OxfordPress.com

By Amy

August 15, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

You’ve got to be kidding, right? Fictional shows are just that - fiction. Anyone who can not differentiate between fiction & nonfiction should not be selected for jury duty to begin with. I think that this judge is just looking for ways to get her name in the paper.

By Gail

August 15, 2007 12:56 AM | Link to this

I agree with the judge. I see where she is coming from. All people are not realistic, many get into those shows and still know their fake, they love the show so much, its part of their world. The judge is correct 100%

By Tammy Clooney

August 14, 2007 7:39 PM | Link to this

The tv shows she mentions are not on a “hit list”. It’s just a suggestion. No one is going to come to your house and monitor what’s on your television! If more people would actually serve jury duty you would understand. I was amazed at the people that actively tried to be excused. Whether you agree with our justice system or not, jury duty is where you get to see how it REALLY works. Then you can watch and enjoy the “law” programs for what they really are. Entertainment.

By Tammy Clooney

August 14, 2007 7:31 PM | Link to this

I was a juror in her court room the beginning of the year… Judge Oney is a fair and partial judge. She did NOT sit up there and toss out demands like you are some kind of an idiot. These were another part of her instructions to please refrain from watching the news or reading the newspaper while the trial went on. If you think about it.. it makes sense. There is so much that goes on in a trial, so much to take in.

By Mike

August 14, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

What’s wrong with this judge? I gusee she thinks we are so stupid that we can’t separate TV Holliwood fiction from real life. I agree with not watching something like a news report about what the trial is about since it is directly related but not a TV show. What’s next on her hit list, Matlock?

By CH

August 14, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

I agree with George. Judge Oney does need to get a grip. She, or any judge for that matter, shouldn’t be allowed to tell jurors wha they can or cannot watch. It’s stupid. Have of the jurors probably don’t want to be there anyway; so they shouldn’t be told they can’t watch certain shows on t.v.

By c

August 14, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

was’nt james lawson on one of those shows.tell his victim’s family it was’nt true.

By judy

August 14, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

maybe she is trying for her own t.v. show an needs puplicity.i think she is a decent judge,but needs to concentrate on throwing the book at crack dealers and child molesters.butler co. is full of both.

By Robert

August 14, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

I think JUDGES should quit obsessing about live TV (remember that buffoon Florida judge in the Anna Nichole paternity case) and spend more time on their jury conviction and sentencing instructions .

By Don Carpenter

August 14, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

This is just another example of some of the judicial excellence we take for granted in Butler County. Judge Oney demonstrates once again, the reason why the voters have such faith in her and I can see why she would ask jurors to abstain from watching anything that could potentially hamper impartiality. The rules of evidence are most certainly different in ‘real life’ versus hollywood drama which is manipulated for effect. Thank you Judge Oney for taking a stand and protecting justice.

By Baxter Barrett

August 14, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

If these shows can affect an opinion during deliberation, why would watching the same show a week or a month earlier not have the same affect?

By T

August 14, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

I, for one, have found myself thinking that SOME of the techniques on CSI have credibility only to be told by a Police Detective that I know how fictional the show really is. After talking with him and the examples he gives…I can see how it COULD taint a jurors perceptions. I agree with the judge.

By Ray

August 14, 2007 8:22 AM | Link to this

I strongly agree but from a different viewpoint. TV needs to be cleaned up in many ways especially with regards to violence and language. TV should not be the crimal’s “cool” role-model. The FCC has failed to keep clean programming standards. I don’t think that judges should have the right to say what people watch in their homes merely because of a specific case. Jurors should be sequestered in cases where there is such sensitivity. The judges actions borderlines activist judging.

By Sherry

August 14, 2007 7:48 AM | Link to this

I agree with the judges decision. People have a tendacy to look at those shows as fact even when they know they are fiction. Judges everywhere should make the same ruling. I agree with the judge 100%.

By Amanda

August 14, 2007 7:33 AM | Link to this

I think it’s a good idea. Even though TV is just TV, it has a basis in fact and people start to believe that they are developing the understanding of how to “work a crime scene”. There is even a new reality show for people to work an old case. People are going to know that CSI is fiction, but they are going to think that they know better.

By George

August 14, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

I think the Judge should get a grip! If someone thinks CSI is all true and tested science, they have a problem before the trial starts. TV is TV, not real life. All shows on TV are edited for the outcome they want.