. If her writing became as dull as a murder trial, she would be out of a job.
It’s sad and terrifying if a writer as experienced as Ms. Blatchford can’t say what has an “accurate correlation to the truth” and be entertaining and interesting at the same time. Are only lies, falsehoods and misdecriptions interesting and entertaining? We are so dominated by TV’s American depiction of trials that even materials put out by Canadian law faculties and law publishers show judicial gavels all the time.
Ah, she could certainly be entertaining and truth-telling at the same time. As I am sure she has been on many occasion. But when the truth is dull, then it becomes more of a challenge to write about it in an interesting fashion.
A very good post. Thanks.
From the bit I’ve learned from reading some texts on advocacy, there are very strong legal rules about the scope and degree of passion permissible in an opening address. The rules are even stricter for the Crown Attorney, who is supposed to be a neutral minister of justice.
Many of these rules have developed over a long time and they are based on sound reason and logic. They are intended to promote fairness and justice. It’s not an accident that the common law has not recognized “entertainment” as a valid objective of an opening address.
Blatchford and I have tangled before on her sensationalized coverage of trials I have been involved in. She is not interested in presenting fair and balanced journalism in her writing. Her goal, pointedly and
admittedly, is to provide her commentary and opinion.
The problem that arises in my view is that The Globe (and previously the National Post when she was employed there) often presents her pieces in the context of news without an accompanying dispassionate factual story. The result is very entertaining, inflammatory, and doubtless sells newspapers but does serious violence to the administration of justice and the presumption of innocence — two principles Ms. Blatchford has shown general disdain for on numerous prior occasions (unless the accused happens to be a police officer in which case she becomes a born-again believer in the Charter and all its myriad procedural rights heretofore known as ‘technicalities’).
As others have pointed out, a fiery inflammatory opening statement is ground for a mistrial or appeal. I happened to be in that very court yesterday and overheard two crowns bemoaning Batchford’s attack on them as they struggled to fairly present the crown’s case as opposed to shamelessly toady to the tabloid headlines.