Objection!: How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System

by Nancy Grace

  Linda Tripp, the gabby tattletale who secretly taped her phone calls with Lewinsky, also cashed in. The woman who stood on her driveway and told us, “I’m you,” learned the hard way that less-than-telegenic players in a made-for-television scandal can be ruthlessly criticized for a lot more than questionable ethics. Apparently stung by barbs about her appearance, Tripp underwent her own “extreme makeover” with a reported $30,000 worth of plastic surgery, including face-and eye-lifts, nose and chin jobs, and neck liposuction performed by a celebrated Beverly Hills plastic surgeon. A press release on Tripp’s Web site stated that the surgery was paid for by an anonymous “bene-factor.” The statement from the trustee of the Linda R. Tripp Defense Fund boasted that no money from her defense fund, which helped “defend against the Clinton machine,” had been tapped for her makeover.

  Tripp prettied-up the package, but the stench of her role in Kenneth Starr’s investigation of the former president stuck. She claimed O B J E C T I O N !

  8 3

  she was given only menial tasks for the duration of her tenure at the Pentagon after she became a figure in Monicagate. Still, she kept her $88,000-a-year job, despite her newfound infamy, until 2001, when she was swept out by the incoming Bush administration along with the rest of the previous administration’s appointees, as is customary. But that was the least of her problems. After receiving an anonymous tip from inside the Pentagon in 1998, the New Yorker reported that Tripp had failed to disclose an arrest for grand larceny when she was a teenager applying for a job. After a plea bargain, the charges had been reduced to loitering.

  Tripp sued the Department of Defense for an alleged violation of the federal Privacy Act, which prohibits the government from releasing personal information about individuals without their consent. She alleged that the information was leaked to embarrass her in retaliation for her role in Starr’s investigation. In 2003, the lawsuit was settled, and she received a payment of $595,000 and other “financial benefits”

  courtesy of the taxpayers. That’s what I call a witness fee.

  A N D A L L I G O T W A S

  T H I S L O U S Y T- S H I R T

  While human drama plays out inside the courthouse over life-and-death issues, there are parasites that have virtually attached themselves to the walls of the building and are working hard to suck the last drop of decency out of the proceedings within. Merchandising the pathos of high-profile court cases makes light of the weighty events of a trial and turns it into a sideshow worthy of equally repellent souvenirs.

  From T-shirts and placards that read FREE WINONA to FRY MCVEIGH to GO

  JUICE, the courthouse takes on a carnival-like atmosphere and the true purpose of the trial—to seek justice—gets lost.

  Spectators on either side of the fence who participate in these spectacles seem to have a hard time separating the truth in court from 8 4

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  what they see on the TV screen. In many ways, I think a lot of people have simply given up trying. I guess it’s just easier to buy a FREE KOBE

  T-shirt than it is to fairly consider the accusations of the nineteen-year-old alleged victim in the case. There’s even a Web site dedicated to “freeing Kobe” that cautions its readers that Bryant is innocent until proven guilty—then offers a whole host of “Free Kobe” merchan-dise.

  Unfortunately, in Bryant’s case, the prosecution got in on the act of trivializing a serious felony. The defense grabbed the ball and ran with it. Attorneys on both sides of the aisle swapped accusations of malfea-sance, reducing wrenching evidence and complicated legal issues down to a sideshow starring—what else?—tasteless souvenir T-shirts.

  Allegations flew when employees of the Eagle, Colorado, district attorney’s and sheriff’s offices ordered T-shirts depicting a stick figure being hanged and displaying derogatory statements about the NBA star.

  Although the defense routinely smeared the alleged rape victim, they also lobbed a volley of insults against the state over the T-shirt allegation. “This shows the bias of the investigators and prosecutors toward my client,” claimed defense attorney Pamela Mackey. Krista Flannigan, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said prosecutors had forgotten about the T-shirt business “until it became an issue.” Ultimately the district attorney had to give a formal apology over the T-shirt debacle. “I apologize for being misleading. It was not at all intentional. It was done without my knowledge or authorization,” said Eagle County, Colorado, district attorney Mark Hurlbert. “The shirts may be inappropriate, but they are certainly not racist. I have taken action within my office to address this matter.” It didn’t end there, the two sides attacked each other until the Kobe Bryant case came to an un-predictable, upsetting, and dissatisfying close.

