GUILTY IL - Willow Long, 7, Watson, 8 Sept 2013 - #5

[Kamille]

How soon is Watson/Effingham (per tlcya) going to get permission to use cameras in their courtroom I wonder. Now's the time! Wonder if the holdup is funding.

As interesting as it is to watch trials, and as curious as I would be to watch this one, I really think that cameras and a large media presence in the courtroom, and then all over the airwaves night after night, with obvious manipulation for "entertainment" purposes, have a negative effect on the process. While it is important to keep courtrooms public, I think that a few media representatives in attendance, reporting on the day's proceedings, via twitter, news broadcast, or online/print media, is sufficient to ensure this. As well as the local general public who choose to attend to witness the process. I don't think the HLN circus type media atmosphere is helpful at all in any court proceedings, especially in first degree murder trials.

MOO

 

[white rabbit]

PD's get their case assignments at the luck of the draw. Seminars are costly and registration fees must be paid up front. So too must room reservations be made. Attonerys are required to complete a certain amount of hours of CLE (continuing legal education) in order to remain in good standing with the ISBA (Illinois State Bar Assoc.)

Attorney Schmidt likely was already at the seminar or unable to back out of attending without losing the monies expended to register for it at the late date he received the case assignment. Its not like anything substantive was likely to happen at this initial hearing on the charges and plea entry and there was another PD there to represent the defendant's interests.

agree with the above but will have to disagree on principle. he was appointed chief PD in july. this is his first trial of such magnitude and IMO a seminar, no matter how costly nor how mundane the arraignment, does not outweigh the professional courtesy of showing up for a defendant accused of murder one.

JMO but there may have been another reason he wasn't present in court. not sure what that reason is (yet)...nor if it's relevant. it's simply unprofessional at this level...MOO...

 

[floridamomma]

agree with the above but will have to disagree on principle. he was appointed chief PD in july. this is his first trial of such magnitude and IMO a seminar, no matter how costly nor how mundane the arraignment, does not outweigh the professional courtesy of showing up for a defendant accused of murder one.

JMO but there may have been another reason he wasn't present in court. not sure what that reason is (yet)...nor if it's relevant. it's simply unprofessional at this level...MOO...

I disagree. He did have representation. And it would be far more unprofessional for the attorney to lose his license over a lack of CLE's! Even when you hire an attorney, that particular atty isn't going to necessarily be with you at every single deposition, hearing, etc.

 

[LucyOso]

As interesting as it is to watch trials, and as curious as I would be to watch this one, I really think that cameras and a large media presence in the courtroom, and then all over the airwaves night after night, with obvious manipulation for "entertainment" purposes, have a negative effect on the process. While it is important to keep courtrooms public, I think that a few media representatives in attendance, reporting on the day's proceedings, via twitter, news broadcast, or online/print media, is sufficient to ensure this. As well as the local general public who choose to attend to witness the process. I don't think the HLN circus type media atmosphere is helpful at all in any court proceedings, especially in first degree murder trials.

MOO

I agree. I think in someways it glamorizes or can inflate egos of sociopathic perps (in general). The more a case is sensationalized, the more the public loses its grasp on the reality and severity of a case. It is murder, not a soap opera. :twocents:

 

[Karmady]

agree with the above but will have to disagree on principle. he was appointed chief PD in july. this is his first trial of such magnitude and IMO a seminar, no matter how costly nor how mundane the arraignment, does not outweigh the professional courtesy of showing up for a defendant accused of murder one.

JMO but there may have been another reason he wasn't present in court. not sure what that reason is (yet)...nor if it's relevant. it's simply unprofessional at this level...MOO...

I disagree with the need for him personally to be there, especially if he's the Chief. But that fact also makes it occur to me that he may have been a speaker rather than an attendee, so even more reason for him not to cancel his plans for a 9 minute routine hearing. jmo

 

[human]

agree with the above but will have to disagree on principle. he was appointed chief PD in july. this is his first trial of such magnitude and IMO a seminar, no matter how costly nor how mundane the arraignment, does not outweigh the professional courtesy of showing up for a defendant accused of murder one.

JMO but there may have been another reason he wasn't present in court. not sure what that reason is (yet)...nor if it's relevant. it's simply unprofessional at this level...MOO...

JD was going to hire his own attorney so this was pretty last minute notice.

I don't think anyone owes someone else their whole life. Not much happens in those first few court appearances anyway.

 

[floridamomma]

JD was going to hire his own attorney so this was pretty last minute notice.

I don't think anyone owes someone else their whole life. Not much happens in those first few court appearances anyway.

jd owes willow his.

jus' sayin'....

