EXCLUSIVE – Choose Judith Sheindlin helps recreate a number of the most controversial court docket instances in American historical past in her new present, “Justice on Trial.”
The present, which was over 10 years within the making and eventually premiered on Prime Video final Monday, revisits eight of probably the most monumental court docket instances in American reminiscence — permitting the viewer to resolve if justice was really served with every verdict. The principle legal professionals featured on the present are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer.
Episode seven includes a re-telling of “Snyder v. Phelps,” by which a grieving father, Albert Snyder, sued Fred Phelps and his followers on the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional misery after church members protested his son Matthew’s navy funeral. The churchgoers, as depicted within the episode, carried indicators studying, “God Hates Your Son,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and “Thank God for 9/11,” to protest the navy’s tolerance of homosexuality.
As Snyder famous throughout the trial, his son was not homosexual. The protesters have been protesting the navy at-large. The court docket showdown highlighted the authorized boundaries of protected speech when it conflicts with potential hurt to others.
A jury in the USA District Courtroom for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a complete of $10.9 million, which the choose lowered to $5 million. The Fourth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Phelps’ speech was protected by the First Modification. The Supreme Courtroom upheld the Fourth Circuit’s ruling.
The fiery Sheindlin had an opinion on the matter. Whereas she and others could discover the protesters’ indicators “abhorrent,” she intoned that the Structure does shield free speech.
“Totally uncaring for people who are religious people, totally uncaring about the emotional trauma that that kind of demonstration might have on the family,” Sheindlin mentioned of the Westboro protests in an interview with Fox Information Digital. “And yet the Supreme Court said in its decision that they had a right to express their views, even though their views were maybe abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans. I suppose you have to be able to… I wouldn’t want to tolerate seeing the American flag burned in protest in America. Just wouldn’t. It would offend me. But you have the right to do it. Is there a law that proscribes it? And I’d say probably not.”
So how do Individuals reconcile their anger at a verdict with the Courtroom’s constitutional tasks? Sheindlin started her reply by referencing the film “American President.”
“I mean, we all would like our presidents to be like Michael Douglas, correct?” she mentioned. “And he said something at the end, but he’s making the big speech at the end. He said, ‘As an American, America is not easy, and you have to be able to defend somebody burning a flag, the American flag, as a protest, if you’re going to insist that freedom of speech and expression exists.’ And while we are all offended, it just didn’t seem right that for no apparent reason, with no knowledge of who this young man was who was killed, just because they had a cause, they didn’t care what the collateral damage was emotionally to the family of this young man.”
Choose Judy mentioned there was one case, particularly, that spurred her to wish to create “Justice on Trial” and which will additionally depart some Individuals feeling like justice could have taken a stroll.
“It was a case that happened in New York many, many years ago,” she shared.
“Two young thugs decided to rob an old man on the subway. Believe it or not, I remember the man’s name. His name was Jerome Sandusky, and he was a man well in his 70s. And one of them was acting as a lookout. The other one went down the stairs with the pretty deserted platform and was beating up this old man in an attempt to take his watch and cash. And a transit police officer heard the screams of the old man coming from the subway, and he ran down into the subway. Pulled out his revolver and said, ‘Stop, police!’ And the young thug ran off and was running up the stairs. Police said, ‘Stop, police!’ He didn’t stop, and the police officer shot him. And he shot him in the back as he was fleeing.”
Then issues obtained difficult in court docket and the state of affairs appeared to activate the sufferer.
“The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million,” Sheindlin continued.
“And then Mr. Sandusky, who took a very long time to recover from his physical wounds, but who would, you know — if you’re a crime victim emotionally, you really never get over being a victim of violent crime. And Mr. Sandusky, he said, ‘Well, that’s sort of outrageous. I was the victim.’ And so he hired a lawyer because now this thug had $4.3 million and his lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. So there are many facets to that case. Whether or not, ultimately, justice was served is an issue. And if you ask 10 people, given those set of facts, you will get at least eight different opinions.”
All eight episodes of “Justice on Trial” are streaming now on Prime Video. Different instances coated by the collection embody the well-known Scopes Monkey trial, Gideon v. Wainwright and Individuals v. Turriago. Within the latter case, troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a dashing violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to find a decomposing physique locked in a steamer trunk. The episode explores the query of whether or not or not the search of the truck was authorized.
The collection is created and govt produced by Sheindlin. Casey Barber, David Carr and Randy Douthit are additionally govt producers. Amy Freisleben is a co-executive producer.
