NEW YORK — Judy Sheindlin, the iconic television judge who presided over “Judge Judy” for 25 years, is back in front of the camera with a new series, “Justice on Trial,” available on Amazon. The show aims to demystify the legal system by recreating real court cases, with Sheindlin presiding and lawyers Larry Bakman and Dan Mentzer facing off.
Sheindlin’s new show aims to educate viewers on the justice system.
Judy Sheindlin brings her sharp legal acumen to Amazon with “Justice on Trial,” a new series that dissects real court cases.
- Judy Sheindlin, known for “Judge Judy,” stars in the new Amazon series “Justice on Trial.”
- The show recreates real court cases with actual attorneys, interspersed with dramatic reenactments.
- Sheindlin states that while trials are not recreated verbatim, court decisions are accurate.
- The series explores complex legal issues like diplomatic immunity and free speech.
- Reviewers note the show’s educational intent, but question its effectiveness given current events.
How does Judy Sheindlin explain complex legal concepts in “Justice on Trial”? Sheindlin aims to help viewers understand why “justice doesn’t always end up feeling just,” breaking down legal processes and principles.
A Familiar Formula, Reimagined
Following her 25-year run on the highly successful “Judge Judy,” Sheindlin transitioned to Amazon with “Judy Justice.” She has also built a television empire by producing shows like “Hot Bench” and “Tribunal Justice,” though she does not appear on them. “Justice on Trial” marks her return to appearing on-camera.
The series tackles real court cases, presented in a moot court style on a television set. Dramatic reenactments of the alleged crimes are woven into the proceedings. Sheindlin emphasizes that while the trials are not verbatim recreations, the ultimate court decisions are accurate. The show’s tagline, “Real cases. Actual lawyers. Surprising verdicts,” sets the stage for its content.
Examining the Appeal and Intent
The enduring popularity of “Judge Judy” stemmed from viewers’ enjoyment of Sheindlin’s direct approach and her ability to connect with a diverse range of Americans, giving voice to the grievances of the working class. While acknowledged for its tackiness, this element was part of its appeal.
“Justice on Trial” appears to aim for a more educational purpose, moving beyond interpersonal conflicts to help laypeople grasp the nuances of the legal system. Sheindlin’s stated intention is to explain how the law works, particularly in situations where outcomes may not align with a public sense of fairness.
However, the series debuts amidst a context where legal rights and principles are perceived by some as being eroded, raising questions about the seriousness with which Sheindlin’s pronouncements can be taken.
Navigating Complex Cases
One particularly compelling case, originating from the late 1980s, features a diplomat from Zimbabwe accused of abusing his 9-year-old son. The father claims diplomatic immunity, a defense Sheindlin herself ruled on before the case was appealed. The allegations are grim, detailing physical abuse and the mother and sister being forced to witness the events. Child protective services intervened when the boy collapsed at school.
Sheindlin highlights the international legal principle that high-level diplomats are generally immune from prosecution in foreign countries. This raises the question of a child’s rights when subjected to abuse by a diplomat residing in the United States. While the rationale for diplomatic immunity is explained, the researchers for the series did not follow up to determine the boy’s ultimate fate.
Another case examines the “fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine, stemming from a traffic stop that uncovered a dead body. The series also delves into a lawsuit arguing that hate speech is not protected under free speech principles. These are presented as significant debates.
Despite the potentially engaging subject matter, the execution is criticized as a “hacky exercise.” A dramatic reenactment depicting a character crushing a wine glass in anger is cited as an example of its somewhat theatrical and unrealistic portrayal of emotions.
Production and Aesthetics
The courtroom set and lighting appear to be repurposed from Sheindlin’s other productions, suggesting a cost-conscious approach. The appellate court features judges from “Hot Bench.” While the artificial setting and use of extras as an audience are evident, viewers are expected to take the proceedings seriously. The overall aesthetic is described as somewhat grimier than her previous shows.
“Justice on Trial” — 2 stars (out of 4)
Where to watch: Amazon
