COMMENTARY: A trial is not a basketball game

c. 1997 Religion News Service (Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest in Winston-Salem, N.C., an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter. E-mail him at journey(at)interpath.com) UNDATED _ Judge Richard P. Matsch not only runs an efficient courtroom, he sees to it that murder trials aren’t basketball games. In presiding over U.S. vs. Timothy McVeigh, […]

c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest in Winston-Salem, N.C., an author and former Wall Street Journal reporter. E-mail him at journey(at)interpath.com)

UNDATED _ Judge Richard P. Matsch not only runs an efficient courtroom, he sees to it that murder trials aren’t basketball games.


In presiding over U.S. vs. Timothy McVeigh, Matsch kept a complex case moving and prevented a replay of the O.J. Simpson trial debacle. But I was especially struck by his warning to spectators that they not show any”audible or visible reaction”to the verdict. In other words, no cheering by the”winners,”no gasps of dismay from the”losers.” That warning was more than a blow for decorum. It also defied our society’s desire to see life as Michael Jordan vs. Karl Malone, a game of winners-and-losers in which we are spectators.

In Atlantic Coast Conference territory, where I live, most people pick a team to root for, even if they grew up somewhere else. It gives us something to talk about.

As news reporting has become national, breathless and indistinguishable from TV fiction, our appetite for contests goes beyond hoops. A Feds vs. right-wingers standoff in Texas, LAPD vs. black motorist, Kenneth Starr vs. Bill Clinton, IRA vs. Ulster _ we watch, we take sides, we cheer or boo the outcome.

In seeing our world as an oversized basketball tournament, we do more than gawk at an auto accident. We chase three illusions.

The first illusion is that we can distance ourselves from events; as if we could put life out on a court, within the lines that separate players from spectators, or beyond the proscenium arch that separates actors from audience. In that spectator’s seat, we are briefly engaged, but then the lights come on and we go home.

The second illusion is that we can make the complex simple; as if the bewildering phenomena of domestic terrorism, right-wing alienation and personal tragedy that were on display in a Denver courtroom could be reduced to a spectator’s response to a verdict, followed by a post-mortem on the officiating.

The third illusion is that problems get resolved; as if someone can set a time limit, a vote can be taken or a contest held, and an outcome will bring events to a conclusion, as if Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Court House came within a century of ending the Civil War.


Reality isn’t kind to such illusions. The Simpson trial seemed for a moment like good theater, but the play lasted too long. When it stopped being pretend, we couldn’t turn to another channel. We were left with further racial division and further deterioration of public confidence in the justice system. The McVeigh trial might restore some of that lost confidence. But the complex socio-political and personal factors that caused this act of terrorism won’t yield to the end-of-hour resolutions that we expect in showtime. The lights won’t go on and bid us return to real life.

Those who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma City blast may feel relief that justice was done, but their grief won’t end because a verdict was announced. Pain isn’t that transitory.

Nor will the verdict put to rest the increasing vulnerability that many feel as terrorism strikes closer to home than once thought possible. We remain a deeply divided nation, with large pockets of alienation that occasionally erupt, then recede to simmering.

As I read accounts of Judge Matsch’s instruction to his courtroom, I was reminded of the equally taut moment two decades ago when the Episcopal Church General Convention voted in Minneapolis whether to ordain women. Feelings were high, language was extreme and ugly, and almost every spectator cared deeply about the decision.

Like Matsch, the chair asked that there be no thought of”winners and losers,”no outbursts. When the vote was announced and a handful of spectators cheered anyway, they were glared to silence by all sides.

History has proven the chair right. Cheering or booing would have been not only rude, but premature. For the vote resolved little. The church is still divided over the place of women, as well as by other issues of modernity.


In real life, people who”lose”a vote don’t go back about their business. They fight on. So do”winners,”for whom one victory sets the stage for another push.

Spectating is for basketball, not for life.

DEA END EHRICH

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!