1. Introduction
In general, journalists using still cameras and video are not permitted during all court proceedings; therefore a formal role of courtroom sketch artist remains. Court reporters are formal court employees (in addition to the judge and bailiff, for example) whose work is retained as part of legal records, whereas court artists are considered journalists and their work is not part of the legal record, but rather a historical record. These professionals are held to a high level of integrity, and in situations where cameras are not permitted in the courtroom, the artists’ sketches enable courtroom visibility. Is the sketch an accurate depiction of the person? Has the defendant/plaintiff/witness altered their appearance for personal/legal benefit? Are features enhanced or minimized in the sketch due to implicit or explicit biases of the artist? Criminology researcher Charlotte BarlowReference Barlow1 has argued that courtroom sketches are not value-free images because they are influenced by the artist.
In the United States, sketching occurs during court proceedings with artists making their drawings while in the courtroom. In England (for example), sketching occurs outside the courtroom after the artists have observed the day’s courtroom proceedings; thus their sketches rely on their memories of the scene, people, body language, and verbal interactions to create an “active portrait.”Reference Pope-Hennessy2 Legal researcher Elizabeth Fawcett Reference Fawcett3 argues that there are layers of information present in courtroom sketches, and this information can potentially influence public opinion. These layers include the background (e.g., physical appearance of the courtroom) and the body language and emotions of the people adjacent to the person on the stand (e.g., judge, bailiffs, attorneys, jurors, court reporter). According to Fawcett,4 what is captured by the artist must be truthful and accurate. This concept is reinforced by courtroom sketch artist Elizabeth Williams, who stated in an interview: “We are first journalists and our job is to draw the courtroom scene as honestly as possible.”5
2. Famous Courtroom Sketches from Medical Litigation
In 1976, the legal battle to remove Karen Ann Quinlan’s ventilator due to her persistent vegetative state ultimately went to the New Jersey Supreme Court (ruling 7–0 to permit withdrawal of the device at her parents’ request).6 The patient, herself, could not attend court due to her clinical status; however, court artist Ida Libby Dengrove visited Karen in the hospital, and provided a sketch with the handwritten caption, “Head Turns – Rhythmically – Eyes Dart, Karen Ann Quinlan in Hospital Joints Swollen.”7 The sketch portrays Karen’s bed-bound skeletal body covered with a sheet, revealing her face with a nasogastric feeding tube, and her neck attached to a mammoth-sized ventilator via a tracheostomy. The walls of her hospital room are a grim, brownish color, with no pictures or wallpaper. The room is entirely absent of any personal effects (e.g., cards, photos, stuffed animals). Many in the general public likely had never seen a patient in a persistent vegetative state, thus the image (and caption) provided a vivid visual as they followed this landmark legal case in the news.
In 1982, fear gripped Illinois as seven people died from cyanide poisoning upon ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol (acetaminophen) capsules that had been tampered with. The manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, received an extortion letter demanding one million dollars to end the poisoning spree. James W. Lewis was convicted of attempted extortion and was sketched in court wearing an orange jail uniform.8 This enabled the general public to explore the face and body language of a person widely suspected of killing random people, including one child and three members of the same family.
The world was mesmerized by the scientific proclamations of Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of the biotechnology company Theranos. But in 2022, she was found guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, with evidence focused on fabrication and falsification of the performance of the Theranos blood testing device.9 The severe corporate executive usually wearing a trademark black turtleneck sweater in prior video footage was replaced by a tearful, genteel woman in a nondescript white blouse in courtroom sketches.10 The softened look was a purposeful message. This trial occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and many of the sketches show Holmes, her attorneys, and others in the courtroom wearing facemasks.
3. What Should Courtroom Art Convey About A Defendant’s Health?
Clinical honesty means visible medical devices such as a mask, sling, plaster cast, or nasal cannula worn by someone giving court testimony are truly clinically needed. Consider the US case of Edward Coaxum, a man living with HIV/AIDS who was tried for murder in October 1984.Reference Shenon11 In June 1984, there were nearly 5000 identified cases of AIDS in the US, with a significant death rate.12 At that time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified those at the highest risk of acquiring AIDS as homosexual or bisexual men and intravenous drug abusers (89 percent of cases).13 Potential jurors were informed by the City Health Commissioner that they could not contract AIDS simply by being in the courtroom with the defendant; yet a courtroom sketch from his trial shows Mr. Coaxum wearing a mask, and court officers wearing masks and gloves.14 Mr. Coaxum’s attorney pleaded with the judge to not permit court officials to wear personal protective equipment, which he argued expressed negative bias against his client. However, during the trial Mr. Coaxum evidenced an upper respiratory ailment and was coughing,15 thus his wearing of a mask, and the masks on those around him seemed clinically justified (not to prevent the spread of AIDS, but to prevent the spread of his respiratory infection). Similarly, the fact that court officials (i.e., bailiffs) sketched near the defendant were wearing gloves in addition to masks is justified, as their job entails physical submission of combative defendants (behavior that can be unpredictable), and gloves mitigate blood contact when there is a scuffle.
Courtroom optics means that attire (including jewelry and face coverings) can be a code, delivering a message about the person to the viewer’s lens.Reference Street16 Attire can communicate messages of sympathy, power, and illness, for example. In the absence of clinical honesty, when an illness is faked or symptoms exaggerated (e.g., clinically unneeded personal protective equipment, crutches, sling, wheelchair), journalistic honesty requires showing these medical devices in the courtroom sketch, as well as not making a diagnostic or prognostic opinion in the caption that accompanies the artwork. Jurors will physically see a clinical picture of the plaintiff/defendant/witness based on their live presence in court, and those not present should see the same visible content by way of the artist’s sketch.
4. Conclusion
While some courts permit video and/or still cameras, others rely on courtroom artists for visual depiction of court proceedings. Courtroom drawings are not meant as tools for medical education as there can be a mismatch between the illness and symptoms observed (and sketched) and the clinical diagnosis and true symptoms. The court artist has a duty of objectivity and clinical honesty in their artwork, sketching what is observed. Similarly, the captioning written by the artist should be carefully chosen so as to be objective. These professional practices foster justice and journalistic integrity.
Disclosure
Katrina Bramstedt is employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and owns stock in F. Hoffman-La Roche.
Open access
