Res earc her Published by CQ Press, a Division of SAGE CQ www.cqresearcher.com Cameras in the Courtroom Should TV be allowed in federal courts? elevision cameras have been allowed in state courts for more than 30 years, but the Supreme Court and federal judiciary have been staunchly opposed to T video coverage of trials or appeals. Media groups and others say that video coverage of courts helps educate the public about the legal process while strengthening public account - Print and TV cameramen photograph former Ku Klux ability over the judicial system. Some, but not all, criminal defense Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen during his 2005 trial in Mississippi for the murders of three civil rights workers lawyers worry that televised trials can jeopardize defendants’ rights. in 1964. Mississippi began permitting audio and video coverage of trials in 2003. The most significant resistance to cameras in the courtroom comes from judges and some private lawyers who discount the claimed benefits and warn that cameras could invite grandstanding by lawyers I N or risk intimidating jurors and witnesses. The Supreme Court recently THIS REPORT S made audio tapes of arguments more readily available, but the THE ISSUES ......................27 I justices show no sign of welcoming cameras into their hallowed BACKGROUND ..................34 D courtroom in the foreseeable future. CHRONOLOGY ..................35 E CURRENT SITUATION ..........40 CQ Researcher • Jan. 14, 2011 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ..........................41 Volume 21, Number 2 • Pages 25-48 OUTLOOK ........................43 RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE N AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................46 THE NEXT STEP ................47 CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM CQ Re search er Jan. 14, 2011 THE ISSUES SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS Volume 21, Number 2 • Has television coverage States Divided on MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J. Billitteri [email protected] 27 of state courts succeeded? 28 Courtroom Cameras • Should federal courts per - Two-thirds generally permit ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Kathy Koch mit TV coverage of trials, coverage of trials. [email protected] including criminal cases? CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Thomas J. Colin • Should the Supreme 29 Most Justices Hesitant on [email protected] Court permit live audio Cameras ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kenneth Jost and video coverage? Views range from “not a chance” to “it would be a STAFF WRITERS: Marcia Clemmitt, Peter Katel great thing.” BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Roland Flamini, Sarah Glazer, Alan Greenblatt, Reed Karaim, Trials of Centuries Spectators Line Up Early Barbara Mantel, Tom Price, Jennifer Weeks 32 to View High Court 34 DESIGN /P RODUCTION EDITOR: Olu B. Davis In the 20th century, cameras “It was worth it to see first- were blamed for creating a hand what goes on,” says a ASSISTANT EDITOR: Darrell Dela Rosa circus atmosphere at major former Georgetown University FACT-CHECKING: Michelle Harris trials. law student. Trials of Television Chronology 36 The controversial O.J. Simp - 35 Key events since the 1925 son murder trial hardened Scopes “Monkey Trial.” opposition to TV. 36 Tweeting and Blogging Trials of Patience Get Mixed Reception in A Division of SAGE 38 Many state courts permit Courtrooms PRESIDENT AND PUBLISHER: cameras, but not federal “By shutting this down, John A. Jenkins courts or the Supreme you’re really shutting down information.” DIRECTOR, REFERENCE SOLUTIONS: Court. Todd Baldwin At Issue 41 Should Supreme Court pro - CURRENT SITUATION Copyright © 2011 CQ Press, a Division of SAGE. ceedings be televised? SAGE reserves all copyright and other rights herein, Slow Going in States unless pre vi ous ly spec i fied in writing. No part of this 40 Fourteen states bar cameras FOR FURTHER RESEARCH publication may be reproduced electronically or in trial courts or impose otherwise, without prior written permission. Un - au tho rized re pro duc tion or trans mis sion of SAGE copy - conditions. For More Information 45 right ed material is a violation of federal law car ry ing Organizations to contact. civil fines of up to $100,000. Pilot Plan Awaited 42 Federal courts plan to test 46 Bibliography CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional cameras in civil trials. Selected sources used. Quarterly Inc. The Next Step CQ Researcher (ISSN 1056-2036) is printed on acid- 47 Additional articles . free paper. Pub lished weekly, except: (May wk. 4) OUTLOOK (July wks. 1, 2) (Aug. wks. 2, 3) (Nov. wk. 4) and Citing CQ Researcher (Dec. wks. 4, 5), by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. Two-Edged Sword? 47 Sample bibliography formats. Annual full-service subscriptions start at $803. For pric - 43 Debate over the merits of ing, call 1-800-834-9020. To purchase a CQ Researcher courtroom cameras is report in print or electronic format (PDF), visit www. likely to persist. cqpress.com or call 866-427-7737. Single reports start at $15. Bulk purchase discounts and electronic-rights licensing are also available. Pe ri od i cals post age paid at Wash ing ton, D.C., and ad di tion al mailing of fic es. POST MAST ER: Send ad dress chang es to CQ Re search - er , 2300 N St., N.W., Suite 800, Wash ing ton, DC 20037. Cover: AP Photo/Rogelio Solis 26 CQ Researcher Cameras in the Courtroom BY KENNETH JOST on the court’s website by the THE ISSUES end of the week in which the arguments are held. Bruce or hard-core fans of Collins, C-SPAN’s general “Law and Order” and counsel, calls the move “in F other courtroom dra - one sense a step forward” mas, the live broadcast from but notes that it leaves radio inside a San Francisco court - and TV outlets with no ac - n e room was less than riveting. s cess to the recordings on the n Still, the two-hour hearing tele - a day of the argument. ( See “At H vised by C-SPAN on Dec. 6 a Issue,” p. 41. ) n i t presented a rare opportunity t In the California gay-rights e B to view a major federal court / hearing last month, C-SPAN, t n proceeding from afar. a which pioneered live gavel- r u During the hearing, lawyers o to-gavel coverage of Congress C traded arcane legal points over d in the 1970s, was one of many r o whether California should re - f television outlets to request t r instate a ban on gay marriage, a permission to broadcast the H / lifted a few months earlier. But s proceeding and the only one e g what the session lacked in a to broadcast it in its entirety m I drama, it made up for in im - nationwide. State court judges y t portance. It was not only the t in several states had heard e G first federal gay-rights pro - Dr. William Petit embraces his sister after jurors similar gay-marriage cases ceeding but also one of the sentenced Steven Hayes to death on Nov. 8 for the over the past decade, with few federal court proceedings murders of Petit’s wife and two daughters in a home many of the sessions tele - to be broadcast on television invasion. Cameras were barred from the New Haven, vised or streamed live over nationwide. Conn., courtroom, but reporters were allowed to send the Internet. short electronic messages — “tweets” — summarizing Cameras are now com - trial action. Cameras are now commonplace in The California proceeding monplace in state courts, even state courts, but federal courts have generally marked a pivotal point in the during criminal trials, thanks in opposed them, as has the Supreme Court. national debate over gay rights. part to a 1981 U.S. Supreme A few months earlier, gay-mar - Court ruling that cleared away riage supporters had won a constitutional obstacles. The rules on the federal judiciary’s research arm to federal district court ruling striking down camera access vary from state to state, permit camera coverage of appeals in California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 bal - however, with significant limits on the civil cases. But it did allow the 13 fed - lot measure barring marriage rights to practice in about 14 states and a com - eral appeals courts to permit cameras same-sex couples. Now, the measure’s plete ban in the District of Columbia. in individual cases if the two sides sponsors were seeking reinstatement of (See chart, p. 28. ) 1 agree. Only two — the San Francisco - the ban. Opposing lawyers in the case, Federal courts, however, have gen - based Ninth Circuit, which encom - Perry v. Schwarzenegger , argued the erally stood steadfast against allowing passes nine Western states, and the hotly contested issue of marriage rights either video or still cameras or micro - New York-based Second Circuit, cov - for gays and lesbians in California and phones — sometimes called “extend - ering Connecticut, New York and potentially all across the country. A ed coverage.” The Federal Rules of Vermont — took up the idea. broad ruling either way could set the Criminal Procedure, originally enacted Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stage for a Supreme Court decision by Congress, bar cameras or micro - shows no signs of allowing cameras with national implications. phones in criminal trials or appeals. or live audio coverage of proceedings, With only a few hundred seats The U.S. Judicial Conference, the fed - despite pressure from Congress and available for spectators at the James eral judiciary’s policymaking arm, bars support from the court’s newest jus - R. Browning Courthouse in San Fran - them in civil trials. tice, Elena Kagan. ( See box, p. 29. ) In cisco, however, few gay-marriage sup - In the 1990s, the Judicial Confer - September, the court began making porters or opponents could witness ence rejected a recommendation by audio tapes of all arguments available the arguments firsthand.