TV Judges: the Less Some of Them Explain Their Rulings, the Better

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

Page 7

PERSPECTIVES (Column)

TV Judges: the Less Some of Them Explain Their Rulings, the Better

By ROGER M. GRACE

When Joseph A. Wapner retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1979, he wanted to go on television. “I had an interest in educating the public on the law,” he recounted.

He went to NBC and ABC, but struck out.

“They didn’t see any entertainment” in his concept, Wapner told me.

Then he hooked up with Stu Billett, an energetic producer who, in partnership with Ralph Edwards of “This Is Your Life” fame, was putting together a show called “People’s Court.”

Wapner was soon on the air (starting Sept. 21, 1981), in national syndication.

And he was teaching basic legal precepts to millions of viewers.

When Wapner ruled, he explained the law.

Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gilbert Alston (now retired) was one of the defendants on the show. He had been sued in small claims court by a woman who was arrested pursuant to a warrant which Alston issued because she violated the terms of probation. The “People’s Court” staff spotted the filing and secured the agreement of both parties to have it arbitrated on TV by Wapner. Alston recounted that Wapner ruled his favor, then proceeded to spell out, in plain words, the doctrine of judicial immunity.

“Joe Wapner used his series for public education,” Alston commented.

Wapner did the same on his recent series, “Animal Court.” And in the late 1950s to mid-1960s, then-UCLA Law Professor Edgar Allan Jones Jr. did that on “Day in Court” and his other ABC series.

On those shows, every effort was made to faithfully apply and to explain the law.

By contrast, some of today’s TV “judges,” in conducting binding arbitrations in the guise of small claims proceedings, come up with rulings that are grounded purely in fantasy. The less explaining they do the better. The more they explain, the more they misinform the public as to what the law is.

Take, for example, “Texas Justice,” starring Houston attorney Larry Joe Dougherty. “Judge Larry Joe,” as he’s known, likes to resolve uncertainties as to which party is telling the truth by stopping the proceedings and having a lie detector test administered, if the plaintiff agrees to submit to one.

The fact that the show is called “Texas Justice” does represent to viewers that Texas law is being applied. It happens that the state courts in Texas (unlike federal courts in that state and throughout the Fifth Circuit) have a per se rule of inadmissibility of polygraph evidence. But that detail doesn’t appear to be bothersome to Larry Joe or the show’s producers.

In one recent case, the plaintiff was suing for $500. The defendant was her daughter’s boyfriend. The plaintiff contended that she put up bail for him which he promised to repay but didn’t.

He was exonerated of the supposed wrongdoing for which he was arrested, and signed a receipt acknowledging the return of $475 in bail money. (It seems there was a $25 court charge for making the refund.) The defendant contended that even though he signed the receipt, the money was never returned to him.

During the testimony, the defendant slipped in a comment to the plaintiff that “You wanted me before your daughter did,” and queried: “What about that time when I walked in and you didn’t have a bra on?” Any actual judge with a speck of regard for maintaining decorum would have upbraided the defendant for those utterances, but Ol’ Larry Joe, who strains to be folksy, merely asked: “Is this about jail and bail, or about love?”

Well, the defendant stuck to his story that he never got the refund and the plaintiff questioned that, so Larry Joe inquired:

“Henry, are you willing to take a lie detector test?”

“I sure is,” Henry answered.

And the test was administered. The polygrapher reported that Henry was telling the truth.

Judge Larry Joe told the plaintiff:

“How ’bout them apples? Huh? Now, you went down and put up your money to help Henry get himself out of a crack….And there’s a real good explanation in my mind for where that $500 or $475 could be. If Henry signed a scrap of paper, got up and walked out of the courtroom thinking you were going to get the money, that check is either there, or somebody else has pilfered it. None of these possibilities involves the liability of Henry to you. So, for those reasons, my ruling is for Henry. The plaintiff takes nothing.”

Now, what if Larry Joe had followed the law? He would have told the defendant (employing his customary cornpone lingo and impertinently addressing the party by his first name):

“Gosh darn, Henry, you owe the money. Whether you got a refund from the court or not doesn’t mean diddly squat. You told the woman you was going to pay her back, and y’all gotta do it.”

But if Larry Joe had ruled that the truth or falsity of Henry’s assertion that he didn’t receive a refund made no difference, it would have been a confession that there was no point to the polygraph test. So, since Henry passed the test, he had to be declared the winning litigant.

Again, it seems that Larry Joe and his producers hold to the notion that they just can’t let a small matter of legal accuracy interfere with putting on a TV show. The fact that the show is billed as depicting reality doesn’t deter them from, to put it mildly, taking liberties.

In another case on “Texas Justice,” a woman was suing her ex-boyfriend on some debts, and he was seeking damages in a cross complaint. Judge Larry Joe told the woman:

“You’re suing him for $3,520 worth of provable debt, but you’ve submitted evidence to me of $8,560 worth of—I’ve seen people coming to court with less proof than that—that you’re not suing for.

“If I total up all of the financial transactions you’ve had with each other, even though you’re not suing for them—all of them—and I total up all of the transactions that you are suing for, and [looking at the defendant] I believe everything you say, I take your claim and I offset it against her claim, and we come out to [addressing the plaintiff] where you started with your claim. And I can take the money out of this equation and [to the defendant] let you begin to take a look at yourself by making a ruling that gives you credit but doesn’t give you money—and [to plaintiff] gives you full credit, and gives you $3,520—and that’s my ruling for the plaintiff.”

In essence, Larry Joe awarded the plaintiff $8,560, $5,040 more than she sued for, and then deducted from her award the $5,040 she owed on the cross-complaint.

While Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Meiers might be asking herself, “Well, what’s wrong with that?” most of y’all would probably spot a problem there.

By the way, the monetary limit on small claims actions in Texas is $5,000.

“Judge Joe Brown” is another mock small claims show. Its star is a former Memphis, Tenn. judge who grew up in South Central Los Angeles, received his law degree from UCLA in 1973, but did not become a member of the State Bar here. He arrived in Memphis in 1974.

Brown imposes punitive damages. In most states, such damages are not awardable in small claims action, but the jurisdiction in which Brown supposedly sits is not specified.

In a recent episode, the defendant was driven to a parking lot by the plaintiff. In the course of a heated argument with her boyfriend, the defendant threw a soda pop bottle, which hit and damaged the plaintiff’s windshield.

“His honor” announced his decision:

JUDGE: Well, I’ll tell you what. $190. You proved that. But do you know what? Since she had an evil intent that she wanted to do some harm to him—it was either deliberate damage to your property or was the result of conduct that is so absolutely reckless that I’m going to transfer her reckless state of mind—all this drama that she’s doing—so I’m going to add a little punitives to it because she’s stupid. So I’m going to teach her a lesson. And I love to teach lessons to stupid people because it used to be that all I could do was lock them up but most of them were so damn foolish that they liked it.

DEFENDANT [talking over the judge]: ….You ain’t talking to me. I’m not stupid….

JUDGE: I’m talking to you. I’m talking to you. Watch this: I’ll add 500 on it. [Addressing the plaintiff] You get $690, 500 punitives for all her stupidity….[Addressing the defendant] And by the way. By the way. Do you realize how a big a fool you look? Thank you.

DEFENDANT [walking out]: You’re the one look like a fool.

True.

While Brown cited “evil intent” and “recklessness” as bases for tacking on punitive damages (valid bases in some jurisdictions), what he hammered at was that he was awarding those damages because the defendant had displayed “stupidity.” The viewing public has now been taught that punitive damages may be assessed where the judge is upset at the defendant for being stupid.

Here’s a new one: punitive interest in a contract action.

In a case on “Judge Joe Brown” last Friday, the plaintiff was suing for $2,000 in past-due rent. The case was simple; the lease specified the rent, and, by the defendant’s admission, it hadn’t been paid.

But, naturally, a sexual angle had to added. The plaintiff alleged that because she and the defendant had “feelings” for each other, a condition of the tenancy was that the lessee would bring no other women to the premises, and he breached that supposed proviso (not contained in the lease). The nature of the breach was something more than bringing a female by for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Here’s how the judge ruled:

“[Addressing the defendant] You were living off the lady….But I’m old school, so I’m going to teach you a lesson up in here. [To the plaintiff] But I’ve added it up. You’re a little shy. And I think you need a little interest on this. So, I’m looking at this, and I’ve conservatively come to a figure of $3,275.”

The announcer summarized at the end of the case: “The judge has ruled the plaintiff gets her rent money — and more.”

Yes, 63.75 percent more. The sum of $1,275 was denominated “interest” on a $2,000 debt, added to teach the defendant a lesson.

Greg Mathis, emcee of the shenanigans on “Judge Mathis,” also provides bizarre misapplications of law.

One case involved a bailment. The plaintiff contended that she lent the defendant jewelry, to be worn by the defendant’s daughter, then to be returned. The defendant said she inferred that the jewelry was a gift.

Mathis told the plaintiff:

“She [the defendant] says that the necklace, you had offered to allow her daughter to wear to school. She submits a letter from her daughter saying that you gave permission to her to wear it. If I am to believe you, I would have to believe that this is a forgery, and/or that her daughter is lying. I’m not convinced of that. You haven’t proven that. I’m not saying that you’re lying, but you haven’t proven it. You have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that what you say is true over what she said. And since you haven’t proven it, I can’t give you a judgment. Case dismissed. Have a good day.”

The letter from the daughter, if credited as evidence, did not provide evidence of a gift; to the contrary, it confirmed that she was merely given permission to wear the jewelry to school—that is, that there was a loan of personal property. It was undisputed that the property had not been returned. The explanation by Mathis of the judgment for the defendant was utterly confounding.

You can bet Judge Wapner would not have decided it that way.