TV or Not TV: Television, Justice, and the Courts 9780814738504

Citation preview

TV O R NO T T V

Ronald L. Goldfarb

TV O R NO T T V Television, Justice, and the Courts A TWENTIET H CENTUR Y FUN D BOO

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S NEW YOR K AN D L O N D O N

K

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S New Yor k an d Londo n Copyright © 199 8 b y Th e Twentiet h Centur y Fun d All right s reserve d The Twentiet h Centur y Fun d sponsor s an d supervise s timel y analyse s o f economic policy , foreig n affairs , an d domesti c politica l issues . Not-for profit an d an d nonpartisan , th e Fun d wa s founde d i n 191 9 an d endowe d by Edwar d A . Filene . BOARD O F TRUSTEE S O F TH E TWENTIET H CENTUR Y FUN D

Morris B . Abram Jame s A . Leac h H. Brand t Ayer s Richar d C . Leon e Peter A . A . Berl e P . Michae l Pitfiel d Alan Brinkle y Richar d Ravitc h Jose A . Cabrane s Arthu r M . Schlesinger , Jr . Joseph A . Califano , Jr . Harve y I . Sloane , M.D . Alexander Morga n Capro n Theodor e C . Sorensen , Chairman Hodding Carte r II I Kathlee n M . Sulliva n Edward E . David , Jr. Jame s Tobi n Brewster C . Denn y Davi d B . Truma n Charles V . Hamilto n Shirle y William s Matina S . Horner Willia m Juliu s Wilso n Lewis B . Kade n Richard C . Leone , President

Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Goldfarb, Ronal d L . TV o r no t T V : television, justice , an d th e court s / Ronal d L . Goldfarb. p. cm . "Twentieth Centur y Fun d book. " Includes index . ISBN 0-8147-3112- 0 (acid-fre e paper ) 1. Conduc t o f cour t proceedings—Unite d States . 2 . Fre e pres s an d fair trial—Unite d States . I . Title . KF8725.G65 199 8 347.73*05—dc21 97-4528 9 CIP New Yor k Universit y Pres s book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability . Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For H.M.R . Always m y frien d

A popular Government , withou t popula r information , o r th e means o f acquirin g it , is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or , perhap s both . Knowledg e wil l foreve r gover n igno rance: An d a peopl e wh o mea n t o b e thei r ow n Governor s must ar m themselve s with th e power whic h knowledge gives. 9 Writings of ]antes Madison 103 (1910)

A trial i s a public event . Wha t transpire s i n the courtroom i s public property . Justice William O . Douglas, Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 at 374 (1947)

CONTENTS

All illustrations appear as an insert following p. 112. Foreword by Richard Leone xi Acknowledgments xv Introduction xvii 1. Th e Trial o f th e Centur y 1 2. Th e Fre e Press, the Fai r an d Publi c Trial : A Constitutiona l Conundru m 20 3. Camera s i n th e Courts : The Experimen t 56 4. A Thing Observed , a Thing Changed : What I s the Impac t o f Televisio n o n Trials ? 96 5. Th e Crucible : Cour t T V 124 6. Conclusion : TV o r No t T V 154 Appendix A: Camera Coverage in the States 189 Appendix B: Summary of State Camera Coverage Rules by the Radio-Television News Directors Association 205 Notes 209 Index 231 About the Author 239 IX

FOREWORD

Courtroom drama , bot h fictiona l an d based o n rea l trials , becam e commonplace o n television almost from th e inception of the medium. This shoul d no t com e a s a surprise : trial s hav e lon g fascinate d au diences. In their own time, the trials of Aaron Burr for treason (twice ) and Henr y Tha w fo r th e murde r o f Stanfor d White , th e Scope s "monkey trial," and the trial of the kidnapper o f the Lindbergh bab y riveted th e natio n whe n the y too k plac e an d continue d t o fascinate , especially whe n presente d i n dramati c for m i n th e theater , o n film , and o n television . Mor e recently , th e nationa l obsession wit h th e televised O . J. Simpso n murde r trial , an d th e subsequen t cottag e in dustry o f book s an d commentary , startle d eve n the most carefu l ob servers o f popular culture . O f course , cable television's "Cour t TV, " which provide s a steady suppl y o f mor e prosai c cases, had indicate d that there is an apparently insatiabl e audience, eager to peek through the camer a int o courtroom s aroun d th e nation . The televising of trials, however, has not been without controversy. A substantia l proportio n o f th e ba r an d th e judiciar y continu e t o resist granting such media access . Television cameras, in fact, ar e still barred fro m federa l courtrooms , an d man y state s ar e equall y strict . The lis t o f issue s tha t troubl e thos e wh o oppos e televisin g trial s i s lengthy, involving many complex arguments. But it is fair t o say that the mos t importan t al l focu s o n th e potentia l fo r televisio n t o affec t the behavio r o f judges , lawyers , an d witnesse s i n a case . I n othe r words, the centra l questio n is , Does th e camer a affec t th e outcome ? Ronald Goldfarb , himsel f a n attorney , bring s unusua l credential s XI

xii • "Foreword to the task of exploring the pros and cons—and th e implications—o f televising trials . H e understand s tha t th e hear t o f th e matte r i s th e potential conflic t between th e constitutiona l righ t o f th e publi c t o know an d th e pres s t o repor t an d th e constitutiona l protection s meant t o ensur e a fai r trial . H e make s clea r tha t th e difference s among expert s an d judge s o n thi s issu e d o no t fit neatl y int o ou r normal categorie s o f libera l o r conservative—supporter s an d oppo nents o f televisio n i n the courtroom fal l int o both ideologica l camps. Goldfarb's boo k als o provide s a necessar y historica l perspectiv e o n the curren t stat e o f th e argument . H e explain s ho w opinio n ha s shifted ove r tim e an d ho w particula r trial s hav e affected , a t leas t i n the shor t run , th e balanc e o f force s o n th e issue . Hi s wor k i s com prehensive, discussin g bot h th e cas e fo r an d agains t camera s i n th e courtroom an d the n providin g hi s ow n thoughtfu l poin t o f vie w about wha t shoul d b e a sensibl e nationa l polic y i n thi s area . For th e Twentiet h Centur y Fund/Centur y Foundation , Goldfarb' s study continues a long tradition o f exploring the interaction of media and journalis m wit h governmen t an d publi c policy , most recentl y i n our Perspective s o n the News series . The issue of universal televisio n coverage o f courtroom s cut s acros s al l of thes e areas . In fact, on e of the centra l question s abou t suc h trial s relate s directl y t o th e electio n process fo r importan t stat e an d loca l officials ; afte r all , many judge s and district attorneys stand for election . (In thinking about this aspect of th e issue , kee p i n min d tha t publi c performanc e a t crimina l an d civil trial s becam e a routin e wa y t o develo p a politica l followin g i n the Roman Republic.) Televised trials, therefore, represent "political" photo opportunities fo r candidates. As such, they may affect no t only the wa y candidate s conduc t themselve s durin g a tria l bu t als o th e outcome o f som e futur e elections . Th e obviou s counterargumen t is , "Can i t be bad fo r th e public to know more about how officeholder s actually perfor m i n the job s t o whic h the y wer e elected? " More generally , a s Goldfar b make s clear , on e canno t rationall y discuss the "camera i n the courtroom" issue without finding common ground o n jus t wha t th e publi c interes t i s in thi s area . A s the page s that follo w explain , however, ther e is no simpl e answer t o this question. Fo r th e Fund , then , thi s boo k ha s a characteristi c tha t w e seek

Foreword • xiii in all our publications : a quest to understan d th e issues involved an d to asses s th e bes t cours e o f actio n fo r th e nation . Whil e h e fairl y represents th e cas e o n behal f o f opponent s o f court television , Gold farb conclude s with a powerful brie f o n behal f o f universa l access . Goldfarb's argumen t build s o n th e traditiona l righ t t o kno w em bodied i n th e Constitutio n an d th e writing s o f th e founder s o f th e American Republic . Bu t th e weigh t o f evidenc e fo r hi s positio n in cludes man y othe r considerations , includin g th e inescapabl e advan tages o f "seein g fo r yourself " versu s eve n th e mos t assiduou s reporting. Moreover , h e suggest s tha t th e curren t resistanc e t o uni versal televise d trial s i s onl y a transitio n phase , a paus e whil e ol d habits o f min d ar e she d i n th e wak e o f th e inevitabl e change s wrought b y new technologies . Indeed , th e concludin g sectio n o f TV or Not TV: Television, Justice, and the Courts looks beyond the current debat e t o th e future , raisin g interestin g question s abou t how , as television i n th e courtroo m become s eve r mor e full y established , we can mak e i t serv e th e twi n cause s o f justic e an d th e righ t t o kno w most effectively . On behal f o f the Trustees of The Twentieth Centur y Fund/Centur y Foundation, I thank Ronal d Goldfar b fo r hi s significant contributio n to ou r understandin g o f thi s importan t contemporar y issue . Richard C . Leone , Presiden t The Twentiet h Centur y Fund/Centur y Foundatio n September 199 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Twentiet h Centur y Fun d provide d m e wit h a gran t tha t mad e writing thi s boo k possible . Fo r thei r support , I would lik e t o than k Richard Leon e an d th e boar d o f directors , wh o mad e thi s grant ; Kathleen Quin n an d Jo n Shure , wh o helpe d m e nurtur e th e manu script throug h it s evolutionar y stages ; an d Beverl y Goldberg , wh o managed th e publication . Thei r friendl y an d professiona l assistanc e is very muc h appreciated . Niko Pfun d wisel y edite d th e boo k an d enthusiasticall y nurse d i t through it s production a t Ne w Yor k Universit y Press . Several la w student s wh o worke d i n m y offic e provide d helpfu l research assistanc e an d I than k eac h o f them : Eina r Hernits , Susa n Shamoto, an d To m Comerford . Elizabet h Machad o helpe d wit h m y social science s research . Sea n Britai n an d Laure n Koma r assiste d i n the researc h o n stat e studie s an d ne w technology . Faculty member s o f th e America n Universit y an d Universit y o f Maryland journalis m department s provide d importan t critica l as sessments that informed th e ideas in my conclusion, and they all have my respect an d gratitude . Steve Brill , Jeff Ballabon , Fre d Graham , an d othe r staf f member s at Cour t T V wer e graciou s an d helpful , providin g m e wit h infor mation abou t thei r work . Dan Kevles , Erwin Chemerinsky , Lesli e Maitland, Car l Stern , Joe Russin, an d Da n Hamilto n eac h rea d a chapte r an d offere d wis e advice abou t it . Denn y Hec k advise d m e abou t Washingto n State' s innovative program . Eac h was wise, generous, and helpful , an d the y have m y gratitude . xv

xvi • Acknowledgments Sharon Kirby began the preparation o f the manuscript. Lauren Komar helpe d th e production proces s in countless ways. Peg Dreibelbis took ove r an d complete d it , perfectin g a zillio n job s wit h masterfu l competence, genuin e goodwill , an d indispensabl y soun d advice .

INTRODUCTION

In the final two decade s of the twentieth century , televised court proceedings hav e progresse d fro m a n outlandis h an d unthinkabl e ide a to a feasible, i f not inevitable, reality. In the past few years, the practice has become commonplace. Yet, many observers continue to voice serious reservation s abou t thi s trend . Followin g severa l highl y pub licized trials—ofte n crimina l case s wit h whic h th e medi a an d th e public becam e obsessed—muc h publi c soul-searchin g an d profes sional deliberatio n ha s ensue d abou t th e danger s al l media publicity , especially television , pos e t o th e justic e system . Some critic s conten d tha t televisio n i s inherentl y a sovereig n me dium tha t take s ove r an d change s th e subjec t o f it s attention . Tele vision i s a n environment , on e o f it s bette r practitioner s ha s stated , and lik e weather i t change s an d dominate s everything . Other s argu e that the dignity of the trial process is jeopardized and commercialize d by television. Many fea r tha t the medium inevitably disturb s the participants i n trials , needlessl y invade s people' s privacy , an d portray s a distorte d pictur e o f justice . The excessiv e indulgence o f the constitutional right s o f th e press , som e argue , unnecessaril y prejudice s th e constitutional right s o f defendant s t o a fai r trial . Most governmen t proceeding s ar e ope n t o the public in this country, and many o f these proceedings ar e televised. The judicial branc h has been the last and most reluctant to open its proceedings to media generally, an d t o televisio n especially . Th e rationale s fo r thi s insti tutional diffidenc e hav e varied . A t first, televisio n wa s considere d unruly an d disruptive . Late r objection s wer e based o n it s commer xvn

xviii • Introduction cialism an d sensationalism , a s well a s its pernicious influenc e o n th e players i n th e tria l process—defendants , lawyers , judges, witnesses, and jurors . It i s a measur e o f th e antipath y o f man y member s o f th e ba r an d the judiciary towar d camera s in courtrooms tha t a champion o f free dom lik e the lat e Suprem e Cour t Justice William O . Douglas viewed the prospect as an anathema to fair trials. 1 His indictment of televised trials containe d fou r counts , which other s woul d prosecut e ove r th e years. First, Justice Dougla s though t tha t televisio n woul d caus e "insidi ous influences " upo n th e administratio n o f justic e b y intimidatin g and distractin g frai l witnesse s an d goading other s to become clowns, and b y arousin g th e emotion s o f th e community . Televisio n woul d give th e pres s undu e influenc e ove r th e man y judge s an d distric t at torneys wh o ru n fo r offic e an d wh o shoul d b e insulate d fro m ma joritarian pressures . One Firs t Amendment authorit y als o feared tha t televised trial s constitut e a for m o f psychologica l punishmen t o f a n accused.2 The late Appellate Judge Learned Han d observed , at a time when televisio n wa s banne d fro m courts , tha t h e coul d no t imagin e anything wors e tha n havin g t o endur e th e pressure s o f a trial ; n o doubt, fo r mos t peopl e th e realizatio n tha t suc h a n experienc e wa s being broadcas t widel y woul d ad d t o thei r anxiety . Second, Douglas feare d tha t televisio n woul d transfor m ou r deliberative trial process into a n inquisitorial spectacl e where passion an d showmanship replace d th e dispassionate searc h for truth . A televised trial, h e thought , wa s a spectacl e jus t a s a tria l i n Yanke e Stadiu m or th e Roma n Coliseu m woul d be . He recalle d a raucou s mas s tria l in a Cuba n stadium , an d on e i n a Baghda d People' s Cour t wher e seventy defendant s charge d wit h a n assassinatio n plo t wer e herde d into a klieg-lighted pe n befor e a shouting, hand-picked audience . He quoted Juvenal' s saying , "Tw o thing s onl y th e peopl e anxiousl y desire—bread an d circuses," and another judge's rhetorical comment that "Ordea l b y publicity i s the legitimate great-grandchil d o f ordea l by fire, water , an d battle. " Third, th e Justice argue d tha t th e Sixt h Amendment' s public-tria l guarantee wa s intende d fo r th e benefi t o f th e accused , no t th e press,

Introduction • xix and neve r wa s mean t t o requir e ever y membe r o f th e communit y t o see and hea r ever y case : "the histori c concep t o f a public trial envisaged a small , clos e gathering , no t a city-wide , state-wid e o r nation wide arena. " Th e cor e ide a behin d thi s amendment , h e urged , wa s and stil l i s t o avoi d close d an d secre t trials , no t t o ope n trial s a s widely as possible, nor "t o provide the public with recreation or with instruction i n th e way s o f government. " Fourth, Dougla s feare d tha t televisio n woul d cheape n an d vulgar ize governmen t b y denyin g th e sacrosanc t dignit y o f court s an d b y deflecting the search for truth, a quest that by definition must proceed quietly an d withou t fanfare . Skeptic s o f televisio n i n th e court s fea r the specte r o f a three-minut e segmen t coverin g a loca l tria l sand wiched between a dog food commercia l and a pantyhose commercial, to paraphras e on e judge. 3 The conventiona l vie w of th e bar , a t leas t until recently, was that televisio n would transfor m th e temple of justice into crass theater. Gerry Spence, one of America's most successfu l trial lawyers, believes that television turns "the searc h for justice into a spectato r spor t fo r th e amusemen t o f droolin g couc h potatoes." 4 A related questio n concern s th e commercialization o f the justice system: If trial s ar e broadcast , shoul d i t b e don e b y the governmen t o r by the profit-seekin g o r nonprofi t privat e sector ? Though th e reticenc e o f th e benc h an d ba r t o allo w camera s i n courts ha s bee n deep-seate d an d widel y shared , i t is not unanimous . Not lon g afte r Justic e Dougla s criticize d televise d trials , a n equall y respected membe r o f the federal judiciary , D.C. Circuit Cour t o f Appeals Judge J. Skell y Wright, argue d fo r mor e an d bette r coverag e of the justic e syste m b y th e mas s media. 5 Befor e blamin g th e pres s fo r the sin s o f th e justic e system , h e though t th e ba r shoul d correc t it s own misconduct . Mos t prejudicia l tria l publicit y derive s fro m out of-court statement s b y polic e an d distric t attorney s abou t confes sions, prio r records , an d th e evi l characte r o f defendants , an d b y defense lawyer s "spinning " th e medi a i n thei r clients ' interests , al l violations o f Cano n 20 o f Professional Ethics , one "more honored in the breac h tha n i n th e observance. " Judge Wright reminded u s that "ou r mos t dignified ceremonie s are televised, fo r example , churc h service s an d inaugurations, " an d h e

xx • Introduction called th e fear s abou t losin g th e dignit y o f trial s a "dead-en d argu ment." Furthermore , concern s abou t th e tria l participants ' righ t o f privacy ar e misplaced ; the y "mus t alway s yiel d t o th e people' s righ t to know. " Distortion s b y th e len s ar e n o mor e likel y tha n thos e b y the pen . Why no t tr y televisio n i n courts , Wrigh t urged , an d see k model s of excellence , technique s t o contro l excesses , experiment s t o asses s the reality , rathe r tha n relyin g o n speculation s abou t th e idea . An d what bette r wa y t o experiment , h e suggested , tha n a t th e top—b y televising appellat e proceedings , eve n th e Suprem e Court . "Ou r Su preme Cour t ha s bee n called a continuous constitutional convention , reinterpreting fo r eac h generatio n th e meanin g an d applicatio n o f those fundamenta l principle s o n whic h th e natio n i s founded, " h e wrote. "I t woul d b e a matchles s lesso n i n th e meanin g o f ou r con stitutional right s an d principle s fo r th e people o f the country to hear the decision s themselves." 6 Judge Wrigh t side d wit h advocate s o f televisio n i n court s becaus e he thought th e new technology woul d giv e a truer vie w of the justice system tha n tha t provide d b y traditiona l media . Th e mos t arden t advocate o f th e educativ e powe r o f televisio n i n courts , Wrigh t believed tha t muc h o f th e misunderstanding s abou t cases , particularl y important Suprem e Cour t cases , ar e cause d b y th e public' s lac k o f firsthand informatio n abou t wha t actuall y transpire s i n th e courts . He wa s no t th e onl y authorit y t o dra w thi s conclusion . Th e lat e Justice Hug o Blac k complaine d t o m e in 1961 , before televisio n was allowed in courts, that the press distorted the meanings of the Court' s important decisions , resultin g i n publi c misperception s abou t thes e rulings. This i n turn led , i n hi s opinion , t o imprope r criticis m o f th e Court. Th e lat e Justic e Olive r Wendel l Holmes , Jr. , whil e a stat e supreme cour t justic e i n Massachusetts , wrote : "I t i s desirabl e tha t the tria l o f cause s tak e plac e unde r th e publi c ey e . . . becaus e i t i s of th e highes t momen t tha t thos e wh o administe r justic e shoul d al ways ac t unde r th e sens e o f publi c responsibility , an d tha t ever y citizen shoul d b e abl e t o satisf y himsel f withi n hi s ow n eye s a s t o th e mode i n which a publi c dut y i s performed." 7 In 1986 , Suprem e Cour t Associat e Justic e Joh n Pau l Steven s

Introduction • xxi pointed ou t th e histori c rational e fo r ope n trials . Quotin g Jame s Madison, h e state d tha t th e Firs t Amendmen t guarantee s mor e tha n freedom fro m governmenta l restraints . The public's ability to acquire information abou t th e operatio n o f publi c institution s i s a funda mental componen t o f the self-governanc e contemplate d b y the fram ers.8 I n 1989 , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t agai n note d th e histori c importance o f publi c trials : "Whil e th e benefit s o f a publi c tria l ar e frequently intangible , difficul t t o prove , o r a matte r o f chance , th e Framers plainl y though t the m nonetheles s real." 9 Advocates o f televisio n i n courts clai m tha t th e judiciar y ha s bee n needlessly protectionist , tha t i n al l trial s (certainl y i n appellat e an d civil cases ) ther e i s an educativ e an d publi c interes t i n observin g th e issues under consideration an d the methods of the justice system. One law professor ha s suggested tha t televise d trial s "ar e lik e civics classrooms. . . . Ever y verdic t ha s educationa l valu e beyon d th e impac t on th e litigants . . . . I t reinforce s th e norm s o f society." 10 The silen t camer a wil l portra y "th e rea l thing, " i t i s argued , pre senting a more accurate and illuminating picture of the justice system than othe r media . Withou t courtroo m cameras , th e publi c onl y knows wha t informatio n a small numbe r o f reporters ca n diges t an d deliver. An d i f th e justic e syste m i s suspec t i n th e mind s o f man y people, s o to o i s the media . As with al l persistently controversia l issues , television in the court room i s a two-edge d sword . I t i s bot h invasiv e an d informative . Though i t bring s th e tria l t o th e wides t possibl e audience , i n doin g so i t create s pressure s an d temptation s fo r al l participants . Thoug h it reduce s communit y speculations , rumors , an d fear s abou t wha t transpires i n the courtroom , i t als o thrusts th e general publi c (whic h may posses s informatio n th e jur y ma y no t have ) int o assessment s of specific case s an d o f th e justic e syste m i n general . Th e publi c a s watchdog i s an insuranc e agains t autocracy ; bu t a s a n outsid e influ ence o n a controlle d deliberativ e process , i t ma y als o interfer e wit h justice. History suggests , however , tha t criticism s abou t resolution s con cerning excessiv e pres s coverag e o f trial s betra y a fundamenta l naivete. A s lega l historia n Si r Joh n MacDonnell , lon g ag o noted :

xxii • Introduction

"Often a tria l i s th e on e luminou s poin t i n darkness . . . . I t take s one outsid e th e formula e o f th e textbooks . Truthfull y reported , a trial i s a livin g picture ; i t bring s u s neare r t o lif e tha n th e bes t lit erature. Yo u hea r th e voices ; i t i s lif e itself." 11 Becaus e o f th e per sonalities involve d an d th e enormit y o f th e act s an d thei r implications, certai n trial s invariabl y becom e hypnoti c mirror s o f a society, provid e a distillatio n o f it s conflicts . Frivolous , base , o r squalid motive s ar e no t wha t mak e thes e case s gripping , on e col umnist note d durin g th e O . J . Simpso n trial . Th e medi a hav e no t forgotten thei r manner s o r missio n becaus e o f thei r fascinatio n with suc h cases ; a cas e doe s no t requir e redeemin g socia l valu e t o warrant medi a an d publi c interest . Whil e muc h o f th e reportag e that passe s fo r seriou s new s i s actually "speculative , transitory , an d more earnes t tha n important, " thi s experience d reporte r admitted , "much o f wha t constitute s th e frowne d upo n preoccupatio n o f readers an d viewers—th e startlin g crime s an d trials , th e passion s that wrec k live s an d destro y familie s an d othe r institutions—goe s to ancient , eve n prima l concerns." 12

This boo k place s the questio n o f televised trials in historical perspective. Present concerns about the perceived conflict between media and courts ar e par t o f a recurrin g publi c debat e o n th e prope r balanc e between a n activ e an d informativ e pres s an d a caring an d ope n tria l system, which ha s engage d America n thinker s throughou t ou r coun try's history. The Bill of Rights protects both the freedom o f the press (not it s license ) an d th e defendant' s right s t o a n ope n an d fai r tria l (though no t callin g fo r a n agor a an d no t necessaril y requirin g a n acquittal). The proper lin e between entertainment an d education, between exploitatio n an d information , between th e negativ e conse quences of "in camera" (closed) trials and those of "on camera" trials is not alway s clear, nor ca n it be measured wit h scientifi c objectivity . And whil e th e concern s abou t th e prejudicia l potentia l o f pretria l publicity an d actua l tria l coverag e ar e related , ther e ar e importan t differences. Presently , the rule in our federal courts generally bannin g cameras stand s i n oppositio n t o th e practic e o f mos t stat e courts ,

Introduction •

xxiii

which permi t televise d trials . Doe s thi s dichotom y indicat e th e flex ible geniu s o f ou r federa l system , o r th e divide d though t abou t a contentious an d importan t issu e o f publi c polic y an d constitutiona l law? TV or Not TV trace s th e ke y case s tha t hav e influence d ou r collective thinkin g abou t televise d trials , place s the m i n th e broade r context o f case s dealin g wit h wha t ha s bee n calle d th e free press fair tria l issue , an d outline s th e prevailin g rule s i n th e stat e an d federal courts . Th e relevan t lega l an d socia l scienc e studie s ar e pre sented tha t bea r o n th e critica l concer n abou t whethe r camera s i n courts distor t o r portra y th e justic e system , an d whethe r the y preju dice th e qualit y o f justic e i n individua l trial s b y disturbin g th e ke y participants. Th e man y argument s fo r an d agains t camera s i n court s are analyze d i n vie w o f th e actua l experience s t o dat e i n jurisdiction s that permi t televise d trial s an d th e lesson s t o b e learne d fro m Cour t TV's coverag e o f a remarkabl e samplin g o f case s o n it s ow n cabl e channel. All th e argument s tha t ar e advance d agains t televise d trial s ar e addressed i n thi s book : th e fea r o f physica l disruption ; th e fea r o f adverse psychologica l impac t o n th e tria l participants ; th e potentia l for exploitatio n o f th e justic e syste m fo r commercia l purposes ; th e fear o f prejudicin g trials ; th e invasio n o f th e privac y o f witnesses , jurors, attorneys , an d other s involve d i n cases . Th e point s advance d by proponent s o f televise d trial s ar e als o covered : th e educationa l value o f a n expose d judicia l system , th e nee d fo r parit y i n th e treat ment o f print an d broadcas t media , th e need t o redefin e wha t a publi c trial mean s i n thi s er a o f advance d technology ; th e media' s impac t both insid e an d outsid e th e courtroom , th e nee d fo r ope n govern ment. Al l thes e arguments , pr o an d con , involv e definin g standard s of constitutiona l law : th e freedo m o f th e press , th e righ t t o a publi c and a fai r trail . Th e issu e i s th e relationshi p betwee n th e quality o f justice an d th e visibility o f justice . I believ e i t i s possibl e t o find a sensibl e an d balance d solutio n t o this cyclica l conflict , includin g a wise approac h fo r dealin g with thes e confounding question s i n th e nex t century . A s w e ente r a n er a o f technological sophisticatio n likel y t o chang e man y pas t concepts —

xxiv • Introduction What i s public ? Wha t i s information ? Wha t i s truth?—th e funda mental issue must be: How can we best blend new media technologies with ou r traditiona l an d revere d commitmen t t o democrac y an d justice?

Chapter 1

THE TRIA L O F TH E C E N T U R

C

Y

rime new s lie s a t th e hear t o f on e o f th e mor e recurrin g an d confounding dilemma s o f th e twentiet h century . Th e constitu tional right s o f peopl e charge d wit h crime s t o bot h a "public " an d a "fair " tria l ma y presen t a n inheren t conflict . I f ther e i s too muc h public attention , tha t ver y opennes s ma y affec t th e fairnes s o f th e trial. Th e correspondin g pres s righ t t o cove r crim e new s b y it s ow n standard—different fro m tha t o f courtroo m judiciousness—ma y cause a competing constitutional conflict . A s the media becom e more pervasive an d mor e influential , th e potential fo r conflic t between th e press's right to present crime news and th e defendant's righ t to a fai r and ope n tria l increases . To compoun d th e conundrum , th e tw o constitutiona l right s guar anteed b y th e Firs t an d Sixt h Amendment s ma y b e complementar y as well a s conflicting. A s one federal appeal s cour t judge put it , "th e right o f fai r tria l i s companion , no t servant , t o th e constitutiona l guarantee o f public trial." 1 The two institutions—press an d courts— are mutuall y reinforcing , an d occasionall y adversarial . A probin g press ma y expos e injustices , assur e fai r trials , and censur e impropri eties by judges, police, and prosecutors; the courts may preserve press independence when it is challenged. Erwin Chemerinsky, a University 1

2 • The Trial of the Century of Souther n Californi a la w professor , argue s tha t th e suppose d ten sion between th e Firs t an d Sixt h Amendments i s "illusory." The media inform s publi c debat e abou t importan t issues , an d medi a coverage o f trials "increase[s ] th e likelihood o f fair an d just proceedings."2 But th e constitutiona l companio n ca n becom e a villain . Thi s per plexing conflict was described by the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter i n an appeal of an Indiana murde r conviction and capita l punishment tha t wa s decide d b y a jury whos e impartialit y ha d bee n prejudiced b y intensiv e pretria l publicity . Motion s fo r a secon d change o f venu e an d a continuanc e wer e denied . I n a concurrin g opinion t o Justic e To m Clark' s reversal , Justic e Frankfurte r com plained: "Thi s Cour t ha s not yet decided that the fair administratio n of crimina l justice must b e subordinated t o anothe r safeguar d o f ou r constitutional system—freedo m o f the press, properly conceived. The Court ha s no t ye t decide d that , whil e conviction s mus t b e reverse d and miscarriage s o f justic e resul t becaus e th e mind s o f jurors o r po tential juror s wer e poisoned , th e poisone r i s constitutionall y pro tected i n plyin g hi s trade." 3 Th e proble m i s no t new , bu t i t i s profoundly important : Its causes and effects ar e unclear, and its cures controversial. Originally, th e guarante e o f a n ope n tria l wa s a commo n la w re form mean t t o prevent close d proceeding s an d assur e that th e publi c was informe d abou t an d coul d participat e i n th e working s o f th e judicial system . I n th e day s whe n th e pres s wa s neithe r ubiquitou s nor pervasive , th e mer e presenc e o f th e public—albei t a ver y smal l and loca l public—wa s th e mean s o f subjectin g governmen t t o th e scrutiny o f it s subjects . Fe w coul d quarre l wit h suc h a democrati c notion. Bu t sometime s virtue s ca n evolv e into vice s when condition s change. During th e nineteent h century , a publi c o f loca l spectator s wa s supplemented b y reporters who came to trials and reported what they observed t o a distan t readin g audience . Wit h th e inventio n o f th e telegraph, immediat e report s o f crimina l trial s coul d b e communi cated quickl y t o large r an d mor e distan t audiences . A s th e medi a presence an d impac t grew , problem s arose . The very ubiquit y o f th e

The Trial of the Century •

3

press threatene d t o mak e difference s i n th e kin d a s wel l a s th e degre e of publicit y pertainin g t o trials . From th e earlies t day s o f thi s country' s histor y t o th e present, ther e have bee n excessivel y publicize d crimina l trials . Television i s only th e latest chapte r i n a lon g an d evolvin g continuu m o f institutiona l an d constitutional dynamics . As earl y a s th e mid-1700s , publi c attentio n wa s rivete d o n dra matic courtroo m battles , engagin g a s muc h fo r thei r entertainmen t value a s fo r thei r treatmen t o f vita l politica l issues . The seditiou s libe l case o f Joh n Pete r Zenge r i n 173 4 ha s bee n calle d n o les s tha n " a precedent. . . for th e America n Revolutio n an d th e Bil l o f Rights." 4 Andrew Hamilton , th e mos t illustriou s tria l lawye r o f th e colonia l period, argue d th e cas e fo r th e defense , an d th e tria l i s feature d i n most collection s o f grea t America n trial s a s havin g helpe d establis h press freedo m t o honestl y (i f truculently ) criticiz e government. 5 In deed, th e cas e aros e ou t o f a newspape r wa r typifie d b y provocativ e charges an d countercharges . When th e jur y announce d it s verdic t acquittin g th e martyre d printer, accordin g t o on e report , "Th e roa r o f th e crow d seeme d t o shake th e courtroom . Vainl y th e angr y judg e rappe d fo r order . . . . The waitin g peopl e outsid e i n Wal l St . . . . shouted thei r joy . Broad way answere d wit h resoundin g cheers." 6 Accordin g t o anothe r ac count, "Lon g befor e th e openin g o f th e cour t th e littl e roo m wa s crowded t o it s utmost . . . . The majorit y o f th e peopl e fel t tha t the y had assemble d no t merel y t o witnes s th e tria l o f th e printe r fo r libel , but tha t her e th e las t fight wa s t o b e mad e agains t th e administratio n which wa s s o arbitraril y oppressive." 7 I n strikin g a blo w agains t cen sorship, th e widel y publicize d cas e ha d a remarkabl e effec t o n post Revolutionary Americ a i n place s fa r fro m th e courtroo m i n Ne w York City . Eve n i n England , account s o f th e tria l wer e reprinte d fa r and wide . Aaron Burr—senato r fro m Ne w York , vic e presiden t t o Thoma s Jefferson i n 180 0 (afte r th e onl y ti e vot e i n th e electora l college) , an d survivor o f a celebrate d due l wit h Alexande r Hamilton—twic e suc cessfully defende d himsel f agains t charge s o f treaso n i n trials preside d over b y the n Chie f Justic e Joh n Marshall . Hi s trial s i n Richmond ,

4 • The Trial of the Century Virginia, ar e ofte n referre d t o b y bot h admirin g an d critica l biogra phers a s earl y example s o f th e clas h between publi c opinio n an d judicial dispassio n i n cause s celebres. 8 Reports o f the tria l tol d ho w "th e thron g strainin g to get in so fa r exceeded th e capacity" o f the chamber tha t th e courtroom ha d to be expanded. Thoug h promisin g a fair trial , Burr's prosecutor, U.S . Attorney Genera l Caesa r A . Rodney , concede d tha t earlie r report s o f Burr's allege d conspirac y "hav e resounde d throug h th e newspaper s so lon g an d s o strongly " tha t the y implante d i n th e public' s min d "the genera l opinion " tha t Bur r wa s guilty. 9 Thousands poure d int o town t o observ e th e trial , "colonie s o f tent s an d covere d wagon s dotted the northern ban k of the river," and reporters from every large newspaper i n th e countr y sen t new s o f th e tria l al l ove r th e world . Washington Irvin g covere d th e tria l fo r th e New York Gazette. Crimes of passion particularly have provoked sensational trials and yellow journalis m fo r centuries . Wha t no w seem s a n exampl e o f quaint mal e Victorianism—som e woul d cal l i t earl y American chauvinism—regularly le d to crimes of violence committed to protect the hono r o f one' s spous e o r famil y membe r wh o wa s considere d defiled b y another man , regardless of the woman's role in that sexua l liaison. Thos e cases , then a s now, generate d widesprea d pres s atten tion.10 Fo r example , when i n 185 9 Congressma n Danie l Sickle s shot his wife' s lover , Washingto n Distric t Attorne y Philli p Barto n Key , notable publi c figures includin g senator s an d congressme n attende d the trial , an d newspaper s aroun d th e countr y (includin g th e usuall y austere New York Times) , an d eve n a s fa r awa y a s th e London Times, "commende d th e honorabl e natur e o f th e homicide, " an d finding a dispassionate jury was thus unusually difficult. Afte r Sickle s was acquitted , th e New York Post reported , "extraordinar y dem onstrations followe d th e verdict . . . the shout s o f th e crow d fo r ' a speech' from Sickles—th e offe r t o unharness the horses from hi s carriage, tha t me n migh t tak e th e place s o f th e brutes—th e nois y cav alcade rushin g an d hurryin g dow n th e avenue—th e gratitud e o f th e old fruit-seller , wh o presente d a baske t o f orange s t o th e ma n 'wh o had taugh t hi m ho w t o defen d hi s family honor ' . . . the serenade of the lawyers." 11