  In the end, whoever’s T-shirt is at issue, this is not a game where either side is supposed to wear a uniform emblazoned with its particular mascot. It’s the law. This is the courthouse. Come on, people, show some respect.

  O B J E C T I O N !

  8 5

  L O S I N G G R O U N D

  In the wake of all the pain caused by the death and disappearance of Laci Peterson, local Redwood City, California, authorities wanted their own piece of the pie. In February 2004, city officials issued a press release announcing that the trial venue in San Mateo County would charge television stations $51,000 to rent a coveted slice of asphalt near the courthouse. The announcement was met with shocked silence from reporters. The county spokesperson was then shouted down by reporters and producers who accused the county of blatant price-gouging. Several media outlets feared losing their spots and their court coverage because they couldn’t pay up. Finally, after being exposed by the media, local officials backed down from their money-grubbing scheme.

  M U R D E R G O E S G L O S S Y

  In the fashion industry, image is everything. Eye-catching advertise-ments that create “buzz” are part of many big companies’ marketing strategies. The Italian conglomerate United Colors of Benetton went to sickening lengths to get attention in 2000, with a controversial ad campaign that ran in magazines and newspapers all over the country. The ads weren’t about the year’s new styles or anything to do with fashion at all. The campaign centered on convicted murderers sitting on death row for heinous crimes, featured in glossy, professional photos portray-ing the “plights” of twenty-six death-row inmates. In the ads, inmates talk about their childhoods, their dreams, and their heroes. There is, of course, no mention of their victims. There’s no sign of the company’s trademark sweaters, just stories glamorizing the convicted killers.

  Benetton says that the campaign—called “Looking Death in the Face”—was designed to show the human cost of capital punishment.

  One such “face” was that of Missouri native Jerome Mallett, who has 8 6

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  sat on death row since 1986 for the brutal murder of an unsuspecting highway trooper. There was no sign of Mallett’s victim or the trooper’s family left behind to mourn him anywhere in Benetton’s ad.

  Apparently Benetton forgot about that part of the “human cost” of the crimes these men committed. Just like a courthouse T-shirt mer-chant (albeit with much more expensive wares), this corporation made money off murder. Benetton used death-row inmates and the justice system itself to improve its market share. The manufacturer of warm and fuzzy sweaters worn worldwide also caused intense pain to the families of innocent people killed by the men the campaign “humanizes.”

  Sears, Roebuck & Co., God bless them, decided to take action. In the wake of Benetton’s death-row ad campaign, the retailer announced it would immediately pull Benetton-designed clothes from all four hundred of its stores. The ad was just too significant for Sears to ignore after receiving hundreds of consumer complaints. Advertising Age wrote that Sears believed “the whole episode is tragic, for the victims, for Sears and for Benetton.”

  Sears wasn’t alone in their anger at Benetton’s attempt to turn justice on i
ts ear in hopes of hitting the jackpot. The state of Missouri sued Benetton for featuring death-row inmates housed in their prisons, claiming the company deceived prison officials into believing the inmates were being interviewed for a project sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Another nauseating revelation about the campaign: The Associated Press reported some of the inmates received up to $1,000 for their participation. During a television interview on CNN’s Insight in March 2000, Benetton’s creative director, Oliviero Toscani, didn’t deny the claim. Instead he defended his actions, saying, “You get angry when you think. Already this is not bad. . . . You mu st look at something, think about it and react. So they got angry. That means they talk about the image.”

  You’d imagine that Benetton already makes enough off the sales of its overpriced clothing hawked in malls all over the country. Most of all, you’d imagine that the pain of the victims themselves, now dead in their O B J E C T I O N !

  8 7

  graves and unable to raise their voices in protest, would stop them. I guess not. If you’re looking for me, I’ll be shopping at Sears.

