The Seamless Web: A Blog on Law, Popular Culture and Related Issues

Before Bernie Madoff

Alessandra Stanley reviews the PBS miniseries Little Dorrit, based on the Charles Dickens novel, here.

TV Producer Gets Prison Term In Death of Wife

A judge has sentenced tv producer J. J. Paulsen to 26 years in prison for the death of his wife Leanne. Mr. Paulsen agreed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter in exchange for dismissal of murder charges. Read more here.

Law & Order: SVU Will Film at UN

An episode of Law & Order: SVU will be filmed at the UN, a first for TV, and for the United Nations, which hasn't allowed a network tv series to shoot at the building in the past. Note that some films have used the UN as a film site, including Alfred Hitchcock's thriller North by Northwest, although Hitchcock wasn't allowed to film inside, and Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter. Other movies have used the iconic UN building as a backdrop for scenes. Read more here.

Broadway Honors Natasha Richardson

Natasha Richardson, tragically dead after a skiing accident, received a tribute from Broadway colleagues yesterday. Theaters in the West End of London will dim their lights tomorrow. Meanwhile, I still wonder why she didn't go to the hospital immediately after she fell during her skiing lesson, apparently waiting several hours before seeking treatment there from physicians. A very sad story about a gifted performer, taken from us much too early.

Kanye West To Be Charged Over Airport Incident

According to TMZ.com, Kanye West and his manager are being charged with battery and several other charges as a result of an LAX airport confrontation last September. Read more here.

Battlestar Galactica

The cast from Battlestar Galactica and the folks at the United Nations joined up to celebrate the show's final episode this week. As an NPR story about the event points out, it's probably the first time the organization has represented other planets. (Link available later today).

Legal Dramas, Legal Misinformation, and What People Think They Know About Law

Over at Concurring Opinions, Corey Yung writes about disinformation on crime and law shows and asks whether criminal law is the only area in which bad information is being broadcast via these fictional shows.

One of my the things I like most about teaching Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure is that students often come into the class filled with opinions and "knowledge" about the two subjects from popular culture. That background makes for very lively discussions and even students who have no interest in criminal law often have strong opinions about the subject. I can also tap into that knowledge base by using television and movie examples, including using movie clips during class. However, the downside of all of that cultural baggage is that I often have to account for all of the bits of misinformation that my students might have.

Lately, I have been wondering if the problems associated with that misinformation have been growing. Once upon a time, the show Law & Order cited real New York cases and discussed legal issues in a way that was at least connected to reality....The same week that I was teaching the first day of mens rea, I sat down to watch a few Law & Order episodes that I had recorded. In one episode, the defense made a bizarre suppression motion which was granted. After the suppression motion was granted, the defense moved for dismissal on the grounds that there was no remaining evidence of motive. Astoundingly, the motion was granted with prejudice. So, as I am going to teach my class that motive is not an element of the crime and that motive is different than mens rea, television is sending a very different message.

Frankly, I think not. I have, in addition to my law degree, an advanced degree in history, and I studied a lot of European history. What passes for accuracy in European history on television (and here I'm talking about fiction shows, not documentaries) is just amazing. I've written about this phenomenon elsewhere.  I understand the desire to entertain, and I understand that tv folks are in the business of balancing entertainment against accuracy, when they need to account for the bottom line. But why sacrifice accuracy when accuracy doesn't necessarily cost anything? What's the point of giving an inaccurate impression when giving an accurate (or even neutral) impression would cost nothing?

I'm not the only person who thinks problems exist, or might be increasing. Here's discussion on problems with some legal dramas currently on tv from theHouston Chronicle. TV folks can get good consultants in any discipline to assist them in vetting their scripts. This would be a business expense. Why don't they do it more often? If they do it, why don't they listen to their consultants?

What is the result of weird or inaccurate information bleeding from television legal dramas or other shows into a potential jury pool? Possibly a bad verdict, particularly in a criminal case. Thus, voir dire is really important. Let's hear it for those Sheppard factors.

 

Holding Out For a Hero

CNN has this article about why superheroes rise in popularity in times of crisis or "tough times."

Adam's Rib

Post, and series of comments, from the Volokh Conspiracy, on Adam's Rib, on the anniversary of its release.

Scientists, Renaissance People

LSU biochemistry professor Vince LiCata's play DNA was produced at LSU recently. Here's a Science article about other scientists who write, make art, and express themselves in ways other than in the lab.