The Trial of the Century •

5

In th e lat e nineteent h century , a tim e when w e might hav e assume d the media' s influenc e o n th e justic e syste m wa s insignificant , judicia l causes celebre s capture d th e public' s attention , n o les s than now . Th e notorious alienation-of-affectio n tria l o f th e prominen t an d charis matic preache r Henr y War d Beeche r coul d hav e bee n a moder n T V movie. Nationally famous , fro m a notabl e family , ye t associate d wit h whiffs o f scandal , Beeche r ha d clashe d wit h th e well-know n feminis t Victoria Woodhul l ove r standard s governin g th e sexua l more s o f th e times. In January 1875 , Beecher wa s sue d b y his best friend , a n edito r named Theodor e Tilton , fo r engagin g i n a n affai r wit h Tilton' s wife , Elizabeth. It wa s referre d t o a s th e tria l o f th e century , a n appellatio n tha t would b e adopte d an d repeate d hencefort h tim e an d again , a s i f th e phrase wa s freshl y discovere d eac h decade . Th e pres s afforde d th e case mor e coverag e tha n an y even t sinc e th e Civi l War. 1 2 Th e six month-long tria l too k plac e i n th e Brookly n Cit y Court . Accordin g to on e account : The proceeding s provide d th e chie f entertainmen t i n town . Ticket s were black-marketed a t five dollars apiece, and as many as three thousand person s a da y wer e turne d away , affordin g near-b y saloon s a booming business. Prominent politicians, diplomats, and society leaders fought fo r seat s i n th e courtroo m wit h ordinar y curiou s fol k an d went without their lunch in order to hold them, or bought sandwiches and sof t drink s fro m vendors . Newspaper s assigne d a s man y a s te n reporters t o th e trial . The audienc e wa s frequentl y unruly , havin g t o be silenced by Judge Joseph Neilson for unseemly applauding, hissing, and whispering—ther e wer e severa l arrest s fo r disorderl y conduct. 13 The summation s b y th e tw o eminen t counsels , "contest s o f classica l erudition an d orator y a s muc h a s the y wer e lega l arguments, " con tinued fo r twenty-fiv e days , an d th e courtroo m audienc e comple mented th e barristers ' elocutionar y effort s wit h outbreak s o f applause. Durin g th e eigh t day s o f jur y deliberation , sizabl e crowd s milled abou t constantl y nea r th e court , neighborhoo d bar s wer e jammed, an d peopl e slep t o n th e gras s outsid e th e court . "Reporter s clung t o lamppost s an d crowde d ou t ont o windo w ledge s wit h spy -

6 • The Trial of the Century glasses. Diagram s o f th e jur y i n variou s posture s o f debat e wer e printed an d analyzed , an d eac h juror' s backgroun d wa s studied. " When th e jur y announce d i t coul d no t reac h a decisio n throng s o f reporters besiege d "th e unfortunat e twelve . The courtroom was bedlam."14 Beecher's was neither the first no r last of what repeatedly has come to b e calle d th e "tria l o f th e century. " Stanfor d Whit e wa s a "bou levardier architect, " a fashionabl e socialit e who m Henr y Adam s dubbed th e Mose s o f Manhattan' s nouvea u riche . His extraordinar y career seeme d straigh t ou t o f a n Edit h Wharto n nove l abou t rich New York societ y at the turn o f the century. 15 His architectural firm , McKim, Mead , an d White , designe d severa l o f th e majesti c publi c buildings an d statel y privat e club s an d mansion s o f tha t tim e an d place, including Madison Squar e Garden and the Washington Squar e arch. Lat e i n his life, with hi s business and healt h failing , White was shot an d kille d b y Harr y Thaw , a n eccentri c millionair e playboy , who wa s jealou s o f White's earlie r relationshi p wit h th e actres s Evelyn Nesbit , wh o ha d late r becom e Thaw' s wife . A t he r husband' s murder trial , th e actres s testified , demurely , tha t sh e ha d bee n t o a great man y apartment s wit h Stanfor d Whit e an d believe d sh e ha d been drugge d an d seduced. 16 The 190 7 trial wa s a bonanz a o f frenzied an d feveris h journalism , including wha t ha s bee n calle d "massiv e an d unrelentin g characte r assassination" o f White . On e repor t o f th e cas e say s that "th e stor y was cop y catnip." 17 Characterize d a s a voluptuar y an d pervert , White's reputatio n wa s utterl y destroye d b y the press . Reporters besieged the Manhattan tria l court, an d Western Union se t up a special office t o handl e th e flo w o f new s abou t th e cas e an d it s chie f char acters. Th e hug e crowd s brok e al l prio r attendanc e record s i n Ne w York tria l history . After a hun g jury , i n a secon d tria l i n 1908 , th e defendan t wa s acquitted b y reason o f insanit y an d haile d b y the public a s a hero in an America n moralit y play . E. L. Doctorow included th e scandalou s trial i n hi s nove l Ragtime, Earlier , Ra y Milland , Joa n Collins , an d Farley Grange r portraye d th e thre e character s i n a movie , The Girl in The Red Velvet Swing, 18 a n allusio n t o th e scen e o f White' s se -

The Trial of the Century • 7 duction o f Nesbit . Pres s coverag e o f th e seam y detail s o f th e lovers ' liaisons was s o sensationa l tha t Presiden t Theodor e Roosevel t aske d the postmaste r genera l t o forbi d new s account s o f th e salaciou s testimony t o b e transmitted i n the mails. 19 Another "tria l o f th e century " soo n followed , an d thi s tim e radi o was th e culprit . I n th e smal l tow n o f Dayton , Tennessee , i n 1925 , William Jennings Brya n and Clarenc e Darrow fough t ove r the teaching o f Darwin' s theor y o f evolutio n i n wha t becam e know n a s th e Scopes trial. 20 Tha t amazin g trial , whic h capture d th e attentio n o f distant audiences , pitte d Darrow , th e country' s mos t notoriou s defense counsel , agains t Bryan , on e o f th e country' s mos t famou s con servative political theorists an d fundamentalis t advocates . Bryan was recruited t o prosecute a young high school science teacher an d coach for violatin g th e state' s newl y enacte d anti-evolutio n law . The tw o nationall y famou s lawyer s (th e defendan t wa s simpl y a pawn i n thei r litigativ e match ) opene d th e cas e wit h cosmi c pro nouncements: "Brya n announced , 'Th e tria l uncover s a n attac k fo r a generatio n o n reveale d religion . A successful attac k woul d destro y the Bibl e and wit h i t revealed religion . If evolution win s Christianit y goes.' Darro w retorted , 'Scope s isn' t o n trial ; civilizatio n i s on trial . The prosecutio n i s opening th e door s fo r a reign o f bigotr y equa l t o anything i n th e Middl e Ages . N o man' s belie f wil l b e saf e i f the y win.' " 2 1 On th e da y o f th e trial , th e courthous e wa s swathe d i n Bible quoting banners , the courtroom overflowe d wit h spectators , and th e largest grou p o f journalist s anyon e coul d remembe r seein g a t a tria l were i n attendance . Microphone s wer e se t up t o broadcas t pres s accounts o f th e proceeding s nationwid e an d abroa d i n severa l lan guages. On e write r reporte d tha t th e whol e tow n ha d becom e " a camp meeting , a Chautauqua , a stat e fair , a carniva l o r a belated Fourth o f July. " Lou d "Amens " coul d b e hear d periodicall y durin g the proceeding s fro m spectators , an d applaus e greete d th e lawyers ' repartee. Eventually, th e whol e tria l wa s move d t o th e law n outsid e th e courthouse becaus e the unrul y throng s i n the courtroom were weakening th e floor , whic h wa s i n dange r o f collapsing . Fiv e thousan d

8 • The Trial of the Century spectators, sweltering in the July heat, stood around o r watched fro m wooden benches , an d th e pres s sa t a t table s nearby . A huge banne r proclaiming "Rea d You r Bible " hung from th e building in clear view of th e jury , alongsid e anothe r statin g "Rea d You r Evolution. " After a tumultuou s trial , which included Darro w cross-examinin g Bryan o n hi s litera l readin g o f th e Bible , Darro w aske d th e jur y t o convict s o the case could b e appealed. Eventually, the appellate court reversed Scopes's conviction on technical grounds. But along the way, the pres s ha d a field day, givin g bot h th e protagonist s an d thei r im portant issu e unprecedente d coverage . However , bot h side s savore d the attention , an d th e publi c witnesse d a n importan t debat e b y notable advocates . The raucous trial of Bruno Hauptmann i n 1935 for the kidnapping of th e Lindberg h bab y offer s anothe r classi c exampl e o f th e persist ence an d growt h o f pres s coverag e o f sensationa l crimes . Charle s Lindbergh wa s a nationa l her o whos e sol o transatlanti c fligh t i n th e Spirit of St. Louis mad e him famous worldwide. His wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was the daughter o f a socially prominent banke r an d diplomat. Thei r perfec t lif e wa s shattere d whe n thei r first chil d wa s kidnapped mysteriousl y fro m thei r hom e i n Hopewell , New Jersey . Bruno Richar d Hauptmann , a carpente r wh o ha d immigrate d t o New Jerse y fro m German y twelv e year s earlier , wa s arreste d an d charged wit h th e kidnappin g afte r a two-and-a-half-yea r manhun t that becam e a n avidl y followed nationa l melodrama . Though the evidence agains t Hauptman n ha s sinc e been seriousl y questioned, 22 th e press presume d hi s guil t fro m th e first headline—"Lindberg h Kid napper Jailed"—an d pres s coverag e wa s b y an y standar d excessiv e and prejudicial . The scen e o f th e tria l wa s a courtroo m i n th e smal l tow n o f Fle mington, Ne w Jersey—designed i n 182 8 t o hol d tw o hundre d spec tators, bu t jamme d wit h five hundred— a thirt y b y forty-fiv e foo t room with six pew-like wooden benche s and a gallery above for spectators. Curiou s observer s fro m al l ove r th e worl d cam e t o se e wha t H. L . Mencke n calle d "th e greates t stor y sinc e th e Resurrection. " The internationa l pres s arrive d i n droves , includin g 35 0 reporter s (William Randolp h Hears t alon e sen t 50 ) an d 13 0 cameramen . Th e

The Trial of the Century • 9 line wa s crosse d fro m new s t o entertainment . Celebrit y commenta tors such as Walter Winchell and Damon Runyon, sports figures such as Jack Dempsey , an d theatrica l star s suc h a s Ginge r Roger s mad e cameo appearances . Som e tourists cam e to se e the trial, others to see the journalist s an d celebrities . Telegraph an d telephon e facilities , se t u p i n empt y courthous e rooms to enabl e correspondent s t o file their storie s quickly created a "cat's cradl e o f wires. " Foreshadowin g th e docudrama s tha t cam e later i n th e century , actor s performe d th e tria l participants ' role s o n radio daily . Hidde n movi e camera s provide d film clip s tha t wer e shown i n movi e theaters . Coverag e exceede d an y comparabl e even t in American history . Th e pres s thrust itsel f int o the case, conducting investigations an d payin g participant s fo r thei r stories. 23 Thousand s of sightseer s crowded aroun d th e courthouse o n Sundays, taking pictures o f eac h othe r i n th e jur y bo x an d th e judge' s chair . Th e tria l became "th e cente r o f th e universe " an d " a circus, " t o quot e th e American Mercury. Novelis t Edn a Ferbe r added , "I t mad e you wan t to resig n a s a membe r o f th e huma n race." 24 Hauptman n wa s con victed and later executed, though the excesses of the press in this case resulted i n a subsequen t ba n o n camera s i n court s tha t laste d ap proximately fifty years. Movies wer e th e nex t ne w mediu m t o pla y a part i n the publicit y of notoriou s trials . Film s take n b y th e U.S . Army wer e use d a s evi dence a t th e eleven-month-lon g Nurember g trial s o f Naz i wa r crim inals i n 194 5 an d 1946 . The y als o recorde d thi s internationall y important historica l event , an d adde d a theatrical aspec t t o the trial. At these International Military Tribunal proceedings, Army newsreels were used as evidence to prove the involvement o f key German commanders i n th e fou r sweepin g offense s charged . Th e mediu m itself , to borro w a futur e phrase , becam e par t o f th e message , a s well a s a new an d powerfu l messenger . Lighting equipmen t use d t o film th e trial s wa s s o intrusiv e tha t several defendant s i n th e doc k wor e dar k glasses . Movi e newsreel s broadcast excerpt s and sound bite s worldwide. The trials in the heavily draped Courtroo m 60 0 of the Palace of Justice were held not only to punis h th e guilty , bu t als o t o presen t a publi c displa y o f justice .

10 • The Trial of the Century Few woul d argu e wit h th e judgmen t o f th e America n specia l prose cutor, Suprem e Cour t Justic e Rober t Jackson , tha t th e tria l wa s no t merely a private litigation , bu t als o th e publi c recountin g o f a grea t social question . I t wa s ritualistic ; but i t was educative , a s well. As with mos t importan t socia l issues in the United States , the propriety o f pres s coverag e o f trial s eventuall y woul d b e decided b y the U.S. Suprem e Court . Indeed , i n th e 1960 s th e cour t deal t decisivel y with press-create d bedla m bot h i n pretria l an d a t tria l i n th e cele brated cas e o f Dr . Sa m Sheppard , a Clevelan d physicia n whos e conviction fo r murderin g hi s pregnan t wif e eventuall y wa s reverse d o n the basi s o f pres s interference. 25 The loca l la w enforcemen t official s i n that cas e quickly conclude d that Dr . Sheppar d wa s guilty , an d th e pres s adopte d it s conclusio n and too k u p a n "editoria l artillery " o f persisten t front-pag e assaul t on th e doctor . A coroner' s inquest , hel d i n a schoo l gymnasiu m swarming with reporter s an d cameramen , was broadcast, though the defendant an d hi s counsel were not allowe d t o participate. When his lawyer trie d t o ac t h e wa s ejected . Year s later , Sheppard' s appellat e lawyers filed with th e Suprem e Cour t five volumes o f partisa n pres s clippings callin g fo r Sheppard' s arres t an d conviction . The trial atmosphere was even worse. The jury was not sequestere d and thu s wa s besiege d b y mai l an d th e media . Camera s o n a heli copter photographe d th e jur y viewin g th e crim e scene . Commentin g on th e case , outside broadcaster s suc h a s Walter Winchel l describe d the defendan t a s a socia l menace . Th e smal l courtroo m wa s over crowded wit h medi a representative s whos e carryin g o n wa s unre strained. Ever y aspec t o f th e tria l wa s reporte d an d photographe d with intensit y an d partisanship . Twelve year s afte r th e 195 4 trial , th e Suprem e Cour t reverse d Sheppard's convictio n becaus e th e "massive , pervasiv e an d prejudi cial publicit y tha t attende d hi s prosecution " deprive d th e defendan t of a fair trial. The late Associate Justice Tom Clark spent eleven pages of hi s majority opinio n detailin g th e pretrial publicit y an d five pages describing th e intrusiv e an d virulen t publicit y an d commotio n a t the trial itself. The press had create d a "carnival atmosphere, " the Cour t concluded, an d a s a result , rathe r tha n bein g a responsibl e "hand -

The Trial of the Century • 11 maiden o f effectiv e judicia l administration " an d a guardia n agains t the miscarriage of justice, the press had become the cause of prejudice and passio n tha t th e tria l cour t ha d faile d t o control . Justic e Clar k censured th e press and th e ba r an d calle d upo n bot h t o take step s to regulate themselves . Television came late to the free press-fair tria l conflict. The medium itself cam e int o publi c us e aroun d mid-centur y an d wa s soo n ubiq uitous. I n 1997 , mor e tha n 9 8 percen t o f American home s ha d tel evision set s (ove r 21 1 million ) an d 6 0 percen t ha d cabl e channels. 26 In its early years, television coverage outside the courtroom merely magnified th e general problem o f press influence o n the trial process. Historic ban s agains t broadcastin g i n courtroom s barre d camera s from courts . I n th e 1960s , som e state s bega n experimentin g wit h televising trials , bu t i n 196 5 on e Texas cas e led t o a Supreme Cour t decision tha t temporaril y stoppe d th e practice. 27 I n Estes v. Texas, there wa s intens e loca l interes t i n th e tria l o f a financial wheeler dealer wit h nationa l politica l connections . Th e pretria l hearin g wa s marked b y electri c cable s tha t snake d throug h th e courtroom , an d the whole atmosphere o f the trial seemed jeopardized b y the presence of th e clums y ne w equipment . Th e circumstance s playe d int o th e fears o f traditionalist s wh o doubte d television' s maturity . Th e wors t fears o f critics—tha t televisio n woul d disrup t an d demea n th e judi cial atmosphere—seeme d t o b e justified . I n th e Estes case , th e Su preme Cour t condemne d th e practice , whil e leavin g ope n th e question whethe r televisio n wa s banne d completel y o r whethe r onl y its excesse s would lea d t o reversa l o f convictions . A decade and a half later , i n the 198 1 appeal o f a Florida crimina l conviction, th e Suprem e Cour t agai n addresse d th e constitutionalit y of televise d trials . This time , it deferre d t o th e state s o n th e questio n of permitting an d monitorin g televise d trials . The Cour t se t out con stitutional guideline s allowin g states to experiment with televised trials unde r condition s tha t assure d appropriat e solemnity . I n th e following decade , mos t state s di d experimen t wit h televisin g trials . By the 1990s , a twenty-four-hou r cabl e channe l wa s regularl y tele vising hundred s o f case s aroun d th e country . In 1995, all the questions about the propriety of television in courts

