Court show
Court shows present content mainly in the form of legal hearings between plaintiffs (or claimants in the United Kingdom) and defendants, presided over in one of two formats: scripted/improvised with an actor portraying a judge; or, an arbitration-based reality format with the case handled by an adjudicator who was formerly a judge or attorney.
As an exception, from 2020-2021, numerous aspects of this genre were largely forsaken due to COVID-19, such as hearings transpiring from simulated courtroom studio sets.
More so than other genres, court shows withstood transformations stemming from the pandemic that were drastic and conspicuous, due to their unorthodox process of interchanging defendants for each individual episode.
With minimal production costs (under $200,000 a week, as opposed to entertainment magazines' hefty $1,000,000[6]) and an evergreen, episodic format, court shows are easily and frequently rerun.
As radio fans were denied the vicarious thrill of eavesdropping on the actual courtroom trials, many turned to this venue of entertainment.
Though there was risk of libel and slander suits in producing court case recreations, this threat was commonly sidestepped by taking from trials of the distant past, with the original participants dead.
The technique scarcely existed for a great deal of time, that is, up until Allen Media Group, formerly known as Entertainment Studios, reintroduced the methodology in 2010.
[15][16] While Allen Media Group has been criticized by some for using this technique,[17][18] as of the 2024-2025 television season, the company owns nine of the thirteen court shows currently airing, all using the identical format.
This setup was a mock trial, which saw dramatized court case proceedings being heard and eventually ruled upon by an actor-judge or actors-jury.
Far more realistic than their dramatized predecessors, arbitration-based reality versions do not use actors, scripts, improvisation or recreations.
It is for these reasons that many of these particular programs make clear claims to authenticity, as text and voiceovers remind viewers that the cases, litigants, and outcomes are "real".
[8] Despite possessing certain real-life elements, however, arbitration-based reality court shows are less credible than "unaffected" reality court programs, which draw on footage from actual courtrooms holding legal proceedings to capture the legal system as naturally as possible (e.g., Parole, On Trial).
For one to be considered an acting judge, they must be operating within a court and thus bound by the rules and regulations of the legal system.
Jerry Springer noted that most attorneys can get the "special certification" required to serve as an arbitrator and host a court show with only a day's training: "if you're a lawyer, it's almost automatic unless you've killed someone.
In this respect, arbitrators are not legally restricted to mandatory courtroom/legal policies, procedures, and codes of conduct; rather, they can preside in ways intended for entertainment.
[26][27] One study noted, "In exchange for streamlining the process (and likely sacrificing some legal rights), litigants surrender their fates to the media apparatus and experience a justice system ruled by the conventions of television drama and personality of the presiding television judge.
In actual small claims courts, however, winning the judgement is frequently only the first step as judgments do not ensure the victor the money they are owed.
Getting the defendant to pay his or her judgment can be taxing, and courts typically do not get involved, which means it is left up to the victors to collect.
[7] The O. J. Simpson murder trial increased public interest in the court system and in video depictions of personal affairs.
[30] It was only after the ratings boom of Judge Judy in the late 1990s that a slew of other arbitration-based reality court shows arrived on the scene.
Judge Judy remained the highest rated court show for its entire 25 season run.
Justice David Sills noted in one opinion that "daytime television in the early 21st century has been full of 'judge shows,' where ordinary people bring a dispute for decision before a celebrity jurist.
"[31] Divorce Court is the only show in the genre to have utilized both popular formats ("dramatized" and "arbitration reality") during their heyday.
With no suspensions in its production history, Judge Judy has had the longest lasting individual life of any reality court show.
Major television station ownership groups have opted to expand local newscasts, relying upon the 24 hour news cycle to recycle content from its existing news broadcasts to create less expensive content, thus reducing the available windows for syndicated programs, which in turn draw lower advertising revenues.
Warner Bros. cancelled both of its longest-running entries in the genre, The People's Court and Judge Mathis, in response to these changes.
Unconventional court shows, on the other hand, have their own, very distinct twist that separates them dynamically from traditional courtroom programs and each other as well.
Up until 2012, all of the annually presented awards went to freshman court shows that had only recently emerged into the genre at the time of their rewarding.
This albeit short-lived court show won the Outstanding Legal/Courtroom Program Award in 2008 (two seasons into its run), 2009, and 2010 (the series cancelled by this period).
