Judge Judy recreates controversial American verdicts and challenges viewers in ‘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.
Advertisement
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.
7 The show, which was over 10 years in the making and finally premiered on Prime Video last Monday.
Michael Becker/Prime
7 The main lawyers featured on the show are Larry Bakman and Daniel Mentzer.
Michael Becker/Prime
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.
Advertisement
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.
7 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.
Courtesy of Prime
'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.'
Advertisement
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.'
7 Judge Judy Sheindlin presiding over a courtroom trial.
Courtesy of Prime
7 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.
Courtesy of Prime
Advertisement
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.
7 Then things got tricky in court and the situation seemed to turn on the victim.
Courtesy of Prime
7 '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.
Michael Becker/Prime
'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.'
Advertisement
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Proposed rule bans nearly all abortions at VA hospitals
The VA said in the proposal that it is reversing a 2022 rule that for the first time allowed the department to provide abortions in limited circumstances to pregnant veterans and their eligible family members, even in states that banned abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Between 1999 and 2022, the VA excluded almost all abortions and abortion counseling for veterans and their families from their medical benefits package. By reversing the rule, officials are seeking to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to terminate pregnancies, according to a filing released Friday. They also called the Biden administration's decision to implement the interim rule 'inappropriate' and 'legally questionable.' A final rule could come as soon as the public comment period on the measure closes on Sept. 3. Reproductive rights groups said the move robbed service members of the ability to control their bodies and their futures. 'Since taking office, the Trump administration has repeatedly attacked service members, veterans, and their families' access to basic reproductive care, including gender-affirming care,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, referring to the VA's decision in March to stop providing transgender veterans with hormone therapy. 'Taking away access to health care shows us that the Trump administration will always put politics and retribution over people's lives.' Anti-abortion groups, meanwhile, applauded the Trump administration's decision, calling it a 'major win' for the movement. 'Instead of prioritizing the real and urgent needs of our veterans, the Biden-Harris Administration turned VA hospitals into abortion centers – violating longstanding law and betraying the will of the American people who strongly oppose forced taxpayer-funded abortions,' the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said in a statement. 'Thankfully, this injustice is now corrected.'
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Tourism Australia Taps Robert Irwin to Lure US Travellers Down Under
Australian celebrity Robert Irwin, English television cook Nigella Lawson, Chinese actor Yosh Yu, and other international stars have been unveiled as the new faces to lure overseas tourists Down Under. Videos featuring these celebrities set against iconic Australian landscapes will be part of the federal government's latest tourism campaign aimed at attracting travellers from the UK, United States, China, Japan, and India. Robert Irwin, the son of the late Australian wildlife icon Steve Irwin, will front the advertisement for the American market. Wellness advocate Sara Tendulkar will appear in ads for India, while Chinese actor Yosh (Shi) Yu, the UK's Lawson, and Japanese comedian Abareru-kun will feature in commercials airing in their respective home countries. The $130 million campaign expands on Tourism Australia's ' Come and Say G'day ' initiative, which introduced the beloved animated mascot Ruby the Roo. In the video, an American tourist loses his phone in the desert—only to be rescued by Irwin. 'G'day mate, just going for a stroll?' Irwin greets him. Looking defeated, the tourist responds, 'An emu took my phone.' Irwin grins and says, 'Well, we better go find it.' Tourism Australia Managing Director Phillipa Harrison said traditionally, tourism campaigns use one famous face across all markets. 'But for our latest campaign Ruby will be joined by well-known talent from five different markets to showcase personal lasting memories of a holiday to Australia,' Harrison said. 'These international stars combine with local talent ... to create bespoke invitations for five markets.' Tourism Recovery in Australia Since the resumption of global travel, Australia's domestic tourism industry has grown with the number of international arrivals expected to reach a record 10 million in 2026 and 11.8 million in 2029. More than 700,000 jobs and 360,000 Australian businesses depend on tourism, while Chinese travellers remain Australia's second biggest cohort of tourists behind New Zealand, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The advertisements will go live in China on TV and online from Aug. 7. 'Tourism is the lifeblood of so many communities right around the country and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs,' said Tourism Minister Don Farrell. Nonetheless, industry experts have expressed caution about over-relying on China. 'China's slowing economic growth, youth unemployment, and property sector instability could hinder outbound travel demand. A weaker yuan may reduce international travel spend,' said Janene Wardrop, principal of event planning business Ascot Event Management, in a previous interview with The Epoch Times. Wardrop stated that the three main risks of over-relying on the China market are strategic, economic, and geopolitical. 'AUST needs to ensure there is diversification,' she wrote. 'AUST needs to ensure they support the China market whilst also building resilience by building their tourism market by product diversification, risk scenario planning, market diversification and to create constructive and culturally tailored marketing to Tier 2/3 cities. 'Priority should be on quality over quantity and attract high-yield, low-impact travellers.'