12 • The Trial of the Century and it s impac t outsid e th e cour t i n establishin g publi c opinio n cam e to universal public attention in the extraordinary double-murde r trial of O . J . Simpson . Th e year-lon g Simpso n tria l wa s covere d o n sit e by mor e tha n twelv e hundre d domesti c an d foreig n reporters ; ther e was dail y gavel-to-gave l coverag e b y Cour t T V an d man y othe r tel evision outlets . The cas e soo n spawne d a small librar y o f book s an d articles, alon g wit h saturatio n new s coverag e o f th e cas e an d ever y tangential issu e it raised. On e repor t estimate d tha t a worldwide television audienc e o f 15 0 million peopl e stoppe d wha t i t was doin g in order t o watc h th e announcemen t o f th e verdict . Inevitably, people referred t o the case as the "tria l o f the century. " The crim e itsel f wa s th e stuf f o f legend , redolen t wit h melodramati c issues t o interes t everyone—interracia l marriage , drugs , sex, domestic violence , th e fas t Hollywoo d life . Los Angeles Times columnis t David Shaw wrote: "The Simpson story combines the sensational and the substantive , th e voyeuristi c an d th e visceral . I t presse s ever y ho t button. It's a Bayeaux tapestry of contemporary American culture." 28 Serious journalists compared it to Othello, th e Greek tragedies, Theodore Dreiser' s novels ; som e calle d i t a T V gam e show , th e ultimat e reality TV . The cas e involved a celebrity almos t everyon e kne w an d admired . As a footbal l star , O . J . Simpso n ha d wo n th e Heisma n Troph y i n college, excelle d i n professiona l spor t fo r man y years , and late r wa s a regula r sport s commentato r o n television . I n addition , becaus e h e appeared i n movie s an d advertisements , h e wa s widel y recognized . Finally, becaus e o f hi s char m an d goo d looks , hi s imag e wa s ap pealing acros s racial an d economi c lines. If ever anyone bega n a case benefiting fro m a genuin e presumptio n o f innocence , despit e prose cutors' an d polic e officials ' claim s tha t the y ha d a mountai n o f in criminating evidence , it was th e popula r Simpson . The announcemen t o f hi s ex-wife's murde r (an d tha t o f he r frien d Ron Goldman ) an d his arrest commanded nationa l and internationa l news coverage . A huge , high-tec h cit y o f T V an d radi o equipmen t (including eighty miles of TV cables) an d a community of permanen t and rovin g reporters settle d into "Cam p O.J. " i n downtown Lo s Angeles, an d a t th e late r civi l tria l i n Sant a Monica , California , fo r a

The Trial of the Century • 13 year-long sieg e of tria l coverage . The additiona l administrativ e cour t costs to California taxpayer s to accommodate all this public attention totaled more than $ 8 million. People were torn between "indignatio n and fascination, " th e New York Times reported ; th e tria l coverag e "hijacked ou r culture. " A national obsession , i t "hel d th e natio n i n thrall fo r 1 6 months," th e Los Angeles Times reported . The medi a pursue d an d wa s use d b y everyone havin g anythin g t o do wit h th e case , an d som e wh o ha d littl e t o d o wit h it . CNN' s anchor, Jim Moret, reported, "W e were as much a tool and a conduit for eac h sid e a s we were a n investigatin g ar m o f ou r ow n organiza tion." Th e Los Angeles Times dubbe d th e medi a "bot h player s an d chroniclers, purveyors o f news and pawn s o f the legal spinmeisters. " The tabloi d medi a pai d fo r stories , bu t wer e credite d b y th e New York Times for havin g shaped the public perception of the case. With the National Enquirer repeatedl y breakin g stories , th e longstandin g distinction betwee n th e mainstrea m an d tabloi d pres s ha d becom e blurred. Networ k magazine-styl e show s aire d mor e tha n a hundre d Simpson stories . With televisio n allowe d i n th e courtroom , th e roomfu l o f loca l citizens wa s no w a globa l villag e o f viewer s wh o coul d watc h th e extraordinarily engagin g trial. Most journalist s covering the case observed th e tria l o n televisio n screen s i n th e pres s offic e i n th e court house. O f th e fifty eigh t seat s i n th e smal l courtroom , twenty-fou r were availabl e fo r th e media ; seve n seat s were assigne d permanentl y (to two boo k author s an d five news organizations ) an d seventee n o n a rotating basis . As the Los Angeles Times's Sha w noted, "th e media played a pivota l rol e i n thi s mos t bizarr e drama. " A s a resul t o f television, th e defens e attorney s "wer e tryin g tw o case s simultane ously, on e i n Judge Ito' s courtroo m an d one , through th e new s media, i n th e cour t o f publi c opinion. " NB C reporte d tha t th e intens e media scrutin y prompte d som e witnesses to refuse t o testify an d oth ers to com e forward . As the trial progressed, and the drive continued to satisfy the public appetites th e media itsel f ha d created , the accuracy o f press coverage was questioned . Th e Lo s Angele s Polic e Departmen t pres s liaiso n complained tha t many press representatives had "lost their compass."

14 • The Trial of the Century Careless an d erroneou s storie s emerged. Journalists bega n interview ing othe r journalists , causin g on e Cour t T V ancho r t o complai n about a n "ech o chambe r o f errors. " ABC's Jeff Greenfiel d calle d th e case "th e Chernoby l o f America n journalism. " "W e i n th e medi a have me t th e circus , an d w e ar e it," 29 Los Angeles Times reporte r Howard Rosenber g concluded . One reaction to this extraordinary public involvement in a criminal trial wa s t o blam e televisio n fo r th e sin s o f jurisprudence . Whateve r one deplored abou t that case—the court management, the lawyering, the jur y verdict—wa s blame d o n th e camer a tha t recorde d it . Th e Washington Times predicte d tha t th e cas e would provid e opponent s of cour t televisio n "wit h thei r bes t weapo n i n thirt y year s o f tryin g to pu t tria l televisio n of f th e air. " Indeed , a widesprea d reactio n against cameras in courts followed th e Simpson trial. Dissenters, such as forme r Lo s Angeles District Attorne y Ir a Reiner , reminde d critic s that i t wa s no t th e camera s i n th e courtroo m tha t wer e responsibl e for al l th e medi a commotion . "Indeed , th e liv e camer a provide s a n antidote t o som e o f th e medi a frenzy." 30 As each new medium has been added to the press coverage of crime news and the trial process, the same questions have been raised about the press' s impac t upo n prevailin g notion s o f th e natur e o f th e ju dicial process. Does the public attentio n t o a n investigation an d tria l preclude a fair trial ? D o cameras demea n an d disrup t courts ? D o the participants t o th e tria l process—judges , attorneys , jurors , witnesses—negatively alte r thei r behavio r becaus e the y ar e bein g watched widely ? Often, whe n a notoriou s tria l capture s th e publi c an d th e press , excesses occur, followed b y recriminations an d resolutions. What we call th e "tria l o f th e century " ha s becom e a veritabl e genre . I n ad dition t o th e case s mentioned , man y other s com e t o mind : th e Wa tergate an d Iran-Contr a trials , th e Chicag o Seve n case , th e Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Charles Manson, Jimmy Hoffa, Muhamma d Ali, th e Berrigans , Patt y Hearst , Sirha n Sirhan , an d Jac k Ruby , t o name just a few. Eac h seeme d a t the time to b e unique in the volume of it s pres s coverage , a s wel l a s i n th e issue s raise d an d th e person alities involved .

The Trial of the Century • 15 With th e adven t o f televisio n coverag e o f trials , th e questio n ha s become whethe r difference s o f degre e hav e create d a differenc e i n kind. Critic s o f the practice believ e that televisio n i n the courts is the final interference b y the First Amendment int o the world o f the Sixth Amendment. Proponent s o f th e practic e believ e that , properl y ad ministered, televisio n i s a neutra l mirror , a mannere d reflectio n o f reality, the ultimat e compromis e i n a histori c dilemma .

Sensational trials receive disproportionate attention , whether they are civil o r crimina l cases . In th e classi c scenario , a crim e i s committed , followed b y a high-visibility investigation . A suspect is arrested; perhaps thi s i s th e guilt y party , perhap s not . Newspapers , radio , tele vision, an d eve n motio n pictures , i n thei r zea l t o brin g th e offende r to justic e an d t o infor m th e publi c abou t th e working s o f crimina l law (no t t o mentio n thei r desir e t o sel l what appeal s t o th e public' s appetite), publiciz e th e cas e extensively . Th e accused' s description , background, prio r convictions , statements , an d confessio n ar e dis played o n th e fron t pag e o f newspaper s o r o n televisio n screens . Police an d prosecutor s mak e proclamations , an d defens e lawyer s attempt t o pu t a spi n o n th e evolvin g information . Side s ar e taken , and partisanshi p ofte n prevails . Rumors , third-part y statement s (identified, verified , o r not) , an d editoria l opinion s al l becom e par t of thi s hodgepodg e o f publi c information . Althoug h thes e fact s an d opinions ma y relat e t o evidenc e tha t wil l late r b e hel d inadmissibl e at th e trial , the y hel p t o mol d th e public' s attitud e towar d th e crim e and th e accused . T o den y th e forc e o f publi c curiosit y abou t crim e news i s to ignor e reality . As th e technolog y ha s improve d an d it s acces s an d pervasivenes s have expanded , i t ha s no t bee n unusua l fo r mos t o f th e communit y to kno w man y fact s abou t a n accuse d eve n befor e h e o r sh e i s ar raigned, muc h les s tried . I n extrem e situations , th e crim e itsel f ha s been viewe d a s i t occurred . Whe n Jac k Ruby sho t Le e Harve y Os wald, 4 2 millio n peopl e watche d th e murde r liv e o n thei r televisio n sets, an d 9 0 percen t o f th e adul t populatio n sa w repea t broadcast s within a fe w hours . Befor e Rodne y King' s assailant s eve r cam e t o

16 • The Trial of the Century trial, probably a larger America n publi c had repeatedl y see n the videotapes o f hi s beating . O . J. Simpson' s long , strang e Bronc o rid e o n a Lo s Angeles highwa y befor e hi s arres t wa s see n b y a vast networ k of viewers , bu t th e videotapes—whic h man y fel t wer e damnin g evidence o f hi s consciousness o f guilt—inexplicably wer e not show n t o the jur y b y the prosecutor s a t th e trial . Press coverage o f sensationa l trial s may inform a concerned publi c about event s i t ha s a legitimat e interes t i n understandin g (th e Iran Contra prosecution s fo r governmen t malfeasance , fo r example ) o r about th e qualit y o f it s justic e syste m (tha t i t i s no t racist , fo r ex ample). In this regard, the coverage may improve public understand ing o f th e justic e syste m an d protec t defendant s fro m abus e b y th e state. But the press's motives for its trial coverage may also be less wholesome an d noble . Tria l b y newspape r an d televisio n ofte n i s base d upon salability , curiosity , an d opinion . Th e medi a ar e intereste d i n selling crim e news , an d th e publi c i s intereste d i n learnin g abou t it . But trial b y jury is based o n standards o f relevancy, competency, and veracity. Th e court , basin g it s decision s o n th e rule s o f evidence , determines wha t evidenc e shal l b e admitted , an d th e jur y decide s whom t o believe . Thus, the community a s a whole may get one view of th e cas e throug h th e mas s medi a whil e th e jur y get s anothe r through th e judicia l processe s o f th e trial. If the result o f the judicia l inquiry i s not i n accor d wit h publi c opinion , a s shaped b y the press, confidence i n th e judicia l syste m ma y b e impaired . A s th e Suprem e Court noted , i t woul d b e th e grosses t perversio n o f th e rational e offered b y lat e Associat e Suprem e Cour t Justic e Olive r Wendel l Holmes, Jr., fo r th e Firs t Amendment' s protectio n o f fre e speech , t o suggest tha t i t i s als o tru e o f th e though t behin d a crimina l charg e "that th e bes t tes t o f trut h i s th e powe r o f th e though t t o ge t itsel f accepted i n th e competitio n o f th e market." 31 When a trial ha s sensationa l aspects , public interes t i s intense. Divorce and adulter y (Wood y Allen), butchery (Jeffre y Dahmer) , insanity (Joh n Hinckley) , passio n (Loren a Bobbitt) , scorne d lov e (Jea n Harris), drug s (Mario n Barry) , and politic s (Sacc o an d Vanzetti , Alger Hiss , the Chicag o Seven ) sell . They appea l t o th e public' s pruri -

The Trial of the Century • 17 ent, morbid , o r elementa l curiosities . Everyon e become s a vicariou s juror. Courtroom s ar e packed . Agent s o f th e pres s ar e everywhere . A generall y undignifie d an d turbulen t atmospher e ofte n prevails i n the precinct s surroundin g th e forma l worl d o f jurisprudence . What happen s when courtroom camera s ar e added to the mix and notorious trial s ar e broadcas t worldwide ? Celebrit y an d notoriet y of a ne w dimensio n i s adde d t o al l th e othe r pressure s o n tria l partici pants. Th e actua l trier s o f th e cas e ma y b e threatene d b y intereste d parties o r b y partisa n member s o f th e public . Partie s o r spectator s may attemp t t o discus s the case with jurors, necessitating procedure s to kee p the m incommunicado . Judges , too , ma y b e pressure d b y strong communit y views . As such trials progress, the press continues to flood th e public with reports an d opinions . Public opinion poll s are taken to determine the "popular" outcome . I f juror s ar e no t kep t i n seclusio n throughou t the tria l (itsel f a problematic practice) , thes e activitie s wil l probabl y come to their attention. The police and prosecution ofte n mak e statements t o th e press , o r "leak " informatio n t o it . The defens e ma y b e inclined o r force d t o repl y i n kind . Suc h a climate o f publi c opinio n shaping i s hardly conduciv e t o th e detached, deliberative , or rationa l thought tha t i s the idea l a t trials . After th e trial , th e judge , jurors , an d counse l ma y b e vilifie d fo r their par t i n th e proceedings . Participant s ma y mak e publi c state ments; th e winners , losers , witnesses , an d juror s ma y writ e book s and appear on popular interview shows. Witness the post-trial scramble for attentio n an d payof f afte r th e Simpso n trial . The pressure s the n shif t t o th e appellat e courts . Sinc e the appeal s courts ar e not a s directly connecte d wit h th e actio n i n the case, such pressure ma y hav e les s impact o n thei r decisions . However, i n som e cases, suc h a s th e Rosenbergs ' appea l o f thei r capita l sentence , th e public pressures o n an appellat e judg e can b e intense. This is so even in civil cases. Imagine th e community pressure s a chauvinistic publi c put on the Cleveland judge considering a requested injunction agains t the Browns ' owne r Ar t Modell' s pla n t o mov e hi s footbal l tea m t o Baltimore! What i s the "publi c interest " i n the administratio n o f justice ? I s a

18 • The Trial of the Century public burlesqu e th e onl y alternativ e t o Sta r Chambe r secre t trials ? Is th e prope r antidot e t o in-camer a proceeding s on-camer a appear ances? A 195 0 cas e highlight s th e dilemm a tha t arise s fro m thi s clas h o f fundamental liberties . A radi o broadcaste r wa s hel d i n contemp t o f court fo r announcin g o n hi s new s progra m tha t a ma n ha d bee n arrested fo r committin g a despicabl e crime , and tha t th e suspect , wh o had previousl y committe d a simila r crime , ha d confessed . Hi s repor t was accurate . Whe n th e accuse d wa s brough t t o trial , hi s confessio n and previou s convictio n wer e vita l evidence . A s a resul t o f th e grea t public interes t i n th e crime , th e widel y hear d broadcas t ha d a per vasive impact . The broadcaste r appeale d hi s contemp t convictio n t o th e Suprem e Court, an d i t wa s reversed. 32 I n a uniqu e twist , opposin g amicu s curiae brief s wer e file d b y tw o civi l libertie s groups . On e favore d conviction o f th e contumaciou s broadcaster , arguin g tha t th e defen dant's righ t t o a fai r tria l mus t b e o f uppermos t concern . Th e othe r brief sough t acquittal , urgin g tha t i n an y conflic t suc h a s this , free dom o f th e pres s shoul d prevail . I s there a n alternativ e betwee n thes e extremes, o r mus t on e choos e eithe r th e roc k o f censorshi p o r th e whirlpool o f prejudice d trials ? One migh t b e inclined , a t leas t viscerally , t o believ e tha t sinc e something mus t b e done , an d sinc e th e accuse d ca n d o littl e t o quel l publicity (some , o f course , see k i t fo r thei r ow n ends) , th e commu nications medi a eithe r mus t exercis e self-restrain t o r tak e th e chanc e of bein g restraine d b y th e courts . Pres s protestation s abou t th e im portance o f Firs t Amendmen t policie s hav e bee n calle d "piou s plat itudes," an d thei r promise s t o cur b excesse s n o mor e tha n questionable contrition . Propose d pres s restrictions , however , ar e fraught wit h constitutiona l peril s a s grea t a s thos e arisin g fro m an y interference wit h th e righ t t o fai r trial . One reaso n th e venerabl e free press-fai r tria l conflic t i s particularl y perplexing i s tha t i t i s no t on e betwee n righ t an d wrong , bu t rathe r between righ t an d right . I n suc h a contest , n o wis e observe r want s there t o b e a loser . A s th e lat e Associat e Justic e Hug o Blac k wrot e in on e suc h case , "Fo r fre e speec h an d fai r trial s ar e tw o o f th e mos t

The Trial of the Century • 19 cherished policie s o f ou r civilization , an d i t woul d b e a tryin g tas k to choos e betwee n them." 33 Indeed, the more vigorous and influential th e press, the more likely that th e tria l proces s will b e fair; an d th e mor e independen t th e trial system, the safe r wil l b e the press that describe s its workings. As the late Chie f Justic e Warre n Burge r wrot e i n 1986 , "I t i s difficul t t o disagree in the abstract with th e court's analysi s balancing the defen dant's righ t t o a fair tria l agains t th e public righ t o f access . It is also important t o remember tha t thes e interests ar e not necessarily incon sistent. Plainly , th e defendan t ha s a righ t t o a fai r tria l but , a s w e have repeatedl y recognized , on e o f th e importan t mean s o f assurin g a fai r tria l i s that th e proces s b e open t o neutra l observers." 34 The confounding questio n arise s when the free exercis e of one fun damental constitutiona l righ t conflicts , o r seem s to conflict , wit h th e operation o f the other. Does television's portrayal o f the judicial system at work caus e unfair trial s b y altering the trial's atmosphere an d the participants' behavior ? Ther e are public policy questions, as well, about televise d trials—comple x question s o f taste , commercialism , traditions, an d goals . Paradoxically, i n broadcasting t o a dispersed an d distant audience , an invisibl e camer a seem s t o presen t a mor e precis e an d complet e portrayal o f th e proceeding s tha n i s possible i n traditional reportin g by prin t reporter s o r broadcasters . They , too , ar e presen t i n court ; their summarie s ar e necessaril y subjective , diluted , an d incomplet e versions of what actuall y transpired; an d their actions—fo r bette r or worse—raise th e sam e question s a s doe s th e televisio n camera . The followin g chapter s describ e th e evolutio n o f th e la w regardin g free pres s an d fai r trials , presen t th e statu s o f camera s i n American courts a t th e en d o f th e twentiet h century , explor e th e basi s fo r th e widespread fear s abou t courtroo m cameras , an d conclud e wit h rec ommendations fo r balancin g tw o importan t right s s o tha t the y ca n be exercised i n a compatibl e an d mutuall y helpfu l fashion .

