Need another sensational trial-pronto!

by David Grand
June 16, 2005

Now that the curtain has descended on the Jackson media circus (or freak show as some call it), what are millions of Americans to do without having a juicy, suspense-filled trial to follow each day in the media? For without one, they'd be left with nothing to hear about but the routine, mundane news reports about approaching hurricanes, mass killings, corporate scandals, the do-nothing Congress, and the latest causality figures in Iraq (of civilians and troops).

The 1995 O.J. Simpson trial for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman (which was televised) set the standard for high drama in a courtroom, turning countless millions into Simpson trial junkies, who stayed glued to their boob tubes for the 133 day trial; and who, with most of the country, held their breath waiting to hear the verdict, which caused wild jubilation among his supporters, and total disbelieve by those who saw it as a travesty of justice.

Now, there wasn't any doubt in my mind that he was guilty as sin even before the trial began, when watching (along with 95 million viewers) that surreal, hour long, Bronco ride on the freeway pursued by scores of police cars, and who reportedly was holding a gun to his head to avoid being arrested. That's hardly the actions of an innocent man.

Since then, the Scott Petersen murder trial and the Michael Jackson child molestation trial are the only ones that've captured the nation's attention. But they were both conducted in closed courts, preventing the public from judging for themselves the evidence and believability of the witnesses; and worst of all, being denied from hearing the salacious details.

I'd classify those three trials as trash novels or soap operas come to life, and as a painful reflection on the media, on the law, and on where our society has gone. And that TV news shows speculating about what the verdict will be on each count is as worthless as reading tea leaves would be in forecasting when the war in Iraq will end.

In the past, there's been many notorious trials that, too, raised the public's interest to a fever pitch:

• The 1935 trial of Bruno Hauptmann. H.L. Mencken called it "the greatest story since the Resurrection." And measured by the public interest the kidnapping of aviator Charles Lindbergh's baby generated, that wasn't much of an exaggeration.
• The 1925 Scopes trial, AKA "The Monkey Trial." The jury was to decide the fate of a high school, biology teacher named John Scopes, who was charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, but the verdict was later thrown out. And while it was a setback for antievolution forces, that trial by no means ended that debate, even to today.
• The 1970-71 Charles Manson trial. In the annals of crime, there might never have been a more bizarre motive for killing than was revealed in that trial of four Manson "Family" members. In his twisted mind, he envisioned that the wave of bloody killings of high-society types in Los Angeles would spark a revolution of blacks against the white establishment. "Helter-skelter."
• The 1924 Leopold and Loeb trial. They were found guilty of murdering a young boy they'd selected at random in their attempt to perform the perfect murder. But Leopold's glasses being found at the crime scene blew it.

But don't despair dear readers, for there'll surely be another sensational trial before the year's end (hopefully one involving a celebrity), which will likewise turn into a media circus. If House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is ever tried in Texas on campaign finance charges, that'd be a real barn burner.