Mariano Rivera and Marilyn Milian

                                              photo credit: pvera via photopin cc

In a recent episode of The People's Court during which Judge Marilyn Milian resolved a dispute over a Mariano Rivera-signed baseball, she mentioned that she was a big fan of  the Yankee closer and had presented him with a robe and gavel so that he could preside over the clubhouse "kangaroo court."

It turns out that this occurred back in June 2009:



Hopefully she gave Rivera a chance to get a word in edgewise.

The Disputed People's Court Episode that You Almost Didn't See

Unsuccessful People's Court plaintiff Claudia Evart went to New York Supreme Court to try to stop this episode of the popular television show from making it to air.  A New York judge declined to stop the broadcast of the small claims court arbitration, however, and it was shown last Friday (we will replace the video below with a more complete and/or better quality version as soon as it becomes available).



If you watched the trial, which concerned a dispute over a custom-made Murphy bed, in real time on Friday or later on your DVR, it does seem like the defendant made out a strong case that he tried to accommodate the customer.

The problem apparently occurred when Evart was prevented from fully testifying that a salesperson said the bed was sold rather than ruined in Hurricane-Irene-related flooding as the defendant maintained.

Judge Marilyn Milian, however, banged her gavel before Evart could offer evidence, if any, of that conversation.

The plaintiff may well have lost the trial anyway, but it would have only taken an additional minute or two more to give the plaintiff a chance to provide corroboration, so what was the rush?

Judge Milian's rejoinders that the plaintiff "always gets what she wants" (how would she know this?) and that plaintiff was "dead" (rather than "out of gas," or "done," etc, as the she usually says) also seem over the top.

The Myth of Moral Justice contends in part that the court system fails to take into consideration the emotional component of a lawsuit. As we wrote in a previous blog posting that reviewed the book, "the litigants simply never receive an opportunity to vent in a public setting. Since many if not all lawsuits contain a strong emotional component, even the winner doesn't 'believe the case is all over and the issues are all settled'...it is fair to say that many litigants often find themselves figuratively (or sometimes literally) gaveled out of order before they get a full chance to express themselves."

The Real Best People's Court Entrance Ever

Back around the holidays, a video circulated through the Internet that was touted as the best ever litigant entrance on TV's The People's Court. There was also a second-place finisher too.

At the time, we said that there was a much better one, in which a defendant did a pirouette as he entered the courtroom--and subsequently suffered the wrath of Judge Milian. Despite getting off "on the wrong foot" with the judge, the chastened defendant did win the case, suggesting that the judge didn't hold his initial misbehavior against him.

In response to our request, an In General Counsel reader was kind enough to provide a YouTube link to that bit of performance art. 

It can be found here (scroll down to the third video).

The People's Court: Justice or Just Us?

                                                   photo credit: pvera via photopin cc

$5 million/year for what amounts to a part-time job?

Not bad at all.

That's what former Miami judge Marilyn Milian makes a year for presiding over TV's long-running The People's Court, according to today's New York Post, which claims the show has racheted up the controversy ("harsher and more sexualized in recent years") since the Judge Wapner era.

The Post article delves into how a recent plaintiff has gone to real court to stop an episode from being aired after she was allegedly humilated by the judge. Claudia Evart says that "It was a nightmare, and I wish I never did it." The article also discusses missing person Michele Parker who disappeared shortly after her contentious appearance in the TV courtroom.

According to the article, the show pays the entire judgment for the loser in cases that originate in real small claims courts around the country as well as a nominal appearance fee to both litigants. This may be a change; some years back we saw a standard contract for the show that set forth a sliding scale of reimbursement based on the judgment amount. Since no money is apparently changing hands between the parties, it's interesting that the litigants still get very fired up when they plead their case on TV.

The long-running show is one of our guilty pleasures. The authors of the Post article aren't particularly enamored, however:

Milian, 50, is the fourth judge in the show’s history, and her immense popularity must be part of some visceral need Americans currently have to be hectored and lectured by well-coiffed middle-aged women (see: Nancy Grace, Judge Judy).

Milian, however, is a far more feminine, flirtatious presence. Although she also exhibits the Grace/Judge Judy brand of explosive, unpredictable female rage, her docket is far more sexed up, it’s cases like mini reality shows.

Our main issue with the show is that the judge sometimes doesn't allow the parties to get a word in edgewise (was that a timer next to her on the bench?). This may also be a function of having the litigants thoroughly pre-interviewed by producers. Yet, as we have written previously...

Okay, so she also showboats, grandstands, and yells at the litigants, and she sometimes even prevents the parties from introducing all of their evidence. Yet, the show is unusually informative for the viewer in that Judge Milian takes the time to explain how the principles of law apply to each case (as does the TMZ guy who does the wrap-around commentary in Times Square).