Chapter 2

THE FRE E P R E S S , TH E FAI R AND PUBLI C TRIA L A CONSTITUTIONA L CONUNDRU M

w

ithin a few years of the adoption o f the Constitution , the First Amendment wa s adde d t o provid e a bulwar k agains t action s by th e federa l governmen t abridgin g freedo m o f th e press . In 1925 , the Suprem e Cour t rule d tha t freedo m o f th e pres s wa s "amon g th e fundamental persona l right s an d libertie s protected b y the du e process claus e o f th e Fourteent h Amendmen t fro m impairmen t b y th e states."1 Fe w right s ar e mor e firml y establishe d i n American law . Though ther e i s littl e t o questio n abou t th e principle , however , it s application ha s cause d vexing, recurring confrontations . At th e tim e th e printin g pres s wa s invented , absolut e monarchie s controlled mos t o f Europe . Th e Tudor s an d Stuart s reigne d i n En gland. Th e pres s wa s considere d t o exis t solel y a s a servan t o f th e state. Trut h wa s secon d t o efficien t government , an d efficien t gov ernment mean t complet e complianc e o f subject s t o th e wil l o f th e rulers. Mos t o f th e pres s wa s governmen t owned . Privat e publisher s were controlle d b y th e Crow n throug h grants , whic h coul d b e re voked a t pleasure . Since , unde r thi s view , th e stat e wa s superio r t o the individual , knowledg e wa s bes t passe d o n t o th e people throug h a controlled press fostering unit y of thought. Under this authoritarian scheme, ther e wa s n o roo m fo r criticis m o f th e stat e o r it s leaders. 2 20

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 21 The rigi d an d stric t contemp t rule s enforce d i n Englan d toda y ar e remnants o f thi s inhibite d notio n o f th e meanin g o f a fre e press . Toward th e en d o f th e seventeent h century , th e sprea d o f literacy , the growt h o f privat e enterprise , an d th e developmen t o f democrac y brought a n en d t o roya l monopolie s ove r th e press . Still , governmen t reasserted it s authorit y b y prosecutin g individual s fo r treaso n an d sedition i f the y printe d informatio n inimica l t o th e state , an d fo r contempt i f thei r publication s wer e though t t o interfer e wit h justice . The beginnin g o f th e eighteent h centur y sa w a refocusin g o f th e relationship betwee n governmen t an d it s subjects , le d b y thinker s such a s Milton an d Lock e i n England an d Jefferson i n America. Thei r libertarian philosoph y wa s base d o n th e theor y tha t huma n being s were rationa l actor s capabl e o f advancin g thei r ow n bes t interests. 3 According t o thi s philosophy , societ y woul d mak e th e righ t decision s through th e competitio n o f individua l ideas . Individua l judgment s should b e base d o n a choic e amon g opinion s competin g i n a free marketplace o f ideas . Th e pres s wa s see n a s a n extralega l chec k o n government. Thus , publisher s shoul d b e abl e t o repor t fact s harmfu l to th e government , i f true . A mor e conservativ e view , expresse d b y Willia m Blackstone, 4 equated freedo m o f th e pres s with th e mere absenc e o f prior restraint . A muc h broade r understandin g o f thi s freedo m wa s develope d i n th e United States , wher e a free pres s wa s considere d a n agen t i n th e search fo r trut h an d a chec k o n government , a s wel l a s a mediu m o f entertainment. Nonetheless , som e limitations , suc h a s law s prohib iting libe l an d obscenity , remaine d a s pres s restrictions . The spiri t o f free pres s ha s alway s bee n vigorou s i n America . Th e original colonies , anxiou s t o thro w of f th e authoritaria n yok e o f th e English king , demande d complet e freedo m o f th e press . Jefferson ar ticulated thi s deman d whe n h e urge d tha t th e pres s b e free , n o matte r how obnoxiou s it s product. 5 Out o f thi s laissez-fair e climat e gre w a libertaria n theor y referre d to a s th e socia l responsibilit y vie w o f th e press . I f th e pres s enjoy s special privilege s unde r a democrati c government , i t consequentl y owes a n obligatio n t o society . Th e natur e o f th e press' s mora l dutie s has neve r bee n clearl y stated . Yet , wit h th e growt h o f th e pres s int o

22 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial a gian t busines s an d th e ris e o f publi c educationa l standards , critic s have complaine d tha t th e accumulatio n o f th e pres s powe r i n th e hands o f a fe w ha s resulte d i n selfishness , sycophancy , an d superfi ciality. The worst and most mendacious media march under the same flag as th e bes t an d brightest . Th e appropriat e ethica l standard s fo r the mass media are constantly debated , but rarely determined b y government. Th e overarchin g concer n i s tha t "an y agenc y capabl e o f promoting freedo m i s also capabl e o f destroyin g it." 6 Judicial treatment o f freedom o f the press has followed a changing course i n th e Unite d States . Som e policymakers, suc h a s the lat e Supreme Cour t Justic e Hug o Black , hav e considere d Firs t Amendmen t freedoms absolute. 7 The general tendency , however, ha s been to balance First Amendment freedom s agains t other conflicting values . The eminent la w professo r Zecharia h Chafee , reportin g i n th e mid twentieth centur y fo r a n influential Commissio n o n Governmen t an d Mass Communications , concluded tha t press freedom, thoug h one of the mos t importan t value s o f a fre e society , i s no t absolute . Chafe e also questione d whethe r th e modern centralize d pres s was what Milton envisione d i n th e Areopagitica. 8 Legal control s o n th e press' s coverag e o f trial s historicall y hav e fallen int o severa l categories . The doctrin e o f constructiv e contemp t permitted judicia l sanction s agains t newspaper s tha t interfere d wit h the administratio n o f justice . Benc h an d ba r rule s proscribe d certai n kinds o f pres s practice s i n courts . An d judicia l procedures—contin uance, chang e o f venue , challenge s o f jurors , instructions , sequestration—have bee n use d to filter out nonjudicia l influence s o n trials. A s a las t resort , conviction s ma y b e reverse d i n case s wher e these filtering procedures fai l t o preven t prejudic e a t trial . THE CONSTRUCTIV E CONTEMP T DOCTRIN E

Since th e earl y eighteent h century , judge s hav e summaril y punishe d mischief tha t affecte d th e administratio n o f justic e throug h th e doc trine o f Anglo-America n la w calle d constructive contempt. 9 I t ha s been applie d agains t th e press about a hundred time s in the past 17 5 years, thoug h i t ha s falle n int o disus e towar d th e en d o f thi s cen -

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 23 tury. 10 Th e doctrin e wa s first rationalize d b y Britis h judge s "t o kee p the stream s o f justic e clea r an d pure " s o tha t court s coul d preserv e justice fo r thos e befor e it . I n som e cases , th e powe r wa s enliste d t o punish th e pres s fo r criticizin g th e judg e himself , o r a s th e institu tional euphemis m pu t it , "th e cour t itself. " Newspape r publishin g was " a perilou s adventure, " th e Britis h juris t Lor d Goddar d admon ished i n on e suc h case . The Englis h rul e toda y i s stil l mor e hars h tha n it s America n coun terpart, n o doub t du e t o th e differen t prevailin g standard s (no t th e least o f whic h i s th e Firs t Amendment ) governin g court s an d pres s in eac h country . Th e pres s ha s a mor e freewheelin g traditio n here , though i t ha s ha d it s shar e o f battle s wit h hostil e judges. 11 Use o f th e constructive contemp t powe r agains t th e America n pres s ha s bee n sporadic an d usually , o n appeal , unsuccessful . Initially , American la w embodied th e Englis h commo n la w rule . Sinc e 1831 , statute s hav e sanctioned a s contemp t misbehavio r i n th e presenc e o f th e court , "o r so nea r thereto " a s t o obstruc t th e administratio n o f justice . Bu t th e Supreme Cour t ha s drasticall y cu t th e rang e o f thi s law , fo r example , by interpretin g th e "o r s o nea r thereto " claus e a s a geographical rather tha n a causal limitation . Sinc e most pres s publications (a t leas t in th e er a befor e television ) occu r neithe r i n no r nea r th e court , th e power t o punis h contemptuou s publication s ha s bee n effectivel y elim inated i n th e Unite d State s b y judicia l interpretation , i f no t b y th e First Amendmen t directly . The Suprem e Cour t ha s applie d th e "clea r an d presen t danger " test i n som e constructiv e contemp t case s t o ba r conviction s o f news papers, generall y finding tha t th e free discussio n o f th e cas e di d no t impede th e defendants ' righ t t o a fai r trial . Indeed , th e presen t effec t of thes e collectiv e case s ha s bee n t o giv e th e pres s virtua l immunit y from contemp t conviction s i n thes e situations . B E N C H AN D BA R RULE

S

During th e first decade s o f th e twentiet h century , radi o an d camera s captured th e highlight s o f notoriou s trials , thoug h th e America n Ba r Association (ABA ) oppose d th e practice, declarin g tha t i t "shocks ou r

24 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial sensibilities."12 I n th e aftermat h o f th e medi a madhous e durin g th e Hauptmann tria l fo r kidnappin g th e Lindberg h baby , th e organize d bar an d judicia l administrator s calle d fo r code s o f professiona l re sponsibility.13 I n 1937 , Cano n 3 5 o f th e Canon s o f Judicia l Ethic s was adopted, which called for "fittin g dignit y and decorum" in court, barred takin g photograph s i n the courtroo m durin g session s and recesses, an d forbad e th e broadcastin g o f cour t proceedings . Thes e practices, th e Cano n declared , "detrac t fro m th e essentia l dignit y of the proceedings, " degrad e th e court , an d creat e misconception s i n the public' s mind . AB A committees issue d opinion s condemnin g th e broadcasting o f trials as unfair t o the parties. 14 This standard becam e entrenched i n th e la w a s a resul t o f th e Estes cas e i n 1965 , a devel opment tha t i s described i n th e nex t chapter . In 1952 , Cano n 3 5 wa s amende d t o ad d televisio n broadcast s o f court proceedings to the earlier ban because they "distract the witness in giving his testimony." 15 Thi s ba n wa s interpreted rigorously , even barring judge s fro m appearin g o n a commercia l televisio n progra m that simulate d o r recreate d a judicia l proceeding. 16 Th e onl y excep tion t o th e ba n wa s court-supervise d ceremonia l naturalizatio n pro ceedings.17 In 1972 , th e AB A adopte d Cano n 3A(7 ) o f it s Cod e o f Judicia l Conduct, whic h replace d Cano n 3 5 o f th e Cod e o f Judicia l Ethics . This cano n confirme d an d readopte d th e ba n o n television . Mos t states adopte d rule s tha t mirrore d Cano n 3A(7) , an d whe n thos e rules were challenged , stat e courts uphel d them. 18 However, in 197 8 the Conferenc e o f Stat e Chie f Justice s adopte d a resolutio n "advo cating stat e experimentatio n wit h camer a coverage." 19 State s bega n to experiment, 20 an d eventually the practice was approved by the U.S. Supreme Cour t (se e chapter 3) . Following extensiv e experimentatio n i n thirty-eigh t states , AB A Standard 8- 3 wa s enacte d i n 1982 . It removed th e ban an d replace d it with a general rule inhibiting unrestricte d camer a coverage of state court cases , bu t permittin g i t i n "th e soun d discretio n o f th e tria l court pursuan t t o a n expressly formulate d se t of rules enacted b y the appropriate judicia l supervisor y authority. " The federa l court s hav e bee n mor e restrictive . I n 1944 , Congres s

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 25 passed Rul e 5 3 o f th e Federa l Rule s o f Crimina l Procedure , whic h banned takin g photograph s o r radi o broadcastin g durin g crimina l trials i n th e federa l courts . Tha t ba n wa s reaffirme d b y th e Judicia l Conference o f th e United State s in 1962 , 1980 , and 1994 . However, as Cour t TV' s lawyer s hav e urged , Congres s coul d chang e it s min d and repea l Rul e 53 , eve n i f th e Judicia l Conferenc e di d no t chang e its policy, since "Congress has undisputed power to regulate the practice and procedur e o f federa l courts." 21 Congress has oversight pow ers ove r th e federa l courts ' rule-making , an d i t ha s th e powe r t o legislate. Therefore , i t coul d repea l Rul e 5 3 an d permi t camera s i n courts. A bil l ha s bee n propose d t o d o jus t that . H.R . 12-8 0 woul d giv e the presiding judge in any federal court discretionary power to permit "photographing, electroni c recording , broadcasting , o r televising " court proceeding s ove r whic h h e o r sh e presides . Calle d th e "Sun shine i n th e Courtroo m Act, " i t woul d appl y t o civi l an d crimina l trials an d appeals . Th e propose d la w give s the U.S . Judicial Confer ence the authorit y t o promulgat e advisor y guidelines . Constitutiona l scholar Ala n Morriso n agree s that Congres s ha s the power t o pass a statute amendin g Rule 53, but points ou t that the separation o f powers doctrin e forbiddin g on e branc h o f governmen t fro m interferin g with th e activitie s o f anothe r coequa l branc h coul d lea d t o a stand off.22 The Suprem e Cour t woul d the n hav e to rule on its own refusa l to follo w th e mandat e o f a new Rul e 53. PROTECTIVE PROCEDURE S

The law has developed a number of filtering devices designed to block out whatever prejudicia l effect s pretria l informatio n publishe d abou t a crimina l cas e might hav e o n a jury. These procedures ar e intende d to serv e a s a scree n t o kee p nonjudicia l particle s ou t o f the carefull y regulated atmospher e o f the jury trial system. Of course, they are not 100 percen t effectiv e o r ther e woul d b e no fre e press-fai r tria l prob lem. "The theory o f our system, " Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "is tha t th e conclusion s t o b e reached i n a case will b e induced onl y

26 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial by evidenc e an d argumen t i n ope n court , an d no t b y an y outsid e influence, whethe r o f privat e tal k o r publi c print." 23 Nonjudicia l ev idence that coul d no t b e allowed a t trial must no t com e to the jury's attention throug h an y othe r avenue . Moreover , publi c pressur e should no t b e brough t t o bea r upo n prospectiv e jurors , wh o are , again in Justice Holmes's words, "extremely likely to be impregnated by th e envisionin g atmosphere. " Justice Feli x Frankfurter pu t i t thi s way: "Precisely becaus e the feeling o f the outside world cannot, with the utmos t care , b e kep t wholl y outsid e th e courtroom , ever y en deavor mus t b e taken i n a civilized tria l t o kee p i t outside." 24 In the courtroom , specia l requirement s mus t b e met to protect th e lay decision-maker s o n th e jury . Th e genera l purpos e o f thi s aspec t of th e law—t o ensur e tha t juror s ar e no t expose d t o knowledg e o r influence abou t a case excep t tha t whic h emerge s a t trial—ha s bee n interpreted rigidl y b y mos t observers . On e commentator , somewha t unrealistically, ha s said : "Th e mind s o f a jury ma y b e likened t o 1 2 test tubes, " i n tha t the y ar e no t t o b e use d fo r importan t carefu l experiments whe n the y ar e soile d b y foreig n elements. 25 The la w attempt s t o guarante e impartia l jurie s throug h fou r pro cedures: (1 ) the motion befor e tria l to change the venue (location ) of the case ; (2 ) the motio n befor e tria l t o dela y the case to a later date ; (3) th e voi r dir e examinatio n o f prospectiv e juror s b y the judg e an d counsel a t th e beginnin g o f the trial to determine their freedom fro m bias o r prejudgment ; an d (4 ) th e judge' s instruction s t o th e jur y a t the en d o f th e presentatio n o f th e case . A number o f othe r remedie s are als o discusse d below . Continuance and Change of Venue Continuance an d chang e o f venu e ar e procedure s develope d i n th e common la w an d adopte d everywher e i n th e Unite d State s b y con stitution, statute , or rule of court. These procedures seek to abate the potentially advers e effect s o f publicit y b y eithe r delayin g th e tria l until thing s coo l off , o r b y movin g i t t o a locatio n wher e th e pre sumed influenc e o f th e pres s an d publi c feelin g woul d b e less likely, if no t totall y absent . Tha t a defendant i s constitutionally guarantee d

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 27 a speed y tria l i n th e plac e wher e th e crim e i s suppose d t o hav e bee n committed ha s no t bee n considere d a n objectio n t o thes e tw o pro cedures, which ar e designe d fo r th e defendant' s benefit . Th e rational e behind continuanc e i s that th e righ t t o dela y fo r goo d reason s i s par t of th e inheren t powe r o f court s t o hea r an d determin e cases . Th e rationale o f th e chang e o f venu e i s tha t i t i s a mean s t o a constitu tional end—tria l b y a n impartia l jury. 26 The rational e behin d th e chang e o f venu e procedur e wa s articu lated b y a Minnesot a cour t i n a highl y publicize d romance-murde r case: Courts can do little to restrain new s media fro m printin g or broad casting wha t the y clai m i s news, bu t whe n i t appear s tha t th e publi c has bee n subjecte d t o s o muc h publicit y abou t a cas e tha t i t seem s unlikely tha t a fai r tria l ca n b e had i n th e localit y i n whic h th e tria l normally woul d b e held , th e cour t ca n an d shoul d se e to i t tha t th e trial i s transferre d t o anothe r localit y i n whic h i t i s mor e probabl e that a fai r tria l ca n b e had. 27 The U.S . Suprem e Cour t endorse s th e sam e rul e an d applie s a bal anced, practica l rational e fo r it . Th e jur y mus t b e impartial , bu t no t entirely ignoran t o f th e fact s o f a case : In thes e day s o f swift , widesprea d an d divers e method s o f com munication, a n important cas e can b e expected t o arous e the interes t of th e publi c i n th e vicinity , an d scarcel y an y o f thos e bes t qualifie d to serv e a s juror s wil l no t hav e forme d som e impressio n o r opinio n as to the merits of the case. This is particularly tru e in criminal cases. . . . I t i s sufficient i f the juror ca n la y asid e his impression o r opinio n and rende r a verdict base d o n th e evidenc e presented i n court. 28 In som e place s a defendan t ma y mov e fo r a chang e o f venire — that is , as k tha t a ne w pane l o f juror s b e brough t i n fro m anothe r area. Thi s procedur e i s designe d t o serv e th e sam e purpos e a s th e change o f venu e withou t th e difficult y o f movin g th e tria l itself . I t i s thought tha t ther e i s a public interes t i n trying cases in the communit y where th e crim e wa s committe d i n orde r t o maintai n publi c confi dence i n th e crimina l la w proces s b y keepin g th e proces s visible .

28 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial The related , bu t somewha t different , ide a behin d th e continuanc e has bee n describe d i n thes e words : While a chang e o f venu e i s designe d t o avoi d loca l prejudic e b y transferring th e cas e ou t o f th e community , an d wil l therefor e b e of value only when the hostile feeling has not permeated the jurisdiction, continuance, whic h involve s remova l i n tim e fro m th e focu s o f th e prejudice agains t th e defendant , wil l b e appropriat e wher e thi s hos tility exist s throughou t th e jurisdictio n bu t ca n b e expecte d t o fad e within a reasonabl e time. 29 As muc h sens e a s thes e tw o technique s make , the y ar e no t use d frequently an d ar e i n fac t o f questionabl e valu e i n cause s celebres — those ver y case s wher e the y ar e mos t likel y t o b e sought . Th e pres s is s o ubiquitou s nowaday s tha t i t ca n rekindl e interes t i n a cas e o f strong publi c interes t tha t ha s bee n move d o r delayed . Decade s ago , a federa l cour t i n New Yor k admitted : "Moder n mean s o f new s com munication hav e take n awa y man y o f th e reason s fo r th e transfe r o f the caus e celebr e whic h ma y hav e existe d 5 0 year s ago." 3 0 Wheneve r and whereve r notoriou s case s ar e tried , th e publicit y wil l follow . Moreover, onc e communit y feeling s abou t a case ar e aroused , the y may persis t o n thei r own . Thus , th e lat e Judge Learne d Han d sai d i n response t o motion s fo r continuanc e an d chang e o f venu e i n th e fa mous Communis t trial s i n Ne w Yor k City : That suc h feeling di d exist.. . i s indeed true; but there was no reason t o suppos e tha t i t woul d subsid e b y an y dela y whic h woul d no t put of f th e tria l indefinitely . Th e choic e wa s betwee n usin g th e bes t means available to secure an impartial jury and letting the prosecution lapse. I t wa s no t a s thoug h th e prejudic e ha d bee n local , s o tha t i t could b e cure d b y remova l t o anothe r district ; i t wa s no t a s thoug h it were temporar y s o that ther e was an y reasonabl e hop e tha t wit h a reasonable continuanc e i t would fad e . . . w e must d o a s best we can with th e means w e have. 31 The dilemm a i s tha t wher e thes e remedie s ma y b e mos t needed , they ar e leas t likel y t o work . Indeed , argument s abou t invokin g thes e procedures t o mov e o r dela y trial s ma y compoun d th e difficult y the y set ou t t o solve—furthe r publicit y abou t th e cas e ensue s an d th e problem spirals .

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 29 Another difficult y wit h thes e tw o procedure s i s th e hesitanc y o f courts t o us e them . Whethe r judge s ar e skeptica l abou t th e potentia l prejudicing effec t o f pres s publication s (i n othe r context s the y ar e not), o r merel y hesitan t t o pas s thei r problem s o n t o othe r judges , they frequentl y den y motion s fo r continuance s o r change s o f venue . Proof o f mor e tha n a juror's exposur e t o publicit y i s required b y mos t judges. Bu t ho w ca n an y bu t th e wealthies t an d mos t resourcefu l defendants o r thei r lawyer s sho w more ? Judges hav e refuse d t o gran t continuance s o r change s o f venu e until i t become s clea r tha t selectio n o f a n impartia l jur y i s impossible , adopting a wait-and-se e approac h t o complaint s abou t prejudicia l publications. Onc e a jur y i s empaneled , the y argue , wh y continu e a case o r chang e it s site ? Th e fac t tha t th e jur y ha s bee n empanele d i s the bes t proo f tha t a n impartia l jur y coul d b e found . Othe r court s have indulge d i n seesa w logic , denyin g a motio n fo r chang e o f venu e on th e groun d tha t continuanc e wa s th e appropriat e remedy , an d vic e versa. Th e court s d o no t gran t thes e motion s simpl y becaus e ther e has bee n significan t publicit y abou t a case . Continuances ar e rarel y allowe d o n th e grounds o f prejudicial pub licity, an d the n onl y whe n ther e ar e extraordinar y circumstances . Fo r example, continuance s wer e ordere d i n a cas e wher e excessiv e pre trial publicit y aros e ou t o f a prio r legislativ e investigation , an d i n another cas e wher e publi c interes t wa s s o intens e tha t lync h mob s were formed , house s burned , an d th e Nationa l Guar d wa s eventuall y needed t o restor e order . Nevertheless , on e bafflingl y imaginativ e court denie d a requeste d continuanc e o n th e theor y tha t i f juror s would perjur e themselves , o r publi c official s woul d indulg e i n mis conduct, the y woul d d o s o withou t publi c pressures , too . Anothe r court denie d th e remed y becaus e i t feared tha t grantin g a continuanc e might creat e a greater har m b y arousin g th e publi c abou t th e letharg y of th e judicia l process . The motio n fo r a chang e o f venu e i s base d upo n les s subjectiv e criteria tha n continuance . Ordinarily , th e part y seekin g chang e o f venue mus t accompan y th e reques t wit h affidavit s attestin g tha t th e climate o f publi c opinio n i n tha t communit y preclude s a fai r trial . This practic e ofte n lead s t o a battl e o f affidavit s betwee n th e prose cution an d defense , th e forme r claimin g th e virgina l virtu e o f th e

30 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial prospective jur y pane l o r tha t th e defendan t i s shopping fo r a favor able forum , an d th e latte r arguin g th e complet e corruptio n o f th e prospective jur y pane l b y publi c pressure s an d yello w journalism . Sometimes public-opinio n poll s ar e offere d a s proo f o f th e nee d t o remove a trial t o another , les s prejudiced community . Even whe n the y ar e granted , bot h remedie s ar e les s tha n totall y satisfactory. Th e defendant wil l have been caused delay, expense, and inconvenience, an d wil l hav e bee n force d t o sacrific e th e constitu tional righ t t o a speed y o r a loca l trial . Even so , somewher e betwee n sensationa l case s o f nationwid e no toriety an d th e overwhelmin g majorit y o f routin e trial s wher e prej udicial publicit y i s no t a problem , ther e ar e som e contentiou s case s where continuance an d change of venue could perform a real service. Even i n som e highl y publicize d cases , initia l communit y excitemen t and animu s ma y abat e wit h th e passag e o f time . And eve n with th e pervasiveness o f th e modern-da y new s media, som e localities will be less absorbe d an d opinionate d b y new s o f crime s tha n th e localitie s in whic h the y occurred . I'v e prosecute d sensationa l cases , includin g one retrial afte r a hung jury, and learne d that , eve n in these unusua l circumstances, wit h a littl e ingenuit y impartia l jurie s ca n b e empa neled. The Supreme Cour t itsel f ha s admonished tha t unti l the courts have use d th e device s availabl e t o the m t o cance l an y impac t o n jurors tha t ma y hav e bee n cause d b y th e press , verdict s wil l no t b e upheld an d th e pres s will no t b e restricted . Voir Dire In voir dir e examination , bot h side s may questio n prospectiv e juror s chosen a t rando m fro m th e jur y roll s i n a n attemp t t o find a n im partial pane l t o tr y th e case—a t leas t i n theory. I n reality, eac h sid e wants a favorabl e pane l rathe r tha n a totally impartia l one . If i t ca n b e establishe d throug h forma l questionin g b y th e judge , the plaintif f o r defens e counsel , o r the prosecuting attorne y tha t pretrial publicit y ha s cause d a juro r t o for m a n unalterabl e opinio n about th e case, that juror ca n be challenged for cause . Challenges fo r cause ar e availabl e i n al l jurisdiction s an d ar e unlimite d i n number . If a challeng e fo r caus e i s overruled , th e juro r ma y nonetheles s b e

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 31 challenged peremptorily . Ever y jurisdictio n allow s som e peremptor y challenges, fo r whic h n o caus e nee d b e proved . Th e numbe r o f per emptory challenge s allowe d usuall y i s determine d b y statut e i n civi l cases, an d b y th e penalt y fo r th e particula r crim e i n crimina l cases . The federa l court s hav e varyin g procedure s fo r challenges : som e allow counse l t o questio n th e juror s i n voi r dir e examination , wit h the judg e remainin g passiv e (eleve n state s follo w thi s procedure); oth ers allo w counse l t o conduc t pretria l questionin g afte r th e judg e ha s questioned th e prospectiv e juror s (twenty-nin e states) ; som e provid e only fo r questionin g b y th e judg e an d allo w non e b y counse l (te n states). I n thes e latte r cases , counsel ordinaril y ma y submi t question s for th e judg e t o ask . Here again , wha t seem s lik e a logica l solutio n i s no t necessaril y a workable one . Th e court s appl y Judg e Learne d Hand' s do-as-best we-can approach . A s th e Suprem e Cour t ha s stated : The theor y o f th e la w i s tha t a juro r wh o ha s forme d a n opinio n cannot b e impartial. Ever y opinio n whic h h e may entertai n nee d no t necessarily have that effect. I n these days of newspaper enterprise and universal education, every case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity , brough t t o th e attentio n o f al l th e intelligen t peopl e i n the vicinity , an d scarcel y an y on e ca n b e foun d amon g thos e bes t fitted fo r juror s wh o ha s no t rea d o r hear d o f it , an d wh o ha s no t some impressio n o r som e opinio n i n respec t t o it s merits . . . . [T]he court wil l practically b e called upo n t o determin e whether th e natur e and strengt h o f th e opinio n forme d ar e suc h a s in la w necessaril y t o raise the presumptio n o f partiality. 32 In on e notoriou s crimina l case , a federa l cour t state d tha t voi r dir e is mor e tha n a charad e an d tha t a juror' s wor d mus t b e accepte d a t face value . I t woul d b e to o cynica l t o believ e tha t juror s woul d con sciously hid e thei r partialit y an d prejudices , th e cour t stated . Despit e the fac t tha t ever y individua l wh o enter s th e jur y bo x bring s hi s o r her ow n personalit y an d poin t o f vie w wit h the m an d ma y no t b e exempt fro m th e genera l feeling s prevalen t i n th e society , thes e in dividuals ar e truste d t o la y suc h thought s asid e onc e the y tak e thei r oath. "I f ther e b e huma n frailty, " th e cour t concluded , echoin g Judg e Hand, "w e mus t d o a s bes t w e ca n wit h th e mean s w e have. " Unfortunately, th e subtl e psychologica l questio n o f whethe r o r no t

32 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial notoriety ha s prejudice d a prospective juro r i s for th e mos t par t lef t to th e juror . I t seem s unlikely tha t juror s would recogniz e their ow n personal prejudices—or, knowin g them, would admit to them. However, sinc e there ar e n o empirica l dat a t o contradic t a declaration of detachment, thei r wor d i s ordinaril y th e determinin g factor . More over, th e mor e prejudice d o r bigote d th e jurors, the les s they ca n b e expected t o confes s forthrightl y an d candidl y thei r stat e o f min d i n open court . Th e mor e naiv e o r sincer e juror , wh o migh t b e likely t o discard prio r knowledg e fo r th e purpos e o f thei r decision-makin g duty, would probabl y b e more ready to acknowledg e hi s or her stat e of min d an d thu s b e challenged . A furthe r practica l proble m looms . Th e mor e publicize d an d no torious th e crime , th e mor e cumbersom e an d self-defeatin g th e ex amination o f prospectiv e juror s becomes . Whe n communit y sentiment becomes inflamed abou t a horrible crime, it can take weeks to find a suitabl e pane l o f jurors . Man y member s o f th e benc h an d experienced tria l lawyer s recogniz e tha t voi r dir e questionin g i n sensational cases may be suicide. As Justice Frankfurter sai d of one case: "every time defense counsel asked a prospective juror whether he had heard a radio broadcas t t o th e effec t tha t hi s client ha s confesse d t o this crim e o r tha t h e ha s bee n guilt y o f simila r crimes , he would b y that ac t b e drivin g jus t on e mor e nai l int o [th e defendant's ] coffin . We think , therefore , tha t remed y wa s useless." 33 Th e ris k o f antag onizing th e jury , o r o f bringin g t o it s attentio n unfavorabl e fact s about whic h i t ma y hav e ha d n o knowledge , vexe s eve n th e mos t adroit an d exper t tria l attorney . I n cases such a s the Oklahom a Cit y bombing, few potential panelists could b e found anywher e who were free o f al l information an d feelings , an d th e very questioning o f prospective juror s underscore d th e notoriet y o f th e offense . The purpos e o f challenge s i s to allo w eac h sid e to attemp t t o find a fai r jury . Counse l question s prospectiv e juror s an d make s thei r choices o n th e basi s o f instinc t an d experienc e o r th e advic e o f ex perts. Tria l lawyer s diffe r i n thei r estimates o f th e efficienc y o f th e examination. On e stud y o f voi r dire , base d o n a serie s o f jur y case s in a midwester n federa l distric t cour t ove r a yea r an d a hal f perio d in th e lat e 1950s , conclude d tha t voi r dir e examinatio n generall y i s

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 33 perfunctory an d ineffective i n weeding out unfavorable juror s or eliciting crucial dat a abou t prejudice . Jury panel s resisted the procedur e and displaye d les s than complet e candor. 34 The juror' s preconceptio n o f guil t wil l disqualif y hi m o r he r i f it s source i s direc t an d it s strengt h i s entrenched . Persona l knowledg e about a case is a basis for disqualification ; rumor , genera l sentiment , or exposur e t o newspape r report s nee d no t be . Aside from th e practical proble m wit h voi r dire , ther e i s a theoretica l proble m i n tha t the lin e between thes e tw o area s i s thi n an d unclear . N o juro r ca n adjudge a cas e withou t preconceptions . Moreover , i f suc h a perso n existed, h e o r sh e would no t b e a n idea l juror , sinc e the functio n o f the jur y is , i n part , t o appl y th e more s an d sentiment s o f th e com munity to the law. A juror cannot and should not come to the process untouched b y human concerns . As one court said : "Trial s canno t b e held i n a vacuu m hermeticall y seale d agains t rumo r an d report . I f a mere disclosure o f the general nature o f the evidence relied on would vitiate a subsequen t trial , few verdicts coul d stand." 35 Instructions Along wit h thes e filtering procedures , th e la w provide s anothe r pu rification process—instruction s b y th e court . Th e judg e usuall y in structs th e juror s a t th e outse t o f a tria l no t t o expos e themselve s during th e tria l t o pres s comment s abou t pendin g cases . And a t th e conclusion o f th e tria l th e judg e wil l ordinaril y tel l th e jur y wha t i t may conside r i n reachin g it s verdict, an d wha t i t mus t ignore . W. S. Gilbert describe d thi s procedur e i n Trial by Jury: Now, Jury men, hear my advice — All kinds of vulgar prejudice I pray you set aside: With stern judicial frame of mind, From bias free of every kind, This trial must be tried. The hop e i s tha t whateve r deleteriou s effec t th e pres s ma y hav e had upo n a jury' s impartialit y wil l b e cure d b y th e court' s admoni -

