Latest news with #JusticeonTrial
New York Post
28-07-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Judge Judy recreates controversial American verdicts and challenges viewers in ‘Justice on Trial'
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. 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.
Daily Mirror
25-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Prime Video fans are bingeing 'high stakes' courtroom drama that makes them 'trust no one'
All eight episodes are available to stream on Prime Video Prime Video fans are binge watching a high stakes court drama that makes them "trust no-one". Justice on Trial is a gripping new series from judicial icon Judge Judy Sheindlin. Premiering on July 21, fans have already binge watched the show, which sees Judge Judy Sheindlin putting the justice system on trial. With eight episodes, fans have branded it a must watch for fans of true crime. Judge Sheindlin herself said of the show: "Judges do not make law. They interpret the law. Judges are people. Sometimes they get it wrong. Then what happens? "When and how long will it take to get it right? I've put justice on trial. I couldn't be more proud of this series. Everybody who watches it will come away a little smarter. Mission accomplished." The judge will visit one of the most personal and complex cases of her career, a diplomatic immunity battle, as well as recreating the chilling case of Archie Dixon, who confessed to murdering his roommate and burying him alive. A Prime Video synopsis reads: "Judge Judy Sheindlin puts the American justice system on trial in a true crime high-stakes courtroom drama, as she and her expert legal team recreate the trials from notorious cases where following the letter of the law did not necessarily feel 'just.' "Season 1 spans from the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial to a case in which the convicted killer is currently on Death Row." And the series has been a hit with fans already. One fan wrote: "Justice on trial is really good, this is just the first episode I'm on, very compelling." Another added: "Check out the show #JusticeOnTrial on @PrimeVideo it's a great show." While a different viewer commented: "Justice on trial is really good, this is just the first episode I'm on, very compelling." Elsewhere, another show watcher put: "I enjoyed this show. It is a nice change from civil suits" while a different account put: "This case had my mouth dropping open! We immediately watched the next one!!"
Fox News
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
EXPLOSIVE: Mollie Hemingway Calls New Russiagate Information an '11/10' in Importance
Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief at The Federalist , Fox News Contributor, and co-author of Justice on Trial , joined The Guy Benson Show today to discuss the explosive new documents released in the RussiaGate scandal, as many say that the new revelations directly implicate the Obama administration in a coordinated attempt to smear Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Hemingway argued that the new information could carry serious legal and political ramifications for key figures in the former administration. Hemingway and Benson also briefly weighed in on the Epstein controversy, and Hemingway criticized the Trump DOJ's handling of the case. Listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview from today's podcast below:
Chicago Tribune
23-07-2025
- 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
Mint
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Who is Judge Judy? The no-nonsense judge who turned real cases into must-watch TV
Long before she became a household name, Judith Sheindlin was already shaking up the justice system. Better known by her courtroom alias, Judge Judy, Sheindlin transformed the legal television genre with her no-nonsense approach and sharp wit, serving justice from the bench—first in family court, and later, in millions of living rooms across the globe. Judge Judy made her television debut in 1996 after a 60 Minutes segment catapulted her into the public eye. At the time, she was known for her stern demeanour and zero tolerance for nonsense in Manhattan's family court. Originally appointed as a judge in 1982 by Mayor Ed Koch, she became supervising judge just four years later, overseeing emotionally charged cases involving child abuse, domestic violence, and juvenile crime. After more than two decades on the bench, she stepped into the spotlight with 'Judge Judy', an arbitration-based court show that would span 25 seasons. Though the programme was not an actual courtroom proceeding, Sheindlin did resolve real disputes as an arbitrator — a role that allowed her more flexibility than a traditional judge. She wasn't bound by the rules of civil procedure or evidence, which only added to the show's brisk and often explosive drama. Sheindlin's legal journey began in the early 1960s, when she became the only woman in her law class at American University's Washington College of Law. She then transferred to New York Law School, graduating with a juris doctorate in 1965. Her career trajectory defied expectations from the start: from cosmetics law to prosecution of violent crimes, she never shied away from uncharted territory. Her transition from legal anonymity to public figure was not planned—but it was earned. With multiple Daytime Emmy Awards to her name, and a Lifetime Achievement Emmy in 2019, Sheindlin's influence on both the judiciary and entertainment worlds is undeniable. 'Judge Judy' and its successor, 'Judy Justice', may be television shows, but the disputes are very real. The production team—according to long-time executive producer Randy Douthitt—scours court records across the U.S., thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. These cases are then pitched to the parties involved, who agree to have their matter settled by Sheindlin in a televised format. Douthitt noted that producers look for disputes with personal stakes and emotional tension—"a bit of a mini soap opera"—to captivate the audience. And yet, the decisions rendered on these shows are binding legal outcomes, making Sheindlin's arbitration a real form of alternative dispute resolution, albeit dramatised for television. Her latest venture, 'Justice on Trial', revisits controversial past cases with expert commentary and dramatic reenactments, further blurring the line between entertainment and serious legal critique. Beyond her television empire, Sheindlin has left an indelible mark on the legal education landscape. Since 2022, she has donated $5 million annually to fund full scholarships for ten women at New York Law School, covering tuition, books, and summer fellowships. It's a powerful gesture that echoes her own early struggles and achievements in a male-dominated legal environment.
