NCJ Number
154141
Journal
Trial Volume: 31 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1995) Pages: 68,70-72
Date Published
1995
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Technology has made cameras in the courtroom less intrusive, and 47 States allow television cameras in trial and/or appellate courts; only Indiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia ban cameras in the courtroom.
Abstract
The Courtroom Television Network, now in its fourth year, is the first serious commercial effort to televise trials. In televising more than 340 trials, the network hopes that television will permit the public to see the inner workings of a trial courtroom with only minimal interference and with the dignity and decorum appropriate to the judicial process. Those favoring cameras in the courtroom make the important first amendment argument that the public has a right to know what goes on in a courtroom. Also, the sixth amendment guarantees the criminal defendant a public trial, of which the television audience is an important part. Those opposed to cameras in the courtroom point to certain distorting influences: witnesses may alter their stories to appeal to the television audience; television may distract the attention of judges, lawyers, and other court personnel; and television publicity may dissuade the jury from rendering an unpopular verdict. The distorting impact of cameras is examined in relation to jury fixing, witness credibility, lawyers playing to the camera, and judicial concerns. Constitutional issues associated with cameras in the courtroom are also discussed. The author concludes that the public's right to know beyond limitations of the print media should be balanced against inevitable problems that television cameras bring to the courtroom. 4 notes