 

[popsicle]

As interesting as it is to watch trials, and as curious as I would be to watch this one, I really think that cameras and a large media presence in the courtroom, and then all over the airwaves night after night, with obvious manipulation for "entertainment" purposes, have a negative effect on the process. While it is important to keep courtrooms public, I think that a few media representatives in attendance, reporting on the day's proceedings, via twitter, news broadcast, or online/print media, is sufficient to ensure this. As well as the local general public who choose to attend to witness the process. I don't think the HLN circus type media atmosphere is helpful at all in any court proceedings, especially in first degree murder trials.

MOO

I happen to agree with cameras in the courtroom. It is an important part of the process, for the system to be transparent and for the public to see that a fair trial was indeed held in a court of law. This is not just for local citizens, but for the citizens of the U.S. to see as well. There are courtrooms that have cameras that live-stream every single day... whatever is going on in the courtroom and however mundane it may be.

I do agree about the whole HLN circus only because they discuss it to death and get so many facts wrong... it becomes a joke. There has been some really well covered trials by the local media and live-streamed. Yes, I truly believe we all have a right to see these trials. We are all here supporting the victims through this and praying this is their day for justice. jmo

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The trials that attract national interest often do turn into media circuses imo.
The jurors suffer afterward too if they don't produce a verdict in agreement with the masses. It's unfair to them because they don't know everything the public does which is sometimes based largely on emotion, opinion and even due to having close ties to the victim.
Yet, watching a trial or two provides an education for those of us who have no prior experience or education in law.
This aspect of having televised trials I appreciate - I'm less of a dummy today than I was several years ago!

 

[2Hope4]

I don't know if I can handle this trial. Then I think of what Willow endured, and think if she HAD to go through with it, I should be strong enough to listen to a trial. But I don't know that I want to know anymore details about her death. I want to know details on whether anyone else was involved, or helped cover up her murder, but I just don't know that I want to hear the rest of the autopsy report. We've only been given a glimpse for the probably cause hearing. We haven't heard all the details.

Gosh why can't people leave the kids alone??? Terrible enough when an adult dies or is murdered. But to snuff out the innocence of a child, and take their life. I just can't understand it! EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't think it would be a problem if the trial was streamed live on local news websites. I don't see the trial turning into a huge media circus, with the entire thing being shown on national TV.

 

[Apollo]

I happen to agree with cameras in the courtroom. It is an important part of the process, for the system to be transparent and for the public to see that a fair trial was indeed held in a court of law. This is not just for local citizens, but for the citizens of the U.S. to see as well. There are courtrooms that have cameras that live-stream every single day... whatever is going on in the courtroom and however mundane it may be.

I do agree about the whole HLN circus only because they discuss it to death and get so many facts wrong... it becomes a joke. There has been some really well covered trials by the local media and live-streamed. Yes, I truly believe we all have a right to see these trials. We are all here supporting the victims through this and praying this is their day for justice. jmo

I agree with you about the HLN circus and their reporting of inaccurate information. Many of us watch the live trial and when we tune into their shows, some of the things they state are inaccurate or never happened. I get a visual of Kathy Bates in 'Misery' screaming "That's not what happened ! Have you all got amnesia?!!!"

 

[southernnana]

Popsicle, thank you for your post!! I agree with your opinion concerning cameras in the courtroom. I enjoy watching the trial proceedings on TV as well as observing the behavior of the attorneys and witnesses .... all very interesting and educational.

I happen to agree with cameras in the courtroom. It is an important part of the process, for the system to be transparent and for the public to see that a fair trial was indeed held in a court of law. This is not just for local citizens, but for the citizens of the U.S. to see as well. There are courtrooms that have cameras that live-stream every single day... whatever is going on in the courtroom and however mundane it may be.
<snipped>

 

[white rabbit]

JD was going to hire his own attorney so this was pretty last minute notice.

I don't think anyone owes someone else their whole life. Not much happens in those first few court appearances anyway.

i'm not a seasoned trial sleuther as most I follow never make it this far...so i'll defer to your expertise as it's more educated and accurate...but i'll still agree to disagree. whether it was 30 seconds or 30 hours your counsel should still be present in a murder one trial. not the assistant. again MOO (and it seems i'm alone on this lol). both sides seemed to 'shy away' during a court appearance, albeit one that only lasted a few minutes...for perhaps the highest profile case Effingham county has ever seen. I find it interesting is all...seminars, training...hm. bbm:

http://www.thexradio.com/news/78-local-news/7660-deryke-pleads-not-guilty-to-willow-s-murder

Assistant Public Defender Janet Fowler was in court with DeRyke as Public Defender Scott Schmidt is at a previously-scheduled seminar.

