Latest news with #TribunalJustice
Chicago Tribune
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
‘Justice on Trial' review: Judge Judy's speeches about legal principles are out of step with the moment
'Judge Judy' aired in syndication for 25 years before star Judy Sheindlin pulled up stakes and moved to Amazon to do a similar (but lesser) version of the series called 'Judy Justice.' That kind of multi-decade success has allowed her to build a mini-TV empire in the latter portion of her career, producing (though not appearing on) shows including 'Hot Bench' and 'Tribunal Justice.' But she's back in front of the camera for her latest series, called 'Justice on Trial.' The premise is straightforward: With Sheindlin presiding as judge and attorneys Larry Bakman and Dan Mentzer as the attorneys facing off, a real court case is recreated on a television set, moot court-style, and interspersed with dramatic recreations of the crime itself. It's a ripped-from-the-headlines sensibility. 'While we're not going to recreate the trials verbatim, all the courts' ultimate decisions are accurate,' Sheindlin says at the top of each episode. 'It will be up to you to decide whether the case was fair and the outcome just.' The show's tagline: 'Real cases. Actual lawyers. Surprising verdicts.' To assess the series, it's worth thinking about why the original 'Judge Judy' remained popular for so long. The schadenfreude of watching her tear into someone who was refusing to take responsibility was a big factor. But I always liked that the show featured a cross section of Americans whose lives are rarely given much attention on TV. Grievances and interpersonal clashes of the poor and working class were taken just as seriously as anyone else's. All were equal before the withering gaze of Judge Judy. The show was shamelessly tacky, which was perhaps some of the appeal as well, which has only gotten more pronounced with her subsequent efforts. Perhaps 'Justice on Trial' is an effort to combat some of that, because instead of exploiting yet another interpersonal conflict for ratings, the intention here seems focused on helping laypeople understand why, as Sheindlin says in every intro, 'justice doesn't always end up feeling just.' She's trying to explain how the law works. Sure. Fine. Great. But the context in which the show is premiering makes this a surreal project, where legal rights and principles we were once told were sacrosanct are being eroded. It's hard to take anything Sheindlin says seriously, considering the real-world backdrop we're currently living through. A disclaimer runs at the beginning of each episode: 'Although some details have been altered, the outcomes are very real.' What details have been altered, and why? No information is forthcoming. Some of the cases are more interesting than others. The most fascinating, from the late 1980s, involves an abusive father who is also a diplomat from Zimbabwe who claims he can't be prosecuted because he has diplomatic immunity. Sheindlin actually ruled on the case before it was appealed to a higher court. The man is accused of beating his 9-year-old son and the details are gruesome; the boy says he was tied up by the arms and whipped, sometimes with a belt or electrical cord. His mother and sister were allegedly forced to watch. When he collapsed at school, child protective services removed him from the home. The father is seeking his son's return. According to international law, Shiendlin says, 'high-level diplomats are not subject to the laws of the foreign country where they serve. So they cannot be prosecuted for the crimes they commit. But what about the rights of a child from Zimbabwe living in America and being abused by his father?' The reasons why diplomats have immunity are explained and they make sense, but Sheindlin's researchers either could not or didn't bother to follow up and see if they could find out what fate ultimately befell the boy in the years since the case was decided. Another case involves a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a dead body. The issue at hand concerns evidence that is considered 'fruit of the poisoned tree' (a conflict beloved by 'Law & Order' writers for decades). Another case centers on a lawsuit that argues hate speech is not protected under free speech. These are all good debates. In theory. But ultimately, this feels like such a hacky exercise. In one dramatic recreation, someone drinking wine gets so upset, their hand contracts into a fist, crushing the glass they're holding. I've never seen this happen in real life, but more to the point, it's silly. The courtroom set and lighting are similar enough to that of the other shows Sheindlin produces that it's likely they're just being repurposed for this series. The judges from 'Hot Bench' are the appellate court. The overall vibe is: Sure, we're doing this on a budget in an artificial setting — with extras in the gallery as audience — but viewers are meant to take this seriously. The aesthetics, however, are that of a grimier show. 'Justice on Trial' — 2 stars (out of 4) Where to watch: Amazon