  G R A V E R O B B I N G

  F O R P R O F I T

  Even the investigation of crime scenes has become a lottery ticket of sorts—a potential jackpot for profiteering. Here’s the single worst example I know of: In the midst of our nation’s sorrow over the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, profiteers exploited the World Trade Center attack with fervor. They discovered there was money to be made by selling everything from chunks of debris to buckets of ashes to bereaved families of the dead. Tourists jostled each other to take snapshots of twisted metal and sooty concrete dust. It turns out many of the photos had a price.

  Within days of the attacks, a macabre “souvenir” row sprang up, hawking relics from the disaster. Naturally, T-shirts were among the first items for sale. Then the grave robbers came up with the idea of clipping images from the newspapers and magazines and enlarging some of the most upsetting shots, including ones of trapped office workers at the windows agonizing over whether to die by fire or to jump.

  Next, it was reported that the Mafia also wanted a piece of the action.

  Several people with alleged connections to organized crime were accused of looting and stealing 250 tons of scrap metal from the Towers to be resold.

  By far, the worst offense to arise out of the tragedy was when hawk-ers contacted victims’ families after their phone numbers were posted on leaflets begging for information about their missing family members.

  Many were solicited by phone to purchase debris and dirt from Ground Zero, where their loved ones had died.

  I can’t condemn only the sleazy barkers selling T-shirts and enhanced photos of the scene. Even the “good guys” went bad on this one.

  8 8

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  FBI agents from around the country were sent to New York to sift through debris from the attack to locate any shreds of evidence for the investigation. Some of the four hundred agents working at the mass burial ground who were supposed to be looking for evidence actually took some. The feds themselves later admitted some of their own people who combed through the rubble actually swiped “souvenirs.”

  Several agents took items that would break your heart, including the American flags that had topped the buildings, patches from World Trade Center security uniforms, and marble chunks that had once been the Towers. The agents in question claimed that the items were harmless mementos of all their hard work, but the Twin Towers site is a mass grave for thousands of innocent people. To many families who lost their beloved relatives that morning, Ground Zero is hallowed earth, and there’s no such thing as a “harmless” memento. It’s like stealing from a cemetery.

  Even the special agent who managed the recovery job at Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New York, was accused of giving items taken from the ashes as gifts. When questioned later, the agent “had no recollection.” Civilians who looted were prosecuted—not so for the federal agents who did the same thing.

  To make matters worse, the agent who reported the stolen “souvenirs” was then attacked for having “tarnished” the FBI. It’s true. To add insult to injury, the special agent/souvenir seeker remains with the agency, having faced no demotion or penalty, while the reporting agent, Jane Turner, was dismissed. Of course the FBI claims that Turner was not dismissed for blowing the whistle. They say she’d been a problem employee for many years. Somehow, I don’t think she’s the problem.

  W I T H F R I E N D S L I K E T H E S E . . .

  In an interview that aired in 2004, before Kobe Bryant’s rape case, a

  “friend” of the woman accusing the NBA star of sexual assault said the alleged victim had told her that Bryant “went the whole way.” This O B J E C T I O N !

  8 9

  “friend” explained that the alleged victim did not elaborate and that she did not press for details. Another “friend” revealed that the young woman had gone into hiding, upset over reports of her “emotional difficulties” and over the media stakeout outside her home. This trusted confidante then disclosed that the alleged victim was hiding in Denver.

  The Vail Daily News didn’t have to look far to confirm a story reporting that the young woman had previously sought a doctor’s care for emotional problems. “She did seek some medical help,” another acquaintance blurted out on a network morning show. “She knew she needed it, so she went and got it. She was definitely emotionally fragile, but I don’t think it had anything to do with what happened.” Other

  “friends” let it slip that the woman accusing Bryant of rape had attempted suicide twice. The Orange County Register also reported she overdosed on drugs a few weeks before the alleged sexual assault. The story was corroborated by several helpful pals. While one friend said she thought “it was just a cry for help,” others blamed the accuser’s bizarre behavior on her being distraught over a tumultuous breakup with a boyfriend and the death of her best friend in an automobile accident.

