NCJ Number
54877
Journal
Mercer Law Review Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUMMER 1978) Pages: 1119-1135
Date Published
1978
Length
17 pages
Annotation
THE CHALLENGES FACED BY JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS AS TELEVISION CAMERAS ARE PERMITTED TO COVER TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
CASE LAW AND CASE HISTORIES INVOLVING THE PRESENCE OF TELEVISION CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM ARE EXAMINED IN RELATION TO THE PRESERVATION OF A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND THE PRESS' RIGHT TO REPORT ON PUBLIC TRIALS. THE EARLY USE OF THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA TO COVER CRIMINAL LAW CASES RESULTED IN 'CARNIVALS' TYPIFIED BY THE TRIALS OF BRUNO HAUPTMANN AND BILLY SOL ESTES. THE THREATS TO BOTH THE DIGNITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW RESULTED IN THE EXCLUSION OF CAMERAS AND OTHER RECORDING DEVICES FROM MOST COURTS. THE EARLY DECISIONS, HOWEVER, WERE BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PRESS CONDUCT, AND NOT ITS MERE PRESENCE, WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT TO THE DEFENDANTS' CASES. IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NONOBSTRUSIVE TECHNOLOGY WOULD MANDATE A REASSESSMENT OF THE EXCLUSION OF TELEVISION FROM THE COURTROOM. RESPONDING TO CHANGES IN THE STATE OF THE ART, NEW RULES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO FIT THE NEW TECHNOLOGY. SINCE 1976 THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT HAS PERMITTED DEVICES IN THE COURTROOM THAT DO NOT DISTRACT PARTICIPANTS OR IMPAIR THE DIGNITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RULES IN FLORIDA AND GEORGIA IS DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES CONCERNING THE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT USED. FURTHER DISCUSSION CONCERNS THE EFFECT OF SUCH COVERAGE UPON THE JURY. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SUFFICIENT SANCTIONS EXIST TO PREVENT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES FROM USING THE MEDIA TO EXPLOIT THEIR OWN POSITIONS AND DISREGARD THEIR DUTIES. TELEVISING TRIALS CAN REINFORCE THE IDEALS OF JUSTICE AND HIGHER STANDARDS BY THE JUDICIARY. (TWK).