Another fun aspect of the show is when a plaintiff or defendant claims to have a key piece of evidence that will blow the case wide open, "but I don't have it with me."

Update: A court apparently turned down Evart's motion to prevent the episode from being broadcast. "Judge Lucy Billings of the New York State Supreme Court agreed with [People's Court lawyers] arguments, which were rooted in First Amendment law and also based on agreements that Evart had signed in connection with her appearance on the program." The segment aired on Friday, February 17, and we will post it as soon as it becomes available online.

Dude Makes Grand Entrance to The People's Court

This is being touted on several websites as the best People's Court entrance ever.




Actually, there is a better one: A defendant did a 360-degree spin as he came through the door as if he is auditioning for one of those talent search shows. When she took the bench, Judge Milian raked him over the coals for disrespecting the court. If anyone has this video, please send it our way.

This plaintiff made honorable mention:




Update: The Real Best People's Court Entrance Ever

A reader was kind enough to provide the link to the video that we discussed above. Here it is:

People's Court Defendant Goes Misssing

The cases heard on The People's Court and other TV judge shows sometimes have less to do about money and more about the tawdry implications of the relationships involved. We get the sense that the producers who are scouring small claims court dockets around the country specifically look for the latter to some degree. In a recent episode, a couple in an ongoing dysfunctional relationship had a fight at a science fiction convention, culminating in the defendant tossing an engagement ring out of a hotel room window (she was apparently aiming for the plaintiff). Judge Marilyn Milian ruled that since both parties shared some responsibility for the incident, each should split the $5,000 cost.

After the episode aired, the defendant, Michelle Parker, 33, vanished. Orlando, Fla., police are investigating:



Update: The ex-fiancee is lawyering up according to press reports now that the police have identified him as the prime suspect:

Here's the episode in question of The People's Court , which originally aired on November 17, the same date of her disappearance:

Thanksgiving Eve Musings

This blog's charter allows us to on occasion veer off into other legal issues apart from homeland security. So what better time than on Thanksgiving Eve. Did you know that Canada celebrates its own Thanksgiving in mid October? In any event, speaking of Canada (and the possible connection with festive eating), that country's Supreme Court ruled on November 19 that obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on domestic flights. Actually, the High Court let stand a lower court ruling to that effect, but the net result is the same.

This is the type of legal dispute that stirs up profound mixed emotions, like the 2001 Casey Martin case. In general, we don't favor government intervention into how businesses manage their internal operations. Yet, this news report cites individuals with severe arthritis or hormonal disorders that will be legitimately helped by this decision. And airplane seats are not roomy to begin with for any passenger. On the other hand, for the ordinary overweight person, if there is such a thing, wouldn't it be better to seek remedies through diet, nutrition, and exercise rather than through the courts? How many other travelers will be prevented from getting a ticket on a flight under this new policy? And to what extent will this mandate undermine the airline industry's already shaky financial viability? The news article also identifies at least one practical problem in terms of implementation: "A possible sticking point is how to decide when obesity is a disability. The agency has recommended the airlines adopt a policy used by Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, which gives a free seat to people who are too big to lower their armrest." Unfortunately, courts are often ill-equipped or unwilling to address real-world implementation or the associated unintended consequences.

Here in the states, the number of overweight persons seems to be, well, expanding. At least that's what the media says, but visiting any mall or other public gathering place seems to provide empirical evidence. This reminds us of a seemingly unrelated issue: the syndicated courtroom shows on television. In virtually all of those shows, the television judge hearing the cases--complaints that originated in Small Claims courts around the country--showboats, grandstands, and yells at the litigants. Note that these proceedings are technically binding arbitration hearings; the parties have agreed to drop their actual Small Claims case in the original jurisdiction in order to get the case heard on TV by an arbitrator (typically a former judge) but with the trappings of a court trial

The one exception seems to be Marilyn Milian, a former state circuit judge from Miami, who currently presides over The People's Court. (The New York Times called the show "quick and dirty justice served up for mass consumption." Judge Milian often says on the show that she administers "rough justice".) Okay, so she also showboats, grandstands, and yells at the litigants, and she sometimes even prevents the parties from introducing all of their evidence. Yet, the show is unusually informative for the viewer in that Judge Milian takes the time to explain how the principles of law apply to each case (as does the TMZ guy who does the wrap-around commentary in Times Square). She even discusses how the law of the parties' jurisdiction--which may differ in certain respects from general legal principles--applies to their case. So amidst the fender benders, shady contractors, and jilted lovers fighting over the eternal question of loan vs. gift, you can really learn a lot about law from that program.

But, we have noticed that somewhere in the range of roughly 60-70% of the litigants seem to be, well, noticeably overweight. So is there an odd correlation between Small Claims and large bodies, or is the show merely a cross-section of the real America?