Legal Pundits: Nancy Grace

I have a real problem with most attorneys being regular contributors on the cable news networks discussing ongoing criminal investigations or trials. Not because they shouldn't offer their opinions as legal commentators but because they're so wrong most of the the time.

Some are of them are "former prosecutors (I can understand why) like Kimberly Guilfoyle (recently hired by Fox), and Marsha Clark. Some have no experience in criminal law like Gloria Allred. And some have become hosts like Greta Van Susteren (whose show I have appeared) and Nancy Grace.

I don't include attorney's like Laura Ingram and Ann Coulter because not only do they not provide legal analysis but they general stay away from the crime beat (unless it's defending Libby and all those associated with Abramoff.)

There are really only three media attorneys I think are entertaining and astute: Dan Abrams, Jeffrey Toobin, and Geoffrey Fieger.

Nancy Grace

Nancy Grace joined Court TV from the Atlanta Fulton County District Attorney's Office where she served for a decade as Special Prosecutor of major felony cases involving serial murder, serial rape, serial child molestation and arson. Grace compiled a perfect record of nearly 100 felony convictions at trial and no losses.

I've watched Grace for a number of years after catching her on her Court TV show. Even back then, she was more of a populist victim's rights advocate rather than an objective legal commentator. Despite her rhetoric, I always got a kick out of her odd vocal inflections and eye-popping expressions.

Now, on CNN, her mannerisms and speech has only gotten more shrill. She falls in line with the old adage, "Give the people what they want." The only problem with that is that requires the news media to abdicate its responsibility to educate and inform.

Recently, the New York Observer has written a piece that gives some insight to Grace's punditry.

In it, the NYO finds that Grace plays fast and loose with the facts her fiancee's murder, the inspiration for her legal and media profession.

But [the official records from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, newspaper articles from the time of the murder, and interviews with many of those involved in the case], contradict Ms. Grace when it comes to other salient facts of the crime and the trial—the facts that form the basis of Ms. Grace’s crusade against an impotent, criminal-coddling legal system.

• Griffin was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker.

• The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior convictions.

• Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested.

• The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days.

• Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn't get it, because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded.

• Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.

Playing "fast and loose" isn't something she just does on her TV show but something she did as a prosecutor as well.

But in 2005, the 11th Circuit Court in Georgia declared that Ms. Grace had “played fast and loose” with facts in her 1990 triple-murder prosecution of Herbert Connell Stephens. In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned an arson-murder verdict, finding Ms. Grace had withheld evidence from the defense; in 1994, the same court had overturned her conviction of a heroin trafficker, finding problems with her closing argument.

What's troubling is not only does she misstate the facts in interviews and in her book, but she admits not having done any background on the case and then justifies these falsehoods for what can only be called a personal crusade.

She does a disservice to her viewers and to the law by slanting criminal cases in away that can only engender distrust with the criminal justice system.