Perry Mason versus Ben Matlock

I quite like Andy Griffith, and I enjoy a number of Matlock episodes. However, the courtroom scenes make me wince. 

Perry Mason (1957-1966) episodes are often not as engaging. But the courtroom scenes are far more credible and can even get quite interesting. And I don't wince. Here's why:

1. Perry Mason's courtroom scenes are usually preliminary hearings to determine whether a trial will occur. 

Rules about what jurors can hear/know are complex. Just about everything during Matlock's jury trials is frankly inadmissible and inappropriate. It simply wouldn't be allowed to occur in real life.  

Preliminary hearings allow for more flexibility. The judge makes the ultimate decision. 

2. Objections in Perry Mason are part of the drama. 

In Matlock, the objections are mostly opportunities for the main character to chew the scenery. I suppose they are stuck in for the sake of verisimilitude, but they feel almost random, shoe-horned-in. The objection occurs because it is time in the script to issue the objection.

In Perry Mason, on the other hand, the objections and legal arguments are part of the drama. In "The Case of the Larcenous Lady," for instance, Mason objects to testimony as hearsay. The judge agrees and states that the prosecutor must produce the witness who is being quoted. When the prosecutor later tries to close his case without following up with the promised witness, the judge insists that the hearing cannot end until the witness is produced. The objection is part of the story. 

3. Perry Mason is respectful of the legal process. 

Both Matlock and Mason show respect to judges. Matlock is more likely to protest and arguably that behavior is part of his charm--or at least his personality: he's a more bumptious John McEnroe. 

Mason is never disrespectful. 

Both Matlock and Mason are on good terms with the police. 

However, unlike Matlock, Mason doesn't do his investigation in the courtroom (which behavior is utterly inappropriate anyway). That is, Mason rarely questions factual testimony. He almost never questions doctors, for example. He focuses on eliciting already existing evidence from witness testimony. So while Matlock--however dramatically--will reconstruct the crime of a blind man based on a piece of paper that he found with a blood spot...

Mason will ask the police to bring all the shoes they found to court. He doesn't dismiss Lieutenant Tragg's analysis of the shoe prints. He uses the experts' deductions to back up his case. The evidence is already there, and he works through the police to bring that evidence to the court's attention. 

Now, granted, both Matlock and Mason's careers lead one to think, "Why are the prosecutors bothering? If these lawyers are involved, their clients must be innocent!" 

But with Matlock, I often enjoy the investigation but not the court scenes. With Mason, I often find the court scenes quite fascinating.