NEWTON'S LAW: FACE THE FACTS: LOOKS CAN KILL (A CASE) IN FLORIDA COURTROOM

Wipe that smirk off your face, your honor.

The William Kennedy Smith rape accusations in West Palm Beach touched off all varieties of legal, societal and political controversies. In the abstract, it has given us all something to think about: the realities of date rape, concerns about media coverage, questions about favored treatment for the rich and famous.

Now, however, the bloom is off the rose. Our philosophical musings have descended to the down-and-dirty workings of American jurisprudence.

Apologies to the creators of "L.A. Law," who seem to come up with thought-provoking and alluring cases to resolve each week, but the court system is frequently an exercise in tedium.

Even in a high-profile, dreadfully ugly case like the one concerning Ted Kennedy's nephew, certain points of law must be ground to a dull edge. An attorney's work is frequently no more intriguing than a longshoreman's.

Which is where we stand with the Smith case. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are working toward gaining the greatest advantage for their interests, while the Florida circuit judge is trying to assure that doesn't happen.

The peaceful eye of this judicial storm might have gotten some parties nervous. If chaos is the norm for this circumstance, then prosecutors are seeking to right the ship of mayhem.

On Tuesday, those representing the state asked that Judge Mary Lupo disqualify herself from presiding at the trial. Among other things, the prosecutors said they didn't like the way Lupo looked.

More specifically, prosecutors didn't like the way Lupo looked at them.

The motion contends that Lupo "continually expresses her dislike and prejudice against the state and its prosecution through negative facial expressions, i.e., scowling, glaring and frowning."

I have few doubts that body language can influence people. The rap on the late Harry Reasoner, in the days he sat behind an anchor desk, was the occasional undulation of his considerable eyebrows added prejudicial inflections that betrayed the straightforward text he was reading.

Since a talking head has only two tools available a mouth and a head Reasoner might have been doing with one what he couldn't do with the other. Still, it seemed a flimsy point to make.

If "scowling, glaring and frowning" is going on in Florida, that's another matter.

I watched a bit of a motion hearing in the Smith case one afternoon on CNN. The cameras were in the back of the courtroom, behind the prosecutors and defense team. Ninety percent of the time, the only face viewers could see was the one belonging to Judge Lupo.

I've covered a few court cases in my time and Judge Lupo's demeanor seemed no different than that of any other jurists I've seen. At times she appeared compelled by what was being told to her, at other moments she would feign interest. She seemed reasonably involved in the case at hand, and for all anyone knew, the lawyers at the bar were scowling, glaring and frowning at her.

You couldn't detect in her ~manner what was visibly apparent in the courtroom of the late H. Kenneth Wangelin, a federal judge of these parts. Even on his best days, Wangelin brought to mind the word "ornery." He waffled not a second before instructing lawyers they needed to improve their technique, their case, or both.

The thing was this cantankerousness was not limited to one side or the other. His ill temper showed no bias; he scowled, glared and frowned at most everyone who came before him.

Give the Florida prosecutors credit: they're working for their money. Even if Judge Lupo doesn't disqualify herself, she'll be on edge about her appearance in court. And if she so much as tries to suppress a sneeze, a mistrial might result.