Cameras in the Courtroom

by Jessica Moman

The authors of the First Amendment did not foresee the days when radio and cameras would revolutionize the news industry.  Despite this, courts generally have not had many problems broadening the concept of freedom of the press to include broadcasters.  Rather than taking the position of implementing a national law to include broadcasters in the concept of freedom of the press, the courts have left the decision of whether trials can be broadcast to the state and federal courts.[1]  In this essay, I want to present issues that are pressing regarding the issues of cameras in the courtroom.  I want to show, through specific court cases, that its unnecessary for the public to view a trial live through broadcast mediums.  However, I am not opposed to the viewing of taped proceedings of cases that have already reached a verdict.

To no great surprise, these policymakers have come up with a wide variety of regulations determining when and how cameras can be used in the courtrooms.  For example, the Federal Judiciary Courts and the District of Columbia do not allow televised coverage of every proceeding.  On the other hand, many state courts do allow televised coverage, but only if all of the court participants agree to it.  And other states allow coverage only if the trials are appellate in nature.[2]   

In 1965, The United States Supreme Court ruled in a way that was very unfavorable to media coverage in the courtroom when it decided Estes v. Texas.[3]  In Estes, charges that the defendant had cheated several farmers generated widespread national media coverage.  It garnered such widespread coverage because of the alleged actions of the defendant.  Before the trial, the defendant made a move to exclude broadcast and photographic coverage of the trial (but not audio coverage).  This two-day hearing also gained significant attention because of the disruption from newspersons and their equipment.  The judge and the courtroom participants felt that the court proceedings were disrupted by the cables and lenses of the newspersons.  The judge eventually allowed televised coverage but the media persons were relegated to an area constructed in the back of the courtroom.  When the verdict came back guilty, the defendant appealed his convicted arguing that the media coverage had denied him the right to a fair trial.  The Court agreed with the defendant.  It stated that live television coverage (at least in its technological state at the time) was distracting to everyone involved in the trial process, especially to testifying witnesses.  Because of these problems, the Court felt that the wishes of broadcasters must come second to the rights of criminal defendants.  I happen to agree with the judge in this case.  Any distraction that occurs in the courtroom can take away from the seriousness of the case and can prevent the jury from coming to a just verdict.

In 1981, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of cameras in the courtroom and its ruling in Estes.  In Chandler v. Florida,[4] the Court decided unanimously that Florida could allow radio, television, and still photographic coverage of a criminal trial, even if the defendant protested.  In doing so, the Court concluded that the majority in Estes had not announced a constitutional rule that all photographic or broadcast coverage of criminal trials was intrinsically a denial of due process.  Basically the Court felt the photographic and media equipment did not hinder the courtroom proceedings, nor did it put the defendant at a disadvantage.  Because of this, the Court stated, “Absent a showing of prejudice of constitutional dimensions to these defendants, there is no reason for this Court to endorse or to invalidate Florida’s experiment.”  The Chandler ruling spurred most states to adopt rules allowing cameras in at least some state courts.  I can understand where the court is coming from, but I disagree with this ruling.  I still hold with the decision in Estes.  The distraction of media equipment is still apparent in the courtroom even with the technological advances.

While technology has changed, the federal courts’ feelings about cameras in the courtroom have not. Despite repeated requests by broadcasters, the Judicial Conference of the United States has refused to reconsider its rules prohibiting television and radio broadcasting of federal trials. In 1996, the Judicial Conference allowed experimental use of cameras in some federal courtrooms but recently decided not to renew that experiment. The Supreme Court adamantly has refused to allow cameras into the court, most recently denying the requests of several broadcasters to televise the historic argument in Bush v. Gore.[5]  I agree with the Judicial Conferences ruling in this case.  They actually tested out the use of cameras in their federal hearings but still felt that they were such a distraction that their use was not needed.   

The basis for denying cameras access to courtrooms has not changed much since 1965. The Judicial Conference and the federal courts still believe live television coverage distracts participants in the trial and that it unfairly affects the outcome of trials and diminishes the dignity of the courts. Broadcasters, meanwhile, continue to argue that coverage no longer is distracting or disruptive and that both the court and the public benefit when court proceedings are televised.

I believe in certain cases that it is understandable for wanting to televise trials, but for the most part, I think that cameras do not belong in the courtroom.  Many times they provide added complications and unnecessary distractions.  Many times Court TV will tape a trial and not show it until the trial concludes.  I believe this course of action may be the best, because the participants in the trial do not have to worry about their actions affecting the outcome of the trial because it won’t be broadcast while the trial is taking place.  I believe that many media persons that advocate for more cameras in courtrooms are solely concerned about ratings and this is not what the American justice system should be about.  The courts should be able to function properly without the worry that broadcasting the trial live daily will alter the outcome of the proceedings.