Judge Judy recreates controversial American verdicts and challenges viewers in 'Justice on Trial'

Fox News

20 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE - Judge Judith Sheindlin helps recreate some of the most controversial court cases in American history in her new show, "Justice on Trial."
The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday, revisits eight of the most monumental court cases in American memory — allowing the viewer to decide if justice was truly served with each verdict. The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer.
Episode seven features a re-telling of "Snyder v. Phelps," in which a grieving father, Albert Snyder, sued Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church for emotional distress after church members protested his son Matthew's military funeral. The churchgoers, as depicted in the episode, carried signs reading, "God Hates Your Son," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "Thank God for 9/11," to protest the military's tolerance of homosexuality.
As Snyder noted during the trial, his son was not gay. The protesters were protesting the military at-large. The court showdown highlighted the legal boundaries of protected speech when it conflicts with potential harm to others.
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with Snyder and awarded him a total of $10.9 million, which the judge lowered to $5 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Phelps' speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the Fourth Circuit's ruling.
The fiery Sheindlin had an opinion on the matter. While she and others may find the protesters' signs "abhorrent," she intoned that the Constitution does protect free speech.
"Totally uncaring for people who are religious people, totally uncaring about the emotional trauma that that kind of demonstration might have on the family," Sheindlin said of the Westboro protests in an interview with Fox News Digital. "And yet the Supreme Court said in its decision that they had a right to express their views, even though their views were maybe abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans. I suppose you have to be able to... I wouldn't want to tolerate seeing the American flag burned in protest in America. Just wouldn't. It would offend me. But you have the right to do it. Is there a law that proscribes it? And I'd say probably not."
So how do Americans reconcile their anger at a verdict with the Court's constitutional responsibilities? Sheindlin began her answer by referencing the movie "American President."
"I mean, we all would like our presidents to be like Michael Douglas, correct?" she said. "And he said something at the end, but he's making the big speech at the end. He said, 'As an American, America is not easy, and you have to be able to defend somebody burning a flag, the American flag, as a protest, if you're going to insist that freedom of speech and expression exists.' And while we are all offended, it just didn't seem right that for no apparent reason, with no knowledge of who this young man was who was killed, just because they had a cause, they didn't care what the collateral damage was emotionally to the family of this young man."
Judge Judy said there was one case, in particular, that spurred her to want to create "Justice on Trial" and that may also leave some Americans feeling like justice may have taken a walk.
"It was a case that happened in New York many, many years ago," she shared.
"Two young thugs decided to rob an old man on the subway. Believe it or not, I remember the man's name. His name was Jerome Sandusky, and he was a man well in his 70s. And one of them was acting as a lookout. The other one went down the stairs with the pretty deserted platform and was beating up this old man in an attempt to take his watch and cash. And a transit police officer heard the screams of the old man coming from the subway, and he ran down into the subway. Pulled out his revolver and said, 'Stop, police!' And the young thug ran off and was running up the stairs. Police said, 'Stop, police!' He didn't stop, and the police officer shot him. And he shot him in the back as he was fleeing."
Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim.
"The young man pled guilty to the robbery, was sentenced, but hired a lawyer who sued the transit authority in the city of New York and received a judgment, a jury verdict for $4.3 million," Sheindlin continued.
"And then Mr. Sandusky, who took a very long time to recover from his physical wounds, but who would, you know — if you're a crime victim emotionally, you really never get over being a victim of violent crime. And Mr. Sandusky, he said, 'Well, that's sort of outrageous. I was the victim.' And so he hired a lawyer because now this thug had $4.3 million and his lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations. So there are many facets to that case. Whether or not, ultimately, justice was served is an issue. And if you ask 10 people, given those set of facts, you will get at least eight different opinions."
All eight episodes of "Justice on Trial" are streaming now on Prime Video. Other cases covered by the series include the famous Scopes Monkey trial, Gideon v. Wainwright and People v. Turriago. In the latter case, troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a speeding violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to discover a decomposing body locked in a steamer trunk. The episode explores the question of whether or not the search of the truck was legal.
The series is created and executive produced by Sheindlin. Casey Barber, David Carr and Randy Douthit are also executive producers. Amy Freisleben is a co-executive producer.