34 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial tion. Thus , i n theory , th e judg e i s suppose d t o b e abl e t o wip e ou t any effect s o f pres s reports , persona l comments , o r knowledg e o f facts neve r receive d i n evidence . There i s reaso n t o b e skeptica l abou t th e efficac y o f instructions . The late Judge Jerome Frank equated the practice with Mark Twain' s anecdote o f th e youn g bo y wh o wa s tol d t o stan d i n the corner an d not t o thin k abou t a white elephant . H e calle d reliance o n suc h "rit ualistic admonitions " a n unrealisti c wa y t o cur e defect s i n th e com position o f a jury. "The futility o f that sort of exorcism is notorious," he said. And th e lat e Suprem e Cour t Justice Rober t Jackson believe d that "th e naiv e assumptio n tha t prejudicia l effect s ca n b e overcom e by instruction s t o th e jur y . . . al l practicing lawyer s kno w t o b e unmitigated fiction." Nevertheless, court s regularl y allo w th e questio n o f a fai r tria l t o turn o n this ritual, arguing or pretending that the judge's instruction s vitiate th e effec t o f an y imprope r knowledg e tha t ma y hav e come t o the attentio n o f th e jury . An d grea t deferenc e i s give n t o th e tria l judge's discretio n b y th e appellat e courts . Furthermore , i n lon g an d complicated cases , juries ar e sometime s confuse d o r annoye d b y the court's instructions . I t i s therefor e questionabl e whethe r jurie s ar e generally scrupulou s i n heedin g th e court' s instruction . But court s canno t simpl y giv e u p whe n ther e ha s bee n pretria l publicity abou t a case. As Judge Charle s Clar k wrote in 1951 : "Trial by newspaper ma y b e unfortunate , bu t i t i s not ne w and , unles s th e court accepts the standard judicial hypothesis that cautioning instructions are effective, crimina l trials in large metropolitan cities may well prove impossible." 36 Then , a s now, th e problem wa s not a new phenomenon. Year s before , Justic e Holme s ha d pointe d ou t tha t i f th e mere opportunit y fo r prejudic e o r corruptio n wa s enoug h t o rais e a presumption tha t the y existed , i t woul d b e har d t o maintai n jur y trials. Another judge pointed out: "The mere fact of unfavorable pub licity does not of itself raise a presumption of prejudice. The prejudice must hav e manifeste d itsel f s o a s to corrup t du e process." 37

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 35 Other Protective Procedures A numbe r o f othe r availabl e procedure s ar e intende d t o preven t o r correct interferenc e b y the press with fai r trials . Blue ribbon juries— special panel s usuall y compose d o f a mor e sophisticated , better educated clas s tha n th e ordinary jury—hav e bee n use d occasionall y to ensur e tha t th e carefu l rule s o f th e cour t contro l th e tria l o f a n unusually complicate d o r controversia l case . I t ha s als o bee n sug gested that a defendant who fears a prejudiced jur y should be allowed to choose trial by a judge or by a panel of judges.38 This is predicated on the viewpoint tha t judges can be exposed to outside pressures and nevertheless tr y case s fairly . Sometime s th e law does allo w a defen dant t o waive his constitutional righ t t o trial b y jury, but where it is permitted th e court an d prosecution mus t agree . Recently, court s hav e resorte d increasingl y t o sequesterin g jurie s to avoi d exposur e t o publication s durin g trials . Thi s procedur e i s expensive, disruptive , an d takes it s toll o n jurors. Whether jurie s resent th e governmen t o r develo p hostilit y towar d th e defendan t fo r inconveniencing the m i s beyond proof . Bu t one thing is sure: no one likes the practice an d it remains a device o f las t resort , use d onl y in unusual cases . In case s wher e extraordinar y publi c pressur e surroundin g a cas e has injecte d outsid e influence s int o th e trial atmosphere , a jailed defendant ma y seek habea s corpu s relie f wher e al l else fails. However , this remed y i s technical, cumbersome , prolonged , an d use d onl y i n flagrant situations . Nevertheless, it can be used (as it was in the Sheppard case ) t o allo w th e Supreme Cour t t o scrutiniz e th e atmospher e surrounding state court trials and assure that constitutional standard s of du e process hav e bee n met. CORRECTIVE PROCEDURE S

Courts ma y declare a mistrial, revers e a conviction, o r orde r a new trial o n the ground tha t pres s influenc e ha s deprived a defendant o f a fai r trial . Ne w trials hav e bee n grante d fo r suc h incident s a s mob dominance durin g trial , an unfair atmospher e i n the court itself, and

36 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial misconduct o n th e par t o f jurors . Court s ar e mor e likel y t o gran t new trials where the government contributed to the adverse publicity. Of course , these procedures ar e not cures ; they ar e merely device s to undo injustice s alread y done . In essence, American la w does not guarantee tha t i t will always be possible t o find a n impartia l jury . Indeed , suc h a goal migh t b e un attainable. However, it does aspire to assure that no defendant's con viction wil l b e uphel d i f th e jur y wa s no t impartial . Where pres s mischie f befor e th e tria l doe s contaminat e th e pro ceedings, courts hav e reverse d th e convictio n rathe r tha n punis h th e press. The classic example o f this was a 195 1 Florida case , Shepherd v. Florida, 39 wher e sensationalisti c pres s coverag e cause d th e Su preme Cour t t o revers e a stat e crimina l conviction . Fou r "Negr o men" (s o describe d b y th e court ) ha d bee n charge d wit h rapin g a white girl . Virulen t an d persisten t pretria l newspape r coverag e re ported a confessio n (neve r offere d a t th e trial ) an d calle d fo r th e death penalty . Th e fevere d pres s coverag e surroundin g th e case contributed t o a mo b mentalit y tha t resulte d i n torche d home s an d vi gilantism. O n th e basi s o f th e tria l record , th e Suprem e Cour t condemned th e circumstance s o f th e conviction , notin g tha t thes e prejudicial influence s o n th e jur y le d t o th e inescapabl e conclusio n that th e defendant s wer e prejudged a s guilty. Conviction s lik e these, Associate Justic e Rober t Jackso n wrote , d o no t mee t civilize d con cepts o f du e proces s o f law . Pretrial publicit y doe s no t alway s lea d t o convictions , o r eve n t o prejudice. Sometimes a press report actually becomes critical evidence (exculpatory o r incriminatory ) a t a late r trial ; sometime s i t inform s the communit y wit h extrajudicia l informatio n tha t th e subsequen t jury i s not abl e to consider. Neithe r Jack Ruby' s braze n execution of Lee Harve y Oswald , no r Rodne y King' s infamou s beatin g b y over zealous Lo s Angele s policemen , no r O . J . Simpson' s live-broadcas t Bronco rid e wer e th e first o r onl y exampl e o f televisio n pervasivel y portraying act s tha t jurie s migh t late r b e calle d upo n t o weig h a s evidence a t a crimina l trial . The U.S . Supreme Cour t deal t wit h thi s very issu e i n a 196 3 case. 40 The felon y murde r convictio n an d deat h sentenc e i n tha t case —

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 37 involving a killin g durin g th e cours e o f a ban k robbery—wer e re versed becaus e the trial judge improperly denie d the defendant's motion fo r a change o f venue . The defendant's confessio n whil e i n jail was filmed and broadcast widely and repeatedly over local television. Jurors wh o ha d see n th e film wer e no t challenged , an d th e judg e allowed the m t o sit . This episode , th e Suprem e Cour t ruled , denie d due proces s o f la w an d th e basi c righ t t o b e trie d i n cour t unde r constitutionally circumscribe d conditions , an d not in jail. The proble m cause d b y an unruly an d disruptive pres s at the trial itself i s easie r t o cure , an d fo r th e pas t thirt y year s th e guideline s have bee n clear . Th e bedla m i n notoriou s case s suc h a s the Haupt mann tria l is clearly inconsistent wit h civilized notions about judicia l decorum. I t is easier fo r courts t o control th e press in the courtroom than i n th e community , wher e control s migh t violat e th e Firs t Amendment. Sinc e the landmark Sheppard case, 41 convictions are reversed whe n pres s misconduc t occur s a t the trial itself . The Suprem e Cour t issue d it s Sheppard decisio n o n June 6 , 1966. In a n opinio n delivere d b y the n Associat e Justic e To m Clark , th e Court hel d tha t th e tria l judg e i n th e Sheppard cas e ha d faile d t o protect th e defendant fro m "massive , pervasive an d prejudicial pub licity tha t attende d hi s prosecution, " an d tha t therefor e Sheppar d "did no t receiv e a fai r tria l consisten t wit h th e Due Process Claus e of th e Fourteent h Amendment. " Thi s wa s not th e appea l o f a con tempt convictio n agains t th e press , bu t rathe r a n appea l o f th e defendant's convictio n itself , lon g afte r i t ha d bee n originall y uphel d (the origina l tria l wa s in 1954) . Justice Clar k pointe d ou t tha t al l aspect s o f th e problem o f prej udicial publicity wer e present: participation b y public officials, phys ical intrusion s o n the participants t o th e trial (includin g th e defens e counsel, th e defendant , an d th e jury), an d intensiv e nationa l cover age. All these elements combined, alon g with "virulen t publicity, " to create a n environmen t i n the courtroom whic h th e Cour t describe d as a "carnival atmosphere " an d a "Roman holida y for the news media." Clark the n discusse d th e lega l doctrin e appropriat e t o thi s situa tion: " A responsibl e pres s ha s alway s bee n regarde d a s th e hand -

38 • The Free Tress, the Fair and Public Trial maiden o f effectiv e judicia l administration , especiall y i n th e crimina l field," h e wrote, pointing ou t tha t "Th e pres s doe s no t simpl y publis h information abou t trial s bu t guard s agains t th e miscarriag e o f justic e by subjectin g th e police , prosecutors , an d judicia l processe s t o exten sive publi c scrutin y an d criticism. " H e note d th e unwillingnes s o f th e Supreme Cour t t o us e it s contemp t powe r t o limi t directl y th e tra ditional freedo m o f th e new s medi a t o repor t abou t th e proces s o f justice. However , h e adde d th e qualificatio n tha t lega l trial s canno t be carrie d ou t lik e elections , throug h th e us e o f meetin g halls , radios, and newspapers . H e reminde d u s tha t th e Suprem e Cour t ha s alway s insisted tha t crimina l case s mus t trie d i n a publi c tribunal , "fre e o f prejudice, passion , excitement , an d tyrannica l power. " Th e Court' s description o f th e detail s i n th e Sheppard cas e demonstrate d tha t th e requisite calmnes s an d solemnit y o f th e courtroo m wer e absent , an d that ther e wer e goo d reason s t o believ e tha t th e jury' s verdic t migh t not hav e bee n base d solel y o n th e evidenc e receive d i n ope n court . The Cour t adde d tha t i t i s not necessar y t o sho w specifi c prejudic e in decidin g thi s question , notin g tha t ou r lega l syste m "ha s alway s endeavored t o preven t eve n th e probabilit y o f unfairness. " Justic e Clark hel d tha t i n th e Sheppard cas e "th e totalit y o f circumstances " demonstrated a lac k o f th e requisit e tria l fairness . Th e Cour t als o pointed ou t tha t th e available , ordinar y lega l technique s fo r filtering out prejudic e a t tria l wer e no t use d b y th e judg e i n tha t case . Th e motion fo r a chang e o f venu e wa s denied ; th e jur y wa s no t seques tered; moreover , n o adequat e instruction s wer e give n t o th e jur y no t to rea d o r liste n t o publishe d new s o f th e case . Th e tria l judg e di d not mak e appropriat e arrangement s t o contro l th e action s o f th e news media ; thus , Sheppar d wa s deprive d a t hi s tria l o f th e prope r judicial serenit y an d cal m t o whic h h e wa s entitled . The Cour t place d th e responsibilit y fo r balancin g th e competin g demands o f th e pres s an d th e la w wit h th e courts . Justic e Clark' s opinion referre d t o a Ne w Jerse y Suprem e Cour t murde r case 42 tha t led t o a cour t rul e governin g th e conduc t o f stat e lawyer s an d police . The rul e dre w extensiv e nationa l commen t an d cause d considerabl e concern amon g loca l pres s an d publi c officials . I t banne d prosecutor s and thei r lawye r staf f member s fro m makin g statement s t o new s me -

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 39 dia abou t allege d confession s o r inculpator y admission s b y th e ac cused, o r t o th e effec t tha t th e cas e i s "ope n an d shut " agains t th e defendant, o r wit h referenc e t o th e defendant' s prio r conviction s o r arrests. Statement s suc h a s thes e hav e th e capacit y t o interfer e wit h a fai r tria l an d woul d no t b e countenanced . Wit h respec t t o prose cutors, detectives , an d member s o f loca l police department s wh o ar e not member s o f th e bar , suc h statement s woul d b e deeme d a n im proper interferenc e wit h th e du e administratio n o f crimina l justic e and woul d constitut e conduc t unbecomin g a police officer , warrant ing disciplin e b y proper authorities . The ba n applie d t o defens e counse l a s well . The righ t o f th e stat e to a fair tria l was not t o b e impeded o r dilute d by " a defense lawyer' s out-of-court assertion s t o new s medi a o n th e subjec t o f hi s client' s innocence. Th e prope r plac e t o settl e th e issu e i s th e courtroom . Comments b y th e defens e befor e o r durin g th e tria l tha t hav e th e capacity t o influenc e potentia l o r actua l juror s t o th e possibl e prej udice o f th e stat e would b e impermissible . The New Jersey judge who issue d the rule concluded tha t it would not imping e upo n freedo m o f th e press. The implicatio n o f his opin ion wa s clear : th e ba r an d th e polic e ha d bette r clea n thei r ow n houses throug h interna l control s o r th e court s would d o i t for them , through thei r judicia l power s o f contemp t an d thei r contro l ove r th e bar, wit h th e powe r t o censur e an d eve n t o disba r attorneys . A fundamenta l erro r i n th e Sheppard case , accordin g t o Justic e Clark, wa s th e tria l court' s failur e t o us e it s powe r t o contro l pub licity. Available procedures, he ventured, "would have been sufficien t to guarante e Sheppar d a fai r trial. " Th e Cour t enumerate d specifi c steps that th e trial judge could hav e taken t o avoid press interferenc e with th e judicia l process . The presenc e o f th e pres s coul d hav e bee n restricted whe n i t appeare d t o b e actin g i n a prejudicia l o r raucou s manner. Th e tria l cour t shoul d hav e adopte d stric t rule s governin g reporters' use of the courtroom. The number o f reporters could have been limited , an d thei r physica l locatio n coul d hav e bee n se t up i n a less disruptive way. The press's conduct i n the courtroom itsel f coul d have bee n controlle d mor e strictl y b y the judge . But mainly , Justic e Clar k believed , th e cour t shoul d hav e mad e

40 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial efforts t o contro l "th e releas e o f leads , information , an d gossi p t o the pres s b y police officers , witnesse s an d th e counse l fo r bot h sides. " Emphasizing tha t th e inflammator y publicit y derive d mor e directl y from th e court' s lac k o f contro l tha n fro m th e press' s overindulgence , Clark's opinio n suggeste d tha t th e tria l judg e "migh t wel l hav e pro scribed extra-judicia l statement s b y an y lawyers , party , witness , o r court officia l whic h divulge d prejudicia l matters. " Ha d th e judge , other cour t officers , an d polic e place d th e interes t o f justic e first, th e news medi a soo n woul d hav e learne d t o b e conten t wit h th e tas k o f reporting th e case a s it unfolded i n the courtroom, rathe r tha n piecin g it togethe r fro m extrajudicia l statements . Observing tha t th e reversa l o f a cas e i s merel y a palliativ e an d no t a cure , th e Clar k opinio n calle d upo n tria l court s t o "tak e suc h step s by rul e an d regulatio n tha t wil l protec t thei r processe s fro m preju dicial outsid e interferences . Neithe r prosecutors , counse l fo r defense , the accused , witnesses , cour t staff , no r enforcemen t officer s comin g under th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t shoul d b e permitte d t o frustrat e its function." 43 Indicatin g tha t th e ba r shoul d clea n it s ow n hous e before i t criticize s th e press , th e majorit y opinio n concluded : "Col laboration betwee n counse l an d th e pres s a s t o informatio n affectin g the fairnes s o f a crimina l tria l i s no t onl y subjec t t o regulation , bu t is highl y censurabl e an d worth y o f disciplinar y measures. " It i s more difficul t t o evaluat e th e impac t o f publicit y i n those case s where ther e ar e n o disruption s i n th e courtroo m b y reporter s o r b y camera equipment , bu t onl y th e fea r tha t th e ver y presenc e o f th e unseen ey e o f television , decorousl y an d quietl y transmittin g th e im age o f th e tria l t o a vas t audience , i n an d o f itsel f i s prejudicial. Tha t subject i s treate d i n chapte r 4 . THE RIGH T T OA

PUBLI C TRIA

L

The Sixt h Amendment' s equall y venerabl e an d importan t guarante e that i n al l crimina l prosecution s th e accuse d mus t hav e a "public " trial an d "a n impartia l jury " i s n o les s vita l a par t o f a democrati c society. Originall y a protection agains t th e federal government , i t was applied t o th e state s throug h absorptio n int o th e Fourteent h Amend -

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 41 ment. 44 Thi s provisio n als o raise s questions , eve n amon g it s adher ents. Ca n a n informe d jur y als o b e a n impartia l one ? Wh o ha s th e right—in additio n t o th e accused—t o clai m acces s t o a courtroo m based o n th e publi c tria l guarantee ? Th e press ? Th e public ? The concep t o f a publi c tria l i s a carryove r fro m Englis h commo n law. Tw o differen t lega l procedure s develope d i n Europ e an d En gland. I n traditiona l Roma n judicia l procedure , examinatio n wa s per formed i n secret . However , i n England , accordin g t o on e note d historian, "th e geniu s o f publicit y dominate s ove r it s antagonist." 45 One featur e o f commo n la w Englis h justic e i s tha t al l judicia l trial s are hel d i n ope n court , t o whic h th e publi c ha s fre e access. 46 Englis h lawmakers determine d tha t publicit y i n th e administratio n o f th e la w on th e whol e wa s wort h mor e t o societ y tha n i t cost. 47 The phras e public trial i s no t foun d i n Si r Edwar d Coke' s Cora mentary on the Magna Charta no r i n Si r Joh n Fortescue' s De Laudibus Legum Angliae (1464-1470) ; no r i s it mentioned i n the Englis h Petition o f Righ t i n 162 1 o r th e 168 9 Bil l of Rights . It was considere d a commo n la w privilege . Although th e exac t dat e o f origi n o f th e publi c tria l righ t i n Englis h common la w i s unknown, 4 8 severa l document s provid e insigh t int o its history . A n earl y referenc e t o th e righ t t o a publi c tria l i s foun d in Si r Thoma s Smith' s De Republica Anglorum (1565). 49 Smit h wrote, i n th e parlanc e o f th e times , "Evidence s o f writinges b e shewd , witnesses b e swor n an d hear d befor e the m [th e jury ] no t afte r th e fashion o f th e civil l la w bu t openly , tha t no t onl y th e Judges , th e parties an d a s many a s b e present ma y hear e wha t ec h witnesse doet h say." H e als o wrot e tha t a tria l "i s doon e openli e i n th e presenc e o f the Judges , th e Justices , th e enquest , th e prisone r an d s o mani e a s will o r ca n com e s o near e a s t o hear e it. " I n recountin g crimina l proceedings, Smit h reported : "I n th e town e house , o r i n som e ope n or commo n place , ther e i s a tribunal l o r plac e o f judgemen t mad e aloft upo n th e highes t bench. " Sir Matthe w Hale' s History of the Common Law of England (1670) note s tha t evidenc e i s give n "i n th e ope n cour t an d i n th e presence o f th e parties , counse l an d al l by-standers. " Hal e viewe d this a s a valuabl e feature : "th e excellenc y o f thi s Ope n cours e o f