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
A Terrible Five Days for the Truth
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Awarding superlatives in the Donald Trump era is risky. Knowing when one of his moves is the biggest or worst or most aggressive is challenging—not only because Trump himself always opts for the most over-the-top description, but because each new peak or trough prepares the way for the next. So I'll eschew a specific modifier and simply say this: The past five days have been deeply distressing for the truth as a force in restraining authoritarian governance. In a different era, each of these stories would have defined months, if not more, of a presidency. Coming in such quick succession, they risk being subsumed by one another and sinking into the continuous din of the Trump presidency. Collectively, they represent an assault on several kinds of truth: in reporting and news, in statistics, and in the historical record. On Thursday, The Washington Post revealed that the Smithsonian National Museum of American History had removed references to Trump's record-setting two impeachments from an exhibit's section on presidential scandals. The deletion reportedly came as part of a review to find supposed bias in Smithsonian museums. Now, referring to Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, the exhibit states that 'only three presidents have seriously faced removal.' This is false—Trump came closer to Senate conviction than Clinton did. The Smithsonian says the material about Trump's impeachments was meant to be temporary (though it had been in place since 2021), and that references will be restored in an upcoming update. If only that seemed like a safe bet. The administration, including Vice President J. D. Vance, an ex officio member of the Smithsonian board, has been pressuring the Smithsonian to align its messages with the president's political priorities, claiming that the institution has 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.' The White House attempted to fire the head of the National Portrait Gallery, which it likely did not have the power to do. (She later resigned.) Meanwhile, as my colleague Alexandra Petri points out, the administration is attempting to eliminate what it views as negativity about American history from National Park Service sites, a sometimes-absurd proposition. During his first term, Trump criticized the removal of Confederate monuments, which he and allies claimed was revisionist history. It was not—preserving history doesn't require public monuments to traitors—but tinkering with the Smithsonian is very much attempting to rewrite the official version of what happened, wiping away the impeachments like an ill-fated Kremlin apparatchik. The day after the Post report, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that it will shut down. Its demise was sealed by the administration's successful attempt to get Congress to withdraw funding for it. Defunding CPB was a goal of Project 2025, because the right views PBS and NPR as biased (though the best evidence that Project 2025 is able to marshal for this are surveys about audience political views). Although stations in major cities may be able to weather the loss of assistance, the end of CPB could create news and information deserts in more remote areas. When Trump isn't keeping information from reaching Americans, he's attacking the information itself. Friday afternoon, after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released revised employment statistics that suggested that the economy is not as strong as it had appeared, Trump's response was to fire the commissioner of the BLS, baselessly claiming bias. Experts had already begun to worry that government inflation data were degrading under Trump. Firing the commissioner won't make the job market any better, but it will make government statistics less trustworthy and undermine any effort by policy makers, including Trump's own aides, to improve the economy. The New York Times ' Ben Casselman catalogs plenty of examples of leaders who attacked economic statistics and ended up paying a price for it. (Delving into these examples might provide Trump with a timely warning, but as the editors of The Atlantic wrote in 2016, 'he appears not to read.') The next day, the Senate confirmed Jeanine Pirro to be the top prosecutor for the District of Columbia. Though Pirro previously served as a prosecutor and judge in New York State, her top credential for the job—as with so many of her administration colleagues —is her run as a Fox News personality. Prior to the January 6 riot, she was a strong proponent of the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Her statements were prominent in a successful defamation case against Fox, and evidence in the case included a discussion of why executives yanked her off the air on November 7, 2020. 'They took her off cuz she was being crazy,' Tucker Carlson's executive producer wrote in a text. 'Optics are bad. But she is crazy.' This means that a person who either lied or couldn't tell fact from fiction, and whom even Fox News apparently didn't trust to avoid a false claim, is being entrusted with power over federal prosecutions in the nation's capital. (Improbably, she still might be an improvement over her interim predecessor.) Even as unqualified prosecutors are being confirmed, the Trump White House is seeking retribution against Jack Smith, the career Justice Department attorney who led Trump's aborted prosecutions on charges related to subverting the 2020 election and hoarding of documents at Mar-a-Lago. The Office of Special Counsel—the government watchdog that is led at the moment, for some reason, by the U.S. trade representative —is investigating whether Smith violated the Hatch Act, which bars some executive-branch officials from certain political actions while they're on the job, by charging Trump. Never mind that the allegations against Trump were for overt behavior. Kathleen Clark, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Post she had never seen the OSC investigate a prosecutor for prosecutorial decisions. The charges against Trump were dropped when he won the 2024 election. If anything, rather than prosecutions being used to interfere with elections, Trump used the election to interfere with prosecutions. This is a bleak series of events. But although facts can be suppressed, they cannot be so easily changed. Even if Trump can bowdlerize the BLS, that won't change the underlying economy. As Democrats discovered during the Biden administration, you can't talk voters out of bad feelings about the economy using accurate statistics; that wouldn't be any easier with bogus ones. Trump is engaged in a broad assault on truth, but truth has ways of fighting back. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News The Texas House voted to issue civil arrest warrants for Texas Democrats who left the state to delay a vote on a Trump-backed redistricting map. Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump's special envoy for peace missions, will head to Russia this week in an effort to secure a Ukraine cease-fire before a Friday deadline. The European Union paused planned retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods for six months amid ongoing trade talks with the Trump administration. Dispatches Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read Grief Counseling With Kermit By Sophie Brickman After a great loss, some people find themselves communing with nature, at the seaside or deep in a forest. Others turn to spirituality, toward a temple or church. Me? I'd come to grieve with the Muppets. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. In 2022, Shirley Li recommended 15 underseen TV shows that are worth your time. Have a laugh. The comedian Marc Maron's style is still confrontational and opinionated —but now his subjects are different, Vikram Murthi writes. Play our daily crossword.
