ILNews

Legal analysts use media to educate public about issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers and judges who eat, sleep, and breathe the law might find it easy to forget that not everyone understands the finer points of how the justice system works. Issues of public interest, high-profile court cases, and even the day-to-day workings of the court can create drama and lead to misunderstanding.

This is where legal commentators – analysts of the inner workings of the legal system – come into play.
 

pundits Marion Superior Judge John Hanley hosts legal public access show “Off the Bench.” (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Throughout Indiana, a number of attorneys and judges share their professional expertise and insights on legal issues through television and radio shows. A law school dean who comments on various sports topics and has an affiliation with the NFL Network; a former Marion Superior judge who now has a small firm and frequently works with local network stations covering legal news; and a current Marion Superior judge who hosts a monthly show about the court for a government cable access channel in Indianapolis discuss their experiences.

Sports law analyst

If you watch the NFL Network, you may have recognized one of its commentators. Indiana University School of Law

– Indianapolis Dean Gary R. Roberts has been serving as an on-air legal analyst for the network discussing the current dispute between National Football League team owners and players.
 

Roberts-DeanGary-mug Roberts

So far, he has done a few call-in interviews, including one on March 11 to discuss the labor negotiations. That interview was recorded at the WFYI studio in Indianapolis and is available on the NFL Network’s website.

In that interview, Roberts explained the role of lawyers and the possible trajectory of the NFL labor negotiations through the court system.

When he gives his analysis on any item in sports news, he said, he doesn’t take sides and only comments on the legal aspects, such as whether one side has a strong or weak legal argument and why.

During the March 11 interview, Roberts told the other commentators, who were in the NFL Network studio in Los Angeles, that he expected both sides to come to an agreement shortly before the 2011 NFL season is scheduled to begin and that he expects there to be a Super Bowl in Indianapolis in 2012.

Roberts said the NFL Network contacted him to be a commentator likely based on his past analysis for other media outlets regarding legal issues of various sports. The law school dean is a leading expert on sports law and antitrust law and has testified nine times before congressional committees. He is a certified commercial and sports arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and is a founding member and serves on the board of directors of the International Association of Sports Professionals and Executives.

Roberts said he enjoys explaining the legal issues surrounding sports because there are so many and the latest developments in this area of law are something he studies on a regular basis. He also enjoys doing it because it helps him to promote the law school in Indianapolis.

“It brings our institution into the public’s consciousness, where good people are doing interesting things,” he said.

When he began his tenure as dean of the law school in 2007, Roberts hoped to incorporate more sports law courses, but he said finding external funding has been difficult. The school currently offers two sports law courses, one taught by the dean and the other by Scott Bearby, managing director of legal affairs and associate general counsel to the NCAA.

Local news analyst

Gary Miller, an attorney who has taught ethics as an adjunct professor and is known for his lectures involving scenes from television shows and movies featuring lawyers that illustrate unethical behavior, can now be seen on television as himself.


Gary Miller Miller

Miller, a former Marion Superior judge who is now a name partner at MillerMeyer in Indianapolis, is a frequent commentator on a number of local network stations that reach audiences in central Indiana.

When he was on the bench, he oversaw a number of high-profile cases and got to know a number of journalists covering those cases. After Miller left the bench, those reporters and producers started calling him.

“Anything that involves the law is something that reporters and news directors want help explaining to the lay audience,” he said. “It runs the gamut of Officer (David) Bisard’s arrest to Tim Durham’s situation, to the woman who took rat poison to self-induce abortion. For all legal issues, reporters are looking for credible sources.”

Sometimes he’s on-air, and sometimes he is simply asked to explain a legal issue in a way that the reporter can use to make it understandable to viewers during the next broadcast.

When he is going to be on-air, he said, “the very first thing you have to realize is the amount of time you have to explain something is very short. The only thing I know in advance is what’s the general topic and do I need to find out a specific law. I will try to put myself in a position of a lay person who will be watching, and say what kind of information about this topic is important.”

He said he’s yet to get any legal business as a direct result of being on the air, and most of the time when he is on television he is identified as a former judge and not by his firm name. But, he said, that isn’t why he does it.

“Anytime they call and I’m in town and available, I’m more than happy to help,” he said. “Most of the people I deal with are friends, so when a friend calls I try to help. It’s just the way I’ve always operated.”

“Off the Bench”

In Marion Superior Court, a program called “Off the Bench” has covered a number of legal topics since it started airing in 2005. Issues addressed have included alternatives to juvenile incarceration and Marion County juvenile justice reform efforts, re-entry programs, identity theft, voter laws, the justice system’s response to mentally ill offenders, and court appointed special advocates.

The program has had four hosts since it started: Judge Cale Bradford, now with the Indiana Court of Appeals; Judge Gerald Zore; and most recently, Judge Robert Altice. The current host is Judge John Hanley, who taped his first show in early March.

In that show, he hosted Marion Superior Judges David Dreyer and David Shaheed who discussed their work with the April 4 commemoration program to recognize the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the speech Robert Kennedy gave in Indianapolis on his presidential campaign tour that night.

As a student he had done some reporting for his college radio station and newspaper at the University of Notre Dame, and Judge Hanley said he had not been on-air since then. However, he felt fairly comfortable on-air for his first show, he said, and is looking forward to future programs.

Selected “Off the Bench” programs may be viewed online at www.indy.gov. Select “Government TV; On Demand; Special Events” and search “Off the Bench.”

While all three commentators got onto television in different ways, a common thread is the desire to explain legal issues to the community in a way that increases understanding of the law and clarifies the legal process.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT