Cristina Perez - Five Minute Recess

When my parents arrived to the U.S. in the early 1960s, they spoke little to no English. Yet they each made a concerted effort to learn the language of their new country. And that is just what they did. Spanish was my first language. In fact, I was born in New York but raised in Mexico for several years while my father attended medical school. When we returned to the U.S., the first thing my parents did was enroll my brother, sister and me in school. I did not speak English at the time and I was forced to learn, so I learned.

This week the Ladies Professional Golf Tour (LPGA) announced that it would implement an English-only policy that will require players to pass an oral English exam to determine their proficiency in the language. If they don’t pass, they will face suspension from the Tour. Rumors are already flying about how this rule was aimed at Korean players.

On the one hand, it makes sense that the Tour wants players to speak English. It would be easier for players to deal with the media. And, from a monetary standpoint, it would make the high-paying sponsors and pro-am players delighted when they can actually speak with and understand the Tour players they play with.

On the other hand, it appears that the approach was not well thought out. Is this a smart move—not only for the LPGA but for what it might say about American sports in general? If we create policies like this as a barrier for every foreign athlete in every sport, aren’t we being hypocritical?

Major League Baseball, the PGA, NFL, NHL and NBA do not require their players to speak English.

Consider these issues as well:

Read More »

Ding! Ding! Here we go again with another public divorce battle that every entertainment journalist seems to take great joy into comparing to a boxing match.

What is it about models and bitter, public divorces lately? First, as documented in my previous blogs, there was Denise Richards and her apparent battle to make the details of her divorce from Charlie Sheen as public and accessible to their children as possible. Recently, the news outlets have launched into a fresh frenzy, with dirty details emerging about the divorce of Christie Brinkley and her estranged husband, architect Peter Cook, after their 10-year marriage (which ended in 2006).

Instead of a war of “he said vs. she said,” this battle, at first glance, appears to be fairly one-sided: She said he cheated, he pleads no contest to that charge. But even such a seemingly clear-cut admission of guilt hasn’t stopped Brinkley or Cook, via their respective attorneys, from finding other ways of taking jabs at each other.

Read More »

When Jack Wagner said "Cristina's Court" was the winner of the 2008 Daytime Emmy for legal/courtroom program, my initial reaction was a bit of disbelief and I truly said to myself: "Huh?"

This win for "Cristina's Court" is evidence of our team's hard work and love of the law and people. The nominees were so diverse, and we were privileged to have been included among this group. "Judge Judy," "The People's Court" (the show that started it all), "Judge Hatchet" (a tribute to her community and the profession) and "Judge David Young," one who makes us think outside the box.

I am so grateful to our fans, staff and producers of "Cristina's Court." I give special thanks to Lisa Lew and the genius—Peter Brennan—my executive producer. That sounds like my speech, but I am truly thankful to those who work on, support and, most importantly, watch the show.

Read More »

The recent California Supreme Court decision (4-3) to legalize same-sex marriage has and will continue to stir the social, political and religious pots. The conservative Court ruled that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

This is a historic decision especially in light of the fact that in 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure that said, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” There is a proposed constitutional amendment that would override the Court’s decision and is expected to appear on the 2008 California general election ballot.

From a purely economic perspective, some scholars believe that gay marriage will boost the economy by as much as $63+ million through revenues from weddings of California resident couples, weddings and tourism of out-of-state couples, as well as revenues from marriage licenses. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at.

So, was the Court’s decision the right one? Is this a social issue? Economic issue? Moral issue? On this one, you be the judge.

See you in Court!

Were you one of the estimated 30+ million people that watched the U.S. Open last weekend (in prime time on the East Coast) and the playoff on Monday? That’s right, I’m talking about golf. (Surprise! A little change of direction this week.)

When I first met my husband he had a girlfriend—golf. It was there before me and will always be there. I guess I’m his mistress, which is fine. At first, I didn’t understand his fascination with a sport that took so long to learn and play. As time went on, I came to gain not only an appreciation for the game but even began playing. I enjoyed it. A few holes, a beer, a few more holes and another beer. I got some sun, hung out driving a cart and in the end generally had a good time. Oddly, I sometimes wish I had more time to play. When it comes to TV and golf, I also at first couldn’t understand watching others play. But then there are the big tournaments—the majors, and I began to watch enjoy them. Those are the only ones I watch. My favorites are the Masters and U.S. Open.

So, last weekend’s biggest golf tournament was one of the most, if not the most, exciting sporting (not just golf) exhibitions of all time. Sure, it’s only golf, but talk about drama.

One could not have written a better script . . .

Read More »

First Amendment issues are more prevalent than ever–from cyberspace to the ‘old school’ entertainment industry. Censorship in the entertainment industry will always be a hot topic. If certain content is ultimately displayed, purposefully or accidentally, networks can be significantly fined and publicly roasted.

Have we come a long way from “Leave It to Beaver?” Have you noticed that what was once considered inappropriate or obscene is now more tolerable? So, you may ask, what does “obscenity” even mean?

Constitutional Law 101: According to the infamous Miller v. California case, the Supreme Court stated that ‘obscenity’ is that subset of pornography—sexually explicit speech—which is (1) prurient; (2) patently offensive; and (3) lacking in significant scientific, literary, artistic or political value. The definition is determined by local community standards where the claims have been brought and using a “reasonable person” test.

So, what is considered acceptable content to a Los Angeles resident would definitely not fly with a Mississippian. Doesn’t this really mean unequal results? Yes! I’ve noticed that when one tries to apply local standards to national content generally the conservative opinion of the community prevails.

Now, how’s this for judicial entertainment. Listen up!

Read More »

Did anyone catch “Denise Richards: It’s Complicated?” I did and, on the advice of my attorney, I plead the Fifth. As you may know, Denise had to seek judicial intervention in order to allow her kids to appear in her show. Although the children are not the center of attention of the show nor can they be considered child stars, is their inclusion and any attention they receive best for them?

Speaking of child stars … Tatum, what were you thinking? Recently, Tatum O’Neal was arrested for buying crack cocaine. That’s a long way away from “Paper Moon” (where she won an Oscar at 10 years old) and “The Bad News Bears” (a classic) and even “Dancing With the Stars.” While I commend her for being an open book about her addiction, I hope that many other young actors in her position learn from her ill-fated history. Unfortunately, there appears to be a long string of former and current child stars who have run into troubled times in adulthood.

Read More »

Recently, I received the news that I was nominated for my first Daytime Emmy Award—in the brand new court category. I can’t tell you what a privilege it is to be nominated in a category with such diverse legal talent. I’ve been a Judge-Host of court shows like “La Corte de Familia” (Telemundo/NBC) and now with my current show, “Cristina’s Court” (20th Television). I’m also privileged to be the first Spanish-to-English language crossover host in the court genre.

The Emmy nomination has inspired me to reflect on the court television genre—one I consider to be the first and true form of “reality television.” Court shows have been a TV staple. In my opinion, they are reality TV at its finest. Aside from some courtroom antics and crazy cases, they also can be educational, as they present and solve real life problems as well as promote an opportunity to display the importance of values and accountability for one’s actions in life.

Court shows are the ultimate unscripted dramas, told with enthusiasm, passion and some drama. Some cases may appear trite and over nominal amounts, however, on Cristina’s Court, the message we want to give viewers is that we can learn to use the law to protect and help, versus as a tool for abuse and manipulation. If this comes across the airwaves, then we are on the right track. If people use the law solely to belittle, punish, and seek revenge, or as a shield to take away rights, the more it will erode.

Now, back to reality TV. I’m sure you’ve heard of a new show recently premiered featuring actress/model Denise Richards (“Denise Richards: It’s Complicated”). The show will apparently document the personal lives of Richards and her two young daughters. FYI, prior to filming, it took a court ruling to decide that her children can legally be included in the show.

Generally, reality shows document personal lives as graphically and intimately as possible. What is the fascination with other people’s lives that we need to have cameras brought into their homes and go through their dirty laundry as if it’s our own? Also, what would make a person want to air their private life (and their families) to the world?

How will this particular show affect the children? Albeit, their mother now has the ‘legal’ right to have the kids on the program. We can only hope that she knows what is in the best interests of her children. Also, what is fascinating and quite ironic is that most celebrity parents go to extraordinary lengths to protect their children’s privacy from the media, understanding that celebrity can be a double-edged sword.

These are children whose parents have been discrediting each other in the media very publicly. Whether or not we believe that the children have been completely sheltered from their parents’ often-nasty divorce battle, we have to consider if there is any benefit at all for these or any children to have their whole lives put on a TV show. What’s the purpose? Is it to somehow show who is the better parent or to validate that one parent is a ‘great’ parent?

This reminds me of a proverb I learned: “La mejor palabra es la que no se dice” which loosely translates into, “the best word is the one that is not said.” So, with that, enough said for now. See you in Court.