The defense has filed a motion seeking any evidence gathered by prosecutors in the case. Kibler said at this point there is very little that he can turn over as there are, in Kibler's words, "15 investigators on the case and they are all in training today."

 

[RhondaIL]

Chief Public Defender Scott Schmidt appointment was effective on July 1 for Effingham County. His previous position was First Assistant Public Defender in Champaign County. His duties included lead trial counsel in felony cases including murder, criminal sexual assault and drug trafficking. He also supervised 12 assistant public defenders, and trained public defenders. He held the position as First Assistant Public Defender in Champaign County since 2006. He has been employed by the Champaign County Public Defender's office since 1999, serving as Senior Assistant Public Defender and Assistant Public Defender.

http://www.thexradio.com/news/78-local-news/6296-new-public-defender-appointed-for-effingham-county


jmo

 

[Kamille]

I happen to agree with cameras in the courtroom. It is an important part of the process, for the system to be transparent and for the public to see that a fair trial was indeed held in a court of law. This is not just for local citizens, but for the citizens of the U.S. to see as well. There are courtrooms that have cameras that live-stream every single day... whatever is going on in the courtroom and however mundane it may be.

I do agree about the whole HLN circus only because they discuss it to death and get so many facts wrong... it becomes a joke. There has been some really well covered trials by the local media and live-streamed. Yes, I truly believe we all have a right to see these trials. We are all here supporting the victims through this and praying this is their day for justice. jmo

I guess I'm just a little jaded by the last couple of cases that HLN turned into a nightmare for the prosecution. But I do understand what you're saying about regular cases that do not have that kind of "exposure". It does allow for people who are interested in the trial and the outcome to see and understand just how a verdict may have been reached. Maybe the solution is just to ban HLN from "reporting" on or attending any future trials LOL.

MOO

 

[SilkySifaka]

I guess I'm just a little jaded by the last couple of cases that HLN turned into a nightmare for the prosecution. But I do understand what you're saying about regular cases that do not have that kind of "exposure". It does allow for people who are interested in the trial and the outcome to see and understand just how a verdict may have been reached. Maybe the solution is just to ban HLN from "reporting" on or attending any future trials LOL.

MOO

During the MJ trial on another crime board, someone paid for the transcripts and shared them with us "not guilty' people. It astounded me how diane diamond would not only twist was said in court but make up things out of whole cloth. If that trial had been televised many more would have agreed with the verdict...even if they thought he had done things in the past, not this kid.

 

[musicaljoke]

I don't agree with cameras in the courtroom. Cameras inject a whole new level of behaviour and response from the players. Thoughts about appealing to a hidden audience may cloud the process. Lawyers can become theatrical and more interested in their public image than in finding the truth. Accused and victims alike may feel more pressure to hide the truth or to lie when they know that all the world is watching.

What guarantee would there be that information discussed in court that is intended to be
hidden from the jury doesn't get published? I don't think that anything which could remotely jeopardize the trial should be allowed in the courtroom.

 

[cluciano63]

I guess I'm just a little jaded by the last couple of cases that HLN turned into a nightmare for the prosecution. But I do understand what you're saying about regular cases that do not have that kind of "exposure". It does allow for people who are interested in the trial and the outcome to see and understand just how a verdict may have been reached. Maybe the solution is just to ban HLN from "reporting" on or attending any future trials LOL.

MOO

HLN is the worst. I hate to think of how stupid they must believe their audience to be, the way they blatantly misconstrue what was said in trials, or by LE etc.
I used to like Court Tv, but HLN has ruined trial watching for me. And these days, I am not as sure that televised trials is such a good thing. JMO

 

[Kamille]

During the MJ trial on another crime board, someone paid for the transcripts and shared them with us "not guilty' people. It astounded me how diane diamond would not only twist was said in court but make up things out of whole cloth. If that trial had been televised many more would have agreed with the verdict...even if they thought he had done things in the past, not this kid.

Well the number of motions for mistrial in the Jody Arias case, based strictly on television coverage, kind of turned me off the whole "trial by media" circus. From things such as the prosecutor appearing on camera, outside the courtroom, to the possibility of jurors and witnesses being tainted by television coverage and death threats on the witnesses and defense attorneys, due to television coverage, I believe there was a real risk of mistrial because of it. And if someone so obviously guilty walks, or gets to play the system for years, because of the media circus then that's a real problem the way I see it.

But local live streaming, where there is no nightly discussion on national media, manipulated by talking heads taking sides for entertainment purposes, would be fine I suppose.

MOO