Talk:Perry Mason syndrome

Perry Mason vs. actual legal procedures
In Perry Mason, major facts are revealed in court. In real life, usually major facts are revealed through the process of discovery. In Perry Mason, Mason harangues witnesses with questions that are really statements that begin, "Isn't it true ..." In real life, this style of questioning is not allowed. This article should discuss these and other ways that Perry Mason doesn't reflect law as it is practiced in the United States. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As bad as the TV series may have been for public understanding of the criminal courts, Gardner's books are just he opposite, in effect a kind of tutorial about legal concepts such as admissible evidence, burden of proof, procedural objections, hearsay, forensic evidence, reasonable doubt and so forth; as well as a commentary on the methods used by police and prosecutors to speed up a conviction, especially when the defendant is vulnerable or weakly represented or has a prior record.


 * The overripe style of Mason's questioning, and the dramatic confession of one of the witnesses, was a feature of the TV episodes, but in the Perry Mason books these things did not occur.


 * The closest the books come to a confession on the stand, are the few cases where the witness, cornered by Mason's questioning, dummies up and turns surly and refuses to answer, and when ordered to answer by the court, pleads his 5th amendment privilege.


 * More frequently the murderer, realizing that Mason knows all, quietly slips out of the Court and resorts to flight.


 * The difference between the books and the TV show is that the books were written by an experienced trial lawyer, and the TV shows were written by the screenwriter, the producer, the director, the star's agent, etcetera - as related in Raymond Chandler's account of his time as a scriptwriter.


 * BTW we see the same simplification and distortion of the legal process even today, in any TV drama show dealing with cops or lawyers.