Overrated:
How
are
we
still
seeing
AI
hallucinated
cases?
It’s
a
tragic
reflection
of
the
justice
system’s
tech
incompetence!
Underrated:
Buddy,
we’re
still
seeing
Zoom
fails.
Keep
your
pants
on.
In
this
specific
case,
we
mean
this
literally.
Five
years
on
from
COVID
sending
the
entire
profession
into
Zoom,
giving
us
everything
from
“naked
appearances”
to
sex
hearings
and
turned
“I’m
not
a
cat”
into
a
celebrity,
the
courts
are
still
dealing
with
Zoom
fails
because
professional
dignity
ends
where
the
camera
frame
begins.
A
Detroit
police
officer
appeared
in
a
virtual
court
hearing
wearing
his
official
uniform
shirt
and
badge,
and
not
so
much
else.
It’s
the
sort
of
thing
Detroit’s
greatest
law
enforcement
hero
might
have
pulled,
but
Axel
Foley
would’ve
joined
reclining
on
a
floaty
in
a
Beverly
Hills
pool
and
no
one
would’ve
been
the
wiser.
The
clip
is
art.
The
stages
of
grief
beautifully
distilled
in
flickering
images
stitched
together
and
whizzed
across
our
screens
at
speed.
Look
at
this!
This
is
some
400
Blows
era
Truffaut
composition
right
here.
Walk
with
us
through
this
staggering
work
of
breathtaking
genius.
Denial
Judge
Sean
B.
Perkins,
attempting
to
come
to
grips
with
the
image
on
his
screen
and
instantly
regretting
the
lack
of
imagination
in
his
“no
shirt,
no
shoes,
no
justice”
sign.
Note
how
Judge
Perkins
makes
the
bold
creative
choice
to
break
the
fourth
wall
here
—
to
make
eye
contact
directly
with
the
audience
to
offer
an
unspoken
plea:
tell
me
this
is
not
happening.
But,
like
that
plastic
partition
—
creating
a
screen
within
a
screen
effect
symbolizing
the
compounding
and
impenetrable
distance
between
us
—
the
audience
descends
into
heartbreak,
both
powerless
to
answer
his
call
and
unable
to
provide
comfort
if
it
could.
Anger
It’s
probably
better
to
describe
this
as
annoyed
confusion,
but,
when
we’re
truly
honest
with
ourselves,
isn’t
that
really
what
anger
is?
Based
on
the
names
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen,
that’s
defense
attorney
TaTaNisha
Reed
captured
moments
after
surmounting
her
own
denial
stage.
The
mise-en-scène
places
the
light
cascading
over
her
with
an
incandescent
quality
to
convey
righteous
rage
to
the
audience.
The
sort
of
righteous
rage
a
criminal
defense
attorney
might
have
when
they’re
thinking
“seriously,
my
client’s
fate
is
in
the
hands
of
a
cop
who
can’t
even
bother
to
put
his
pants
on?!?”
In
this,
she
speaks
for
us
all.
Bargaining
“You
got
some
pants
on,
cuz
—
uh
—
officer?”
No
notes.
Depression
“Is
that
in
the…
no,
sir.”
Defeat.
And
also
a
meditation
upon
the
institution
of
law
enforcement
in
2025.
Formal,
martial
uniformity
increasingly
exposed
from
beneath.
It’s
a
trope
that
we’ve
seen
time
and
again,
but
as
a
sequel
one
cannot
help
but
draw
parallels
to
Werner
Herzog’s
Bad
Lieutenant: Port
of
Call
New
Orleans
or
Pants
Off
Dance
Off
Season
2.
Acceptance
“Uh,
uh,
ok.”
Resignation
meets
resilience
as
the
judge
buries
the
lingering
memories
of
the
event
and
pivots
to
call
upon
the
woman
we
assume
to
be
the
prosecutor
(who
is
never
shown
in
the
clip…
another
symbolic
nod
to
the
intangible
and
yet
ever
present
nature
of
the
state?
Simultaneously
within
the
chat
and
yet
without
as
she
floats
above
and
untouched
by
this
—
to
draw
upon
Lacan
—
encounter
with
the
Real.)
So
the
clip
concludes.
The
audience
is
ripped
away
from
the
narrative
without
conclusion,
and
yet…
forever
changed.
And,
somewhere
in
the
distance,
the
familiar
melody
of
Axel
F
begins.