Give a reporter a decent amount of column inches -- and a gift for explaining complex legal arguments in plain English -- and his readers are much better able to form an opinion about a news event that otherwise invites snap judgments. That's the lesson from today's coverage of appellate arguments in the Larry Craig airport-restroom case. There's a stark contrast between the longer and better-explained report by St. Paul Pioneer Press' David Hanners and the shorter, clunkier version by Minneapolis Star Tribune's Rochelle Olson. It's not that Olson's report is an abomination. Far from it. But a side-by-side look reveals Hanners' work to be superior -- right from the start. Here's Hanners' lede:
Rather than being a man who tapped his foot to solicit gay sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig is trying to protect the rights of Minnesotans who plead guilty to misdemeanors by mail, his attorney said Wednesday.
And here's Olson's lede:
U.S. Sen. Larry Craig's attorney argued to have his disorderly conduct conviction thrown out for lack of evidence during arguments Wednesday before the state Court of Appeals.
So Hanners draws us in with a promise of a surprising legal twist that might affect other citizens, while Olson's more routine summary promises only a rehash of supposedly well-known facts. Her article of fewer than 600 words then proceeds through a mostly fact-focused slog, about the senator's encounter with a police sting in an airport restroom. Hanners doesn't ignore the background, but in his more than 1,100-word version he manages to explain what the legal challenge is really all about:
The law says a judge has to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's no indication in the court record of enough evidence to do that, [Craig's lawyer Billy Martin] said.In pleas in felony cases, such findings of guilt are usually accomplished through a colloquy between the judge or an attorney and the defendant. Standing before the judge, the defendant is asked questions and admits to the crime.But there is no such colloquy in a guilty plea by mail. Martin argued that without a judge's signature, there is no way to demonstrate that a court had found enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the person voluntarily enters the guilty plea.
When Olson tackles the same topic, she fails to translate enough from legalese, and leaves readers far less enlightened:
When Martin talked about how the senator used a mail-in plea form rather than appear in person, losing a chance for an on-the-record discussion before the court about the charge against him, [appeals court Judge] Kalitowski asked, "Didn't [Craig] waive the right to a colloquy when he signed the form?"
Martin said he did but that Craig did not waive the legal right that the complaint against him be adequate. He also argued that Craig's behavior didn't meet the standard for disorderly conduct because the law requires behavior to affect others.
It's easy it is to laugh off the senator's legal challenge to his guilty plea as a desperate, PR-driven move that has no legal merit. But if we do a good enough job of explaining what's really going on, we might actually inform the public discussion with relevant facts. (Via How Appealing)