USA Today
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Judge Judy reveals the Menendez brothers opinion she'll get 'a lot of flak for'
All rise, again. Judge Judy is back on the TV bench with "Justice on Trial," and that death stare still slices through the legal bull as if it never stopped. Judith Sheindlin, 82, who became TV's daytime super judge with her no-nonsense demeanor on the long-running syndicated courtroom series "Judge Judy," has expanded her justice universe on Amazon Prime Video. After "Judge Judy" signed off in 2021 after 25 years and more than 7,000 episodes, Sheindlin launched "Judy Justice," presiding over an arbitration-format show with a panel that includes her granddaughter, Sarah Rose, a law clerk. In 2023, she created "Tribunal Justice," featuring three judges, including her son, Adam Levy, a former district attorney. Your Honor's new legal docuseries, "Justice on Trial" (now streaming), recreates landmark U.S. court cases – including the 100-year-old Scopes Trial. Sheindlin serves as a judge and appears (robeless) as a commentator on the legal ramifications and history. "Everybody, whether legally trained or not, has opinions about legal cases from the O.J. Simpson trial to whether the Menendez brothers should be paroled," Sheindlin tells USA TODAY. "By recreating cases, it gives an entertaining way to see if justice was served." Question: You mentioned the Menendez brothers' possible parole, which is a real possibility following Netflix's "Monster" series. Do you think Lyle and Erik Menendez should be paroled after killing their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in 1989? Answer: What we know about the Menendez brothers is that they killed both of their parents. As we know, after they killed their parents, they went on a buying spree. They got a jury trial, and they were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. They've done incredibly well in prison, but that doesn't mean they get another chance. That is their sentence. Until Kitty Menendez can stand up before a judge and say, "Give them another chance," the jury and the courts have spoken. Now you have my answer. I'm going to get a lot of flak for that. You wear many robes as different judges in "Justice." But do we see the "Judge Judy" original robe? We're recreating trials that are sometimes 20 years apart, so I wear different robes and in one episode a different hairdo. I do wear the "Judge Judy" robe with a different collar, not the lace one. I think it's the original robe because I took it when I left. It's worn in spots. I hope CBS (which distributed "Judge Judy") doesn't want it back. But it was mine. And CBS has enough problems without worrying about my robe. Why do viewers also see you as a legal narrator in street clothes, without the robe? We added that narrator as a legal roadmap, which the show needed. Actually, the pants are all the same. I just changed the jacket for each episode. That's my little secret. There is less "Judge Judy" commentary in the show. But during one case involving a speeding arrest, you mentioned your husband, Judge Gerald Sheindlin, has more experience in speeding stops. Please explain. I was in the car when he was stopped for speeding, maybe 25 years ago. The female officer came to the car as I was yelling at him, "You were going too fast!" It was like 50 in a 40 zone, so not 100 mph. But still speeding. He was giving some excuse, and I told the officer, "Give him a ticket." Then she recognized me and wouldn't give him the ticket. I wanted to write it myself. And your own driving record is clean of speeding offenses? I've never gotten a speeding ticket. I'm sure I've driven over the limit, but never in a reckless manner. I'm nearly 83, I'm praying I don't get a speeding ticket now. I'm a law-and-order girl. Society makes certain reasonable rules. Like, don't drive over the speed limit. You've been together for 47 years, with a short break. What's your secret? There's an intangible thing you can't quite put your finger on that allows you to hate somebody in one moment and then really like them the next. There are irritations, ups and downs. But I can't picture my life without him. You are known for the phrase, "Beauty fades, dumb is forever." It's even the title of your 1999 book. Yet there's nothing about you that has faded in eight decades. What's your secret? I know I have changed. Sometimes I look in the mirror and say, "When did I become my mother?" In your brain, you're always 40. I have no formula. You just have to be an interesting person your whole life. To me, there's nothing worse than boredom. So if I'm not working, I would clean a bathroom or a kitchen, or redo a closet. I'm getting too old for those, so this is the perfect job for me.
