True crime and courtroom dramas capture and captivate the public consciousness in ways fictional dramatizations simply cannot. With history and backstory more dense and imaginative than any novelist or screenwriter could possibly create, compelling and relatable characters, attorney theatrics, sport-like coverage and analysis, and imposition of the proverbial and profound moral query, “did the defendant do it?,” noteworthy legal cases translate to must watch television. Unlike an episode of Law and Order however, the stakes are real, heightening the drama and driving an entire segment of the entertainment industry ranging from Court TV to Judge Judy to focus exclusively on real world judicial proceedings. It should come as no surprise then that, in recent years, Hollywood studios have sought to capitalize on the lure of the courthouse by recreating several of the most publicized and watched criminal trials as miniseries and films. In doing so through the lens of a modern social media society, what often results is a miscarriage of justice to the source material and its lasting impact. This paper explores and analyzes three such adaptations, Netflix’s Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, NBC’s Law and Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders, and FX’s American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson. By comparing and contrasting the actual proceedings with their dramatized counterparts, the paper identifies many unsettling discrepancies that emerge to shape and even encourage a misinformed public perception of the justice system, judicial process, and most importantly, the players involved. Notably, it concludes that in their misguided imitation of real life, these dramatizations ignore, marginalize, or re-victimize the victims by depicting and celebrating their assailants and advocates as heroic, sympathetic, and brilliant.
About the presenterCaylyn Ortiz
Undergraduate Legal Studies student at St. John’s University