  Who are these people? The whole parade is disturbing.

  They’re the same people who disclosed that the alleged victim had unsuccessfully tried out for the talent show American Idol, which helped bolster the defense’s claim that she saw Bryant as a ticket to celebrity. These helpful “friends” are the ones who have shown themselves to be in love with the limelight and the perks that come with it.

  They might not be paid outright for their interviews, but they’ve been flown to New York City for some of their television appearances, put up in the best hotels, taken to fantastic dinners, and chauffeured to Broadway shows.

  Television shows that claim they would never pay for stories get around the literal definition of cash for information by showering guests connected to victims and defendants in high-profile cases with perks that would make a Hollywood celebrity jealous. If people are traveling 9 0

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  to New York from Anytown, U.S.A., to make an appearance on a morning show, of course they need a hotel room, but what’s wrong with the Holiday Inn? I’d say a stay at a five-star New York City hotel, complete with the A-list treatment, makes these coveted insiders more inclined to try to “please” their hosts by making headline-grabbing comments on air. Producers know this. It’s a cynical practice by the media that should be reined in. It may be unrealistic to expect the law to set limits on media conglomerates, but, like the unwritten agreement that has until very recently kept outlets from making the names of rape victims public, an agreement to set limits on “perks” is desperately needed now more than ever.

  Why? Because every word uttered by these attention-hungry

  “friends” is available for the defense in these cases to twist and mis-construe. In the Bryant case, it was impossible to miss them, as these chatty chums were everywhere—on morning talk shows and nighttime news programs. Early in the case, the photo ops on every major news channel became all about them—not about the alleged vict
im and certainly not the case. What’s next? A spot on Fear Factor or The Bache-lor? I wouldn’t be surprised.

  A L L I N T H E F A M I L Y

  Didn’t Martha Stewart have enough to worry about after she was convicted for lying to investigators last year? Then came the icing on the cake. Shortly after, Stewart’s youngest brother, Frank Kostyra, announced his plans to sell over two hundred items that had once belonged to Stewart on eBay. Among the items up for sale: the Singer sewing machine the embattled domestic diva used to sew her own wedding dress back in 1961. He also hocked the double boiler she once used for melting chocolate, cuttings from the Stewart family fig tree, and an oak rocker that belonged to the family’s grandparents.

  Obviously he’s not the sentimental type. At least the money is going to O B J E C T I O N !

  9 1

  a good cause. Kostyra said proceeds from the sale will go toward his self-published book, entitled My Life with Martha: The Making of Martha Stewart.

  Couldn’t he have left the woman alone as she headed off to Alderson Women’s Correctional Facility to deal with her severely damaged reputation and business ventures? Isn’t going to jail and living with the label “convicted felon” enough? Kostyra made no apologies for exploit-ing the most famous member of his family, saying the sale was for “people who want a piece of the Martha legacy.” My sentence for a greedy brother who’s guilty of selling out his own sister in the first degree: a lifetime of shame.

  T H E R E ’ S

  G O L D I N

  T H O S E A R C H E S

  Not every instance of jackpot justice is born out of high-profile cases.

  Some cases become infamous because of the outrageous court claims by greedy plaintiffs looking to up their income with frivolous lawsuits.

  There are countless stories of physicians who give up the practice of medicine, claiming frivolous lawsuits price medical malpractice insurance out of their reach. What about the zany claims that gun manufacturers are responsible for crimes? But the mother of all laughable lawsuits is the McDonald’s hot coffee case. In 1992, a seventy-nine-year-old New Mexico woman spilled coffee on herself after picking it up at the drive-through window and got burned. The jury awarded her $2.7 million—a judge later reduced it somewhat, and on appeal the case was settled for an undisclosed amount. Ronald McDonald must look like a giant piggy bank to a lot of people. The chain has been a popular target for customers with an appetite for more than fast food. In 2001, a class-action lawsuit was filed by vegans against the restaurant for failing to disclose that McDonald’s fries were made with beef tallow oil. In recent years, the chain has been sued because its customers get 9 2