Should cameras be used in courtrooms and jury rooms
On the one hand, those who oppose the idea maintain that the use of cameras in courtrooms and jury deliberation rooms could deny a defendant (especially in high profile cases) of his or her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. For instance, in a case of sniper killings which took place in Virginia several years ago, Judge Jane Marum Roush explained that she rejected the requests for television coverage because she was concerned with the possible prejudice to the defendant. In the matter of cameras inside jury deliberation rooms, on the other hand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a recent ruling that videotaping the jury during its deliberation proceedings tantamount to a violation of the ancient and centuries-old rule that jury deliberations should be private and confidential.
On the other hand, the members of the media who advocate for the use of cameras in courtrooms and jury deliberation rooms, on the other hand, assert that they have the right to televise courtroom trials because their right to free speech under the First Amendment authorizes them to report on the workings of the justice system of the country. Besides pressing for the generally-accepted principle involving the publics right to know, they likewise claim that cameras in courtrooms could serve as a tool in increasing public knowledge about the United States justice system and serve as a check and balance device vis a vis the judicial branch of government.
The issue, therefore, pits two provisions of the United States Constitution against one another. The situation prompted former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter to make the following remark Freedom of the press, properly conceived, is basic to our constitutional system. Safeguards for the fair administration of criminal justice are enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Respect for both of these indispensable elements of our constitutional system presents some of the most difficult and delicate problems for adjudication. Because of this difficulty, the history of the United States justice system is replete with situations involving higher courts overturning decisions made by lower courts regarding the issue.
For instance, in United States v. Stewart, 433 F3d 273 (1975), a case which involved conspiracy and securities fraud, among others, the media practitioners and the public were barred from the courtroom during the process of jury selection. The judge of the district court issued an order supposedly meant to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial. When the question was brought before the Second Court of Appeals, the protective order was dismissed because, according to the higher court, openness acts to protect, rather than to threaten, the right to a fair trial. The following year, in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), (a murder case which occurred in a small town), a pretrial order issued by the presiding judge prohibited the media from publishing certain information which could prejudice the jury pool. The order, however, suffered a similar fate when the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that the order was a violation of the rights of the press people under the First Amendment. According to the ruling, the lower court should have ensured a fair trial by looking at alternative measures instead of issuing a highly speculative order.
The Lindberg kidnapping case during the 1930s was what started the aversion of the courts and the justice system to the presence of cameras during trials. The coverage of the trial became so sensational that the American Bar Association (ABA) had to recommend the elimination of photograph-taking from all courtrooms. As a result of the ABA action, Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was enacted by the United States Congress. In essence, the Rule disallowed the broadcasting andor photograph-taking during trials involving federal criminal cases. The congressional federal prohibition was imitated by most of the states and by 1962, only Colorado and Texas did not explicitly prohibit cameras from their courtrooms.
In Estes v. Texas 381 U.S. 532 (1965), the conviction of the defendant, Billy Sol Estes, was overturned by the Supreme Court. The reason given was that the media coverage during trial (which included partial use of cameras), violated the defendants right to a fair trial. In the majority decision concurred in by five justices, the process of televising the proceedings was found to be inherently unconstitutional by four of them. The fifth justice who went with the decision said that while the particular circumstances of the case (including the available technology during the time) rendered the coverage unconstitutional, future developments in technology might someday lead to a change in the courts opinion.
While several states were allowing cameras in courtrooms on an experimental basis, the United States Supreme Court once again dealt with the issue in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981). The defendant, Chandler, was convicted in a burglary case where television cameras were used briefly during the trial. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court, it upheld, unanimously, the decision of the lower court convicting the defendant, notwithstanding the partial use of cameras during the trial against the objections of the defendant. In the majority decision penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger, he wrote that since television coverage is not an inherent violation of due process, the states are free to decide on their own whether to allow or disallow the broadcasting of trials being conducted in their courtrooms. Because of that decision, many states were encouraged to allow Court TV to cover trials in their courtrooms starting in 1991 and by 2003 the program was estimated to have reached about seventy million viewers. Around that time, changes in the rules covering television coverage took place in the fifty states. Some started allowing television cameras in their courtrooms permanently while others agreed only on an experimental basis.
Meanwhile, cameras were allowed inside federal courts on an experimental basis between 1991 and 1994. When, at the end of the experimental period many judges favored an extension, the United States Judicial Conference voted in 1996 to allow federal circuit courts to make individual decisions concerning the issue. However, only two circuit courts (the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit) finally approved the use of cameras in their courts. This issue has been considered by both houses of Congress during the past several years.
The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009, a bill which would finally allow the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of trials being held in all district and appellate courts in the country (as long as such activities would not violate due process rights) has already made some progress in both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate version (S.657), which was introduced by Senator Charles Grassley on March 19, 2009, was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary the same day (govtrack.usa, 2010). The house version (H.R.3054), on the other hand, was introduced by Representative William Delahunt on June 25, 2009. By July 23, 2009, the bill was already with the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. However, both versions of the bill have only reached the first step in the process. After leaving the committees, they would still be subjected to a general debate. It should be noted that most of the bills which are referred to committees and subcommittees do not reach the general debate stage of the process.
Coverage of court proceedings, either broadcast or photographic, is normally not allowed in the United States Supreme Court. However, as of 2005, the Court has allowed at least four exceptions to its rule, namely Bush v. Gore (2000), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) (Hall, 2005). Meanwhile, on several occasions, the present justices of the United States Supreme Court have provided the public with some indications as to their individual views on the matter. Following are some quotes attributed to them.
Chief Justice John Roberts Theres a concern (among justices) about the impact of television on the functioning of the institution. Were going to be very careful before we do anything that might have an adverse impact.
Justice Samuel Alito Television coverage of the Supreme Court would not simply let the public see what goes on before that important institution, but would also in some ways change what now goes on. Some lawyers arguing before the court in televised cases would use the occasion to address the television audience for political or other purposes.
Justice Stephen Breyer ...I hope eventually the answer will become clear, that either those who are concerned about the negative effects are shown wrong, or theyre shown right. But at the moment I think its quite uncertain what the answer is.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg I would not object, just for myself, to having proceedings televised, provided the control remain in the hands of the Court and that the coverage was gavel-to-gavel-but I do not think a decision like that should ever be forced on judges who take a different view. Right now, the view is that our proceedings should not be televised.
Justice Anthony Kennedy ...But I dont think its in the best interest of our institution...Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please dont introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court.
Justice Antonin Scalia If I thought that cameras in the Supreme Court would really educate the people, I would be all for it. But I think it would miseducate and misinform.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.
Justice John Paul Stevens In perhaps a dozen cases in the 10 terms in which I have been sitting, literally hundreds of people have stood in line for hour sin order to attend an argument, only to be denied admission because the courtroom was filled...But TV might have an adverse impact on the process that cannot be foreseen.
Justice Clarence Thomas It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I dont think for the better.
It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I dont think for the better.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment