Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


First they came for the birthday card . . . (fp)

Let the jailbreaking begin! (kw)

For the Niall denial files. (fp)

Professors as processors. (fp)

Great Moderation hits Great Mortification. (fp)

Understanding the Shirley Sherrod story. (fp)

Credit score cruelty. (fp)

Slowing Interior's revolving door. (fp)

Great risk shift: Americans more insecure; BC/BS enjoying a surplus. (fp)

Leamer: Economic theory is fiction; econometrics is journalism. (fp)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Harris Telemacher on Starbucks' Secret Menu

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Nate Oman on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Michael S. Langston on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Nate Oman on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Nate Oman on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Nate Oman on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Frank Pasquale on Three Defenses of Markets

    • A.J. Sutter on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Jeff Lipshaw on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Jeff Lipshaw on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Marc DeGirolami on Three Defenses of Markets

    • Jeff Lipshaw on Three Defenses of Markets
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Prime Time is Crime Time

posted by Corey Yung

During the week, one can watch an incredible number of crime-themed television shows. Just on the major networks during prime time, a coach potato with a DVR can view Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, Without a Trace, NCIS, The Mentalist, Fringe, Criminal Minds, Life on Mars, Lie to Me, Bones, Numb3rs, Cold Case, Cops, and America’s Most Wanted. There are also highly rated cable shows like The Closer and Monk. Not too long ago, the greatest crime show of them all, The Wire, ended. A decent number of these shows are watched by law students on a regular basis. There are also scores of crime-related movies that students have viewed.

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. Perhaps based upon those fond memories, I still have the show on my DVR schedule despite the fact that it has taken a turn for the worse in recent years. 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.

I’m not hoping for something even close to approximating perfection in terms of legal accuracy from television. However, I wonder if these shows are even employing lawyers as consultants anymore. The way criminal law is being portrayed is often so far removed from reality that I cannot even guess at what strange ideas my students are hearing. I’m guessing this phenomenon is unique to criminal law, but I’d be interested to hear if teachers in other areas have similar problems. And I’m curious to see if other professors teaching Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure have observed any increase in legal inaccuracies in popular culture or among their students.


 March 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm   Posted in: Criminal Law, Teaching   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (11)

  1. Howard Wasserman - March 13, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    I stopped watching the shows because they get so much so badly wrong. And I have no doubt students bring that into school with them. My colleague found the perfect illustration of why students have so many mistaken ideas from a recent L&O: The mistress of an investment adviser who operated a Ponzi scheme (call him Mernie Badoff) is kidnapped by a defrauded investor, who kills her when she tries to escape. The investor’s attorney argues to the jury that the woman would be alive but for Badoff’s fraud; an objection is sustained, and the lawyer returns right to the same argument. The investor is acquitted.

  2. TJ - March 14, 2009 at 12:54 am

    Some are better than others. For example, Eli Stone actually cited cases by name in situations that were somewhat on point. But as much as lawyers would love when television gets the details right, why would the general public know or care? Is there any difference in whether you learn the real law on L&O as against whether you learn real medicine on ER or Gray’s Anatomy?

  3. A.J. Sutter - March 14, 2009 at 1:18 am

    TJ, could one difference be that TV viewers serve on juries? I seem to recall that law enforcement officers and DAs have complained about how the false expectations set up by CSI-style shows make it harder to obtain convictions; isn’t there a similar danger if jurors get fixated on stuff like motive and other false legalisms? Of course, motive in particular has long been a fixture of TV lawyer shows, but Perry Mason didn’t have the verisimilitude that L&O does.

  4. student - March 14, 2009 at 4:43 am

    My favorite was a big multi-episode arc on House a season or two ago, where a local detective is finally closing in on House’s abuse of painkillers (oxycodone, I think?). The detective finally catches House red-handed writing out a prescription in the name of a deceased patient, having some pharmacist fill it, and then walking away with the pills.

    On trial for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act, House is about to convicted and locked up when another doctor swoops in to testify that she knew House was going to do this and arranged for the pharmacist to fill the bottle with placebos instead. The judge then rules from the bench that if House didn’t get the actual pills, then he couldn’t have committed the crime, and issues a directed verdict of acquittal on the spot. Apparently this judge never learned, as all 1Ls do, that federal law punishes attempt exactly the same as it does a successful crime…

  5. Brett Bellmore - March 14, 2009 at 6:53 am

    “I’m guessing this phenomenon is unique to criminal law,”

    They get something you know about grossly wrong, and you blithely assume that they’re getting the stuff you’re not so well informed about right?

    Why?

    No, they get everything that wrong.

  6. Corey Rayburn Yung - March 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Hi Brett,

    I’m not assuming that they are getting other areas of law right – I’m assuming that other areas of law are rarely explored on TV. While there are dozens of criminal law shows, I’m not sure that there has ever been a property law show. Some TV shows and movies address civil litigation, but I’m “guessing” that there is nothing in other areas of law resembling the level of misinformation in the criminal sphere. That simply stems from the infrequency of the depiction of other law subjects. I’m happy to hear examples to the contrary from people teaching other subjects or anyone else.

  7. Joe - March 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Corey,

    The rules of evidence are terribly abused in the context of TV lawsuits as well. Think about the daytime TV “courts”. Even educated people tend to assume that those are more or less accurate to how a real court would operate.

  8. joe - March 14, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Corey,

    The rules of evidence are terribly abused in the context of TV lawsuits as well. Think about the daytime TV “courts”. Even educated people tend to assume that those are more or less accurate to how a real court would operate.

  9. Brett Bellmore - March 14, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Corey, by “everything”, I scarcely meant just “other areas of law”. I meant, “everything”. Physics, chemistry, history, everything.

    Just keep in mind that the only subject people producing TV and movies are well versed in or care to get right is producing TV and movies.

  10. peter - March 14, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Brett — I have no doubt that you are absolutely right. I think that when Corey wrote, “I’m guessing this phenomenon is unique to criminal law,” the sense was, “I’m guessing that when legal errors are made on cop shows, the errors relate specifically to criminal law.” It would be surprising indeed if the producers were uniquely more inclined to ignore legal issues than, say, questions about engineering, genomics, or literary history.

  11. A.W. - March 16, 2009 at 11:42 am

    What, you mean ashely judd misled me? Once convicted of murdering a person, and it turned out they are alive, i CAN’T kill them later and get off scott free? Ah, crap. Well, there goes my weekend plans.

    /silliness

    Btw, Law and Order has gotten better recently. imho.

    And you left out another big legal show: Boston Legal. Which, yes, often deals with crim. law.

    As for watching these shows, my advice to non-lawyers is just assume everything it says about the law is wrong. As for lawyers, I say, just forget everything you know about the law and enjoy the human drama. I mean seriously, how can a person even sit through the legally illiterate ones like Boston Legal, otherwise?

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Thomas Crocker
Kristin Johnson
Tuan Samahon
Corey Yung




Need A Solicitor?
Find the right solicitor to advise you on all your litigation law, employment law, divorce law and family law related matters. Use the award winning legal search and matching service from TakeLegalAdvice.com









Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Marc Poirier
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress