Court Hearing Televised

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32391, 2 September 1970, Page 8

Court Hearing Televised

(N.Z.P.A. Staff Correspondent) LONDON. It will be many years before any documentary programme shown on British television outdraws football the world Cup final, for instance, was watched by 28 million Britons—but few programmes have drawn more interest and comment than “Trial,” a four-part show screened recently.

This was the actual trial of Lauren R. Watson, a Black Panther charged by the city police in Denver, Colorado, of resisting arrest in that he struggled with policemen trying to arrest him for traffic infringements.

Watson was tried by a white woman judge and a t middle-class white jury of 1 six. The trial took four days i —each night’s television, about 90 minutes of it, was an < edited summary of the day’s 1 proceedings. I The question was: Can a i militant black man receive i justice in an all-white court? i Britons know the answer, but i it will keep it unanswered ' here in case “Trial” is shown 1 by the N.Z.B.C. ~ Everyone knew the cameras were in court and that the trial was being filmed by' National Education Television for nation-wide show-; ing. The participants in the trial —judge, counsel, witnesses, accused, and jurors—were invited, but not compelled, to make out-of-court comments on the progress and outcome! of the trial, for later tele-1 viewing.

All did so—and the case of 1 the City and County of I Denver v. Lauren R. .Watson I made fascinating television. The laconic, bearded, gumchewing Watson claimed that the police were hounding him. His bright young attorney, very slick, played cleverly on gaps in the evidence put forward by the s overworked District Attorney, who had not just one case to handle at that time but hundreds. The police gave one story in evidence. Negro defence witnesses—one a black South African—gave another. The jury had to weigh the credibility of each. The crossexamination set out to establish or condemn that credibility. And always there was the judge, the Hon. Zita Wein- : shienk, aged only 36, mother of three young daughters,' iwife of a lawyer, very attrac-i

five, sometimes dubious of her ground since she was a fairly new judge, but always in command of her court. She wore earrings every day, to preserve, so she said, her femininity above the black robe she must wear. She is now a star, the trial jhaving brought her a massive Jan mail.

Some London critics have criticised the programme. They objected to the fact that viewers were neither told Watson was a Black Panther and a Marxist at the time of the alleged offence, nor that he had later been expelled from the Panthers for being insufficiently militant. (In fact, the judge fought desperately in chambers to keep Watson’s association with the Panthers a isecret from the jury). I They objected to the slick'ness of the defence lawyer, and to the judge’s weak sum-ming-up, which by New Zealand standards certainly was brief and inadequate.

But most critics have roundly praised the programme, and have called it a first look for many people at the way in which “justice” is done by the court in a trial by jury. Mostly, they agreed with the judge that the jury system has gaps in it, but noone has come up with anything better to replace it. Judge Weinshienk has lexpressed surprise at the reception the programme got in Britain. She said that she had had doubts before she filming, but there had been almost no opposition to it. She would strongly resist any attempt to have a jury or anyone else see such a film while a trial was still on. But if another request was made to make another documentary in her court, she would consent to it. I The N.Z.B.C. has made inquiries about the availability of the programme for screening in New Zealand.