42 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial evidence to the jury, in presence of the judge, jury, parties, and counsel, an d eve n o f th e advers e witnesses , appear s i n thes e particulars . That i t openly, and no t in private before a commissioner o r two, and a couple of clerks; where, oftentimes witnesse s will deliver that which they wil l b e ashame d t o testif y publickly." 50 Blackstone, citin g Hale , als o applaude d publi c trials : "th e ope n examination o f witnesse s viv a voce , in th e presenc e o f al l mankind , is much mor e conduciv e t o th e clearin g u p o f trut h tha n th e privat e and secre t examinatio n befor e a n office r o r hi s clerk , i n th e ecclesi astical court s an d al l tha t hav e borrowe d thei r procedur e fro m th e civil law : wher e a witnes s ma y frequentl y depos e tha t i n privat e which h e wil l b e ashame d t o testif y i n a publi c an d solem n tribu nal." 51 The chang e t o ope n trial s wa s provoke d a s muc h b y a desir e t o eliminate comman d influence s b y authoritie s a s t o secur e publicit y about trials. It seems that Parliamentary opponents of the Star Chamber di d no t regar d it s secrec y an d close d proceeding s a s particularl y reprehensible; the y wer e mor e concerne d abou t it s unchecke d an d arbitrary exercis e o f power . Neither th e Petition o f Right, presented jus t before th e Star Cham ber wa s abolished , no r th e Bil l o f Rights , enacte d whe n th e Stuar t dynasty wa s expelled , ha s anythin g t o sa y abou t th e righ t o f publi c trials. Similarly , the famous speec h of Lor d Andove r agains t the Star Chamber doe s not mention secrecy of trials. Thus, while an open and public tria l i s considere d a histori c safeguar d agains t tyranny , thi s right wa s no t muc h considere d amon g th e note d historian s o f th e "rights o f Englishmen. " A s lega l historia n Ma x Radi n noted , "I t i s likely that th e word 'public ' was introduced int o the list of the rights of fre e me n fro m th e statement s i n HAL E and BLACKSTONE , without very muc h concret e exampl e i n min d o f wha t publicit y implie d an d without a clea r ide a o f wha t i t wa s mean t t o secure." 52 Nevertheless, th e American colonists , steepe d i n Hal e an d Black stone, certainl y considere d th e ope n an d publi c tria l o f th e Englis h common la w a venerabl e liberty . A right t o speed y an d publi c tria l found formulatio n i n the laws of almost every state, either in charters or i n stat e constitutions , and , o f course , i n th e federa l constitution .

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 43 According t o Radin , "Wha t happened , then , wa s tha t a traditiona l feature o f Englis h trials , mor e o r les s accidental , wa s carrie d ove r into th e America n system , an d sinc e i t wa s relativel y ancient , wa s treated wit h th e reverenc e whic h s o man y othe r element s o f th e com mon la w received." 53 What o f th e righ t t o a fair , a s wel l a s public , trial ? Willia m th e Conqueror brough t thi s practic e t o England . Afte r th e Norma n Con quest, primitiv e crimina l processes , suc h a s tria l b y ordeal , graduall y declined an d th e moder n notio n o f tria l b y jur y aros e i n thei r place . This metho d o f tryin g case s came no t fro m ancien t customs , bu t fro m the exercis e o f roya l prerogativ e b y th e Frankis h kings , wh o se t u p inquests t o discove r th e exten t o f roya l right s an d interest s i n th e community, primaril y i n financial matters. 54 Thi s practic e late r in cluded inquirie s int o crimina l offenses . Inquests o r assizes , forerunners o f th e gran d jury , becam e th e usua l procedure i n crimina l matter s b y th e en d o f th e twelft h century . In dictment b y a n inques t create d a presumptio n o f guilt . B y th e thir teenth century , t o giv e the accuse d a chance t o rebut th e presumption , he wa s aske d t o "pu t himsel f upo n th e country. " Thi s mean t tha t the accuse d woul d accep t th e decisio n o f th e communit y o n th e ques tion o f guilt , a s i t wa s give n b y hi s neighbor s o n th e jury . Th e exac t time whe n thi s second , adjudicativ e (a s oppose d t o investigative ) jur y developed i s no t known . B y 1302 , th e defendan t wa s permitte d t o challenge an y juro r wh o sa t o n th e "peti t jury. " The member s o f bot h type s o f earl y jurie s wer e chose n specificall y for thei r knowledg e o f th e event s i n th e case , no t fo r thei r ignoranc e of relevan t information—a s i s th e standar d today . B y th e sixteent h century, however , th e histori c "witness " styl e o f jur y gav e wa y t o a procedure i n whic h th e litigant s produce d th e evidenc e upo n whic h a jur y free fro m prio r informatio n abou t th e issu e relied . Thi s tech nique, originall y use d onl y i n civi l cases , wa s extende d t o crimina l trials b y 1700. 55 The peti t jur y gaine d independenc e a s a resul t o f th e decisio n i n BusheWs case. 56 I n tha t case , a juro r wh o ignore d a directio n b y th e Crown t o brin g i n a verdic t o f guilt y wa s jaile d afte r th e jur y ha d acquitted th e defendant . Th e juro r brough t a habea s corpu s petitio n

44 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial and wa s freed . Thereafter , th e jur y wa s fre e t o decid e a s conscienc e and th e evidenc e warranted , no t a s th e governmen t commanded . In a landmar k cas e in 1649 , John Lilburne , accuse d o f high treaso n before a Specia l Commissio n o f Oye r an d Terminer , demande d an d received th e righ t t o a publi c trial. 57 I n anothe r renowne d cas e i n 1681, a judg e responde d t o th e jury' s reques t i n th e Ear l o f Shaftes bury's tria l t o examin e witnesse s i n private : "Bu t certainl y i t i s th e best way , bot h fo r th e king , an d fo r you , tha t ther e should , i n a cas e of thi s nature , b e a n ope n an d plai n examinatio n o f witnesses , tha t all th e worl d ma y se e wha t the y say." 58 Althoug h th e jur y protested , fearing prejudic e t o th e kin g i f the examination s wer e conducted pub licly, th e judg e hel d hi s position . "I t wil l b e n o prejudic e t o th e kin g to hav e th e evidenc e hear d openl y i n court ; o r els e th e kin g woul d never desir e it. " Opinions aboun d abou t th e origina l justificatio n fo r a publi c trial . After reviewin g th e lac k o f prisoners ' right s i n seventeenth-centur y England, on e commentato r conclude d tha t Hal e wa s thinkin g no t o f the right s o f th e accuse d whe n h e recorded hi s history o f the commo n law o f England , bu t rathe r o f th e effectivenes s o f th e tria l process. 59 The publi c tria l guarante e i n Englis h commo n la w wa s create d b y officials an d mos t likel y expedite d convictions , no t acquittals. 60 Th e records o f Lilburne' s 164 9 tria l (i n which th e accuse d demande d an d received th e righ t t o a public trial ) an d th e Ear l o f Shaftesbury' s 168 1 trial (wher e th e judg e overrule d th e jury' s reques t t o examin e wit nesses i n private) , however , disput e th e theor y tha t th e guarante e o f a publi c tria l serve d onl y t o expedit e th e tria l process . Other lega l historian s hav e conclude d tha t a publi c tria l serve s t o benefit th e accused . Accordin g t o Joe l Prentis s Bishop , "I n som e cir cumstances, onl y b y a n ope n tria l ca n fai r dealin g b e secure d t o on e unjustly pursued." 6 1 Witnesse s wil l b e les s ap t t o li e i n public , an d thus defendant s wrongl y accuse d wil l benefi t fro m publi c trials . "Evi l men shrin k fro m th e light ; an d th e fea r fro m exposur e ma y restrai n them i n publi c fro m wha t the y woul d gladl y d o i n private. " Th e American constitutiona l commentato r Thoma s M . Coole y elaborate d on thi s them e o f protectin g persona l liberty : "Th e requiremen t o f a public tria l i s fo r th e benefi t o f th e accused , tha t th e publi c ma y se e

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 45 that h e i s fairl y deal t an d no t unjustl y condemned , an d tha t th e pres ence o f intereste d spectator s ma y kee p hi s trier s keenl y aliv e t o a sense o f thei r responsibilit y an d t o th e importanc e o f thei r func tions." 6 2 The colonist s i n Americ a firmly believe d i n tria l b y jury . Durin g the Revolution , th e Continenta l Congres s grante d t o th e inhabitant s of eac h colon y th e righ t t o publi c trial s b y "thei r peer s o f th e vici nage," 6 3 th e righ t t o counsel , an d th e right t o present witnesses. These rights als o appeare d i n stat e constitutions , an d wer e eventuall y in corporated int o th e federa l constitution . Mos t stat e constitution s als o grant th e accuse d th e righ t t o a speedy , public , jur y trial . Th e basi c aim o f thes e constitutiona l right s i s t o ensur e th e righ t t o a fai r tria l in ope n court . "Toda y almos t withou t exceptio n ever y stat e b y con stitution, statute , o r judicia l decisio n require s tha t al l crimina l trial s be ope n t o th e public." 6 4 Although par t o f ou r commo n la w heritage , it was no t alway s clea r to who m th e righ t o f publi c tria l belongs . Sinc e th e Constitutio n speaks o f thi s righ t wit h respec t t o th e crimina l defendant , i t ap peared t o b e hi s o r he r persona l privilege . Ye t som e case s implie d that thi s privileg e als o belong s t o th e publi c a t large. 65 Eve n i f th e public doe s hav e a righ t t o b e presen t a t crimina l trials , however , w e have n o histori c workin g definitio n o f "th e public. " Th e audienc e a t most trial s i s compose d o f courthous e denizen s an d unemploye d cit izens intereste d i n observin g th e working s o f justice , o r thos e wit h a personal interes t i n wha t i s transpiring . Suc h limite d publi c obser vation o f crimina l trials , alon g wit h pres s coverag e reachin g a wide r audience, i s rationalize d a s a mean s o f instillin g publi c respec t an d confidence i n th e justic e system . American constitutiona l histor y provide s perspective—bu t no t answers—to curren t quagmires . Th e Constitutio n wa s adopte d onl y after agreemen t wa s reache d t o amen d i t t o includ e a bil l o f rights . Concerned abou t potentia l abuse s o f governmen t power , citizen s wanted a documen t reservin g specifi c right s t o th e people. 66 Jame s Madison wa s electe d t o Congres s o n th e platfor m tha t h e woul d propose a bil l o f rights , an d h e introduce d a lis t o f amendment s t o the Hous e o f Representative s i n th e Firs t Congress. 67 Thes e amend -

46 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial ments included severa l o f th e provision s alread y adopte d i n existin g state constitutions. Although considerable debat e ensued over several other amendments , ther e wa s littl e controvers y ove r th e passag e o f what eventuall y becam e th e Sixt h Amendment . The Annals of Congress indicat e tha t th e meanin g o f a "public " trial wa s no t debated . O n Augus t 11 , 1789 , th e Firs t Congres s ad dressed th e sevent h propositio n (late r th e Sixt h Amendment) . "Th e committee the n proceede d t o conside r th e sevent h proposition i n the words following : i n all criminal prosecution s th e accuse d shal l enjo y the righ t t o a speed y an d publi c trial." 68 The onl y debat e concerne d the righ t o f th e defendan t t o dela y th e trial , bu t thi s righ t wa s no t passed. Th e right t o b e tried i n the stat e where the offens e wa s committed was adopted an d the provision was amended. The House then adjourned, conductin g n o furthe r discussio n o n the amendment, an d no debat e abou t th e righ t t o a publi c trial . Th e lac k o f debat e ca n be attribute d t o th e fac t tha t th e righ t t o a publi c tria l ha d alread y been include d b y many state s i n thei r ow n constitutions . After it s approva l i n th e House , th e provisio n wa s considere d b y the Senate . Althoug h ther e wer e change s mad e t o th e othe r amend ments, the provisio n fo r th e righ t t o a public tria l remaine d intact. 69 No oppositio n wa s reported, 70 an d th e provisio n ultimatel y becam e the Sixt h Amendment. Th e states ratified thes e amendments in 1791. The righ t t o a public tria l ha s bee n documente d i n this country a s early a s 167 7 i n th e Concessions and Agreements of West New Jersey', which ha d bee n conveye d t o Quaker s intereste d i n establishin g a settlemen t i n th e Ne w Worl d a s a wa y t o escap e persecutio n i n Restoration England. 71 On e of these Quakers, William Penn, became a truste e fo r Edwar d B y Hinge. H e sponsore d th e settlemen t i n Bur lington i n 167 7 an d becam e instrumenta l i n shapin g th e politica l ideas i n West Ne w Jersey. I t i s unclear whethe r Pen n himself , a s his biographers claim , o r Bylling e drafte d th e Concessions. 72 Tha t doc ument adopte d Quake r notion s abou t governmen t an d contain s clauses guaranteein g privat e rights , includin g provision s tha t trial s should be conducted fairly. Chapte r XXIII states: "That in all publick courts o f justic e fo r tryal s o f causes , civil o r criminal , an y person o r persons, inhabitant s o f th e sai d Provinc e ma y freel y com e into , an d

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 47 attend th e sai d courts , an d hea r an d b e present , a t al l o r an y suc h tryals a s shal l b e ther e ha d o r passed , tha t justic e ma y no t b e don e in a corner no r i n an y cover t manner. " In 1776 , th e Pennsylvani a Declaratio n o f Right s provide d fo r a speedy publi c tria l b y a n impartia l jur y o f th e count y i n al l crimina l cases.73 The Vermon t Declaratio n o f Right s (1777 ) als o containe d a provision protectin g th e righ t to a public trial. Othe r state s followe d suit, s o that b y the time Madison drafte d hi s proposed amendments , the idea o f a public trial had alread y bee n accepted b y the states and their citizens . While thi s documen t containe d th e firs t guarante e o f th e righ t t o a publi c tria l i n th e Unite d States , th e belie f i n th e righ t t o a publi c trial wa s no t a ne w concept . Althoug h th e Quaker s ma y hav e bee n inspired b y th e injustice s the y suffere d i n Restoratio n England , th e concept o f a righ t t o a publi c tria l originate d i n th e earl y Englis h common la w syste m upo n whic h ou r country' s law s wer e based . The U.S . Supreme Cour t ha s wrestle d repeatedl y wit h th e concep t of th e publi c trial . I n on e earl y case , i t hel d tha t "whateve r othe r benefits th e guarante e t o a n accuse d tha t hi s tria l b e conducte d i n public ma y confe r upo n society , th e guarante e ha s alway s bee n recognized a s a safeguar d agains t an y attemp t t o emplo y ou r court s a s instruments o f persecution . Th e knowledg e tha t ever y crimina l tria l is subject t o contemporaneous revie w in the forum o f public opinio n is an effectiv e restrain t o n judicia l power." 74 I n a 198 0 opinion , th e Court state d tha t "th e earl y histor y o f ope n trial s i n part reflect s th e widespread acknowledgment , lon g befor e behaviora l scientists , tha t public trial s hav e a significan t communit y therapeuti c value . Eve n without th e expert s t o fram e th e concep t i n words , peopl e sense d from experienc e an d observatio n that , especiall y i n th e administra tion o f crimina l justice , the mean s use d t o achiev e justic e mus t hav e the suppor t derive d fro m publi c acceptanc e o f bot h th e produc t an d its results." 75 The publi c tria l questio n ha s bee n considere d b y th e Suprem e Court i n a series of decision s over the past twenty years arising fro m state crimina l prosecution s i n Ne w York, 76 Virginia, 77 Massachu setts,78 Georgia, 79 an d California. 80 Th e first o f thes e cases , Gannett

48 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 81 aros e ou t o f a pretrial hearin g to suppres s evidence (confession s an d certai n physica l evidence ) i n a murde r prosecution i n Rochester, New York. The trial judge had granted the defendants' motio n t o exclud e th e pres s an d publi c o n th e groun d that th e inevitabl e publicit y woul d preclud e thei r gettin g a fair trial . Neither th e prosecuto r no r th e reporte r i n attendanc e whe n th e motion wa s mad e objected , thoug h th e Gannet t company , a newspape r publisher, late r appeale d th e trial judge' s decisio n t o close the court room. The late Justice Potter Stewar t wrote the Court's majority opinion , holding tha t "member s o f th e publi c hav e n o constitutiona l righ t under th e Sixt h an d Fourteent h Amendment s t o atten d crimina l tri als." Asid e fro m th e fac t tha t th e publi c tria l provisio n o f th e Sixt h Amendment doe s no t mentio n pretria l proceedings , the Cour t ruled , the public interest in the trial was adequately preserved b y the public availability of the transcript an d the right of the press to report abou t the trial itself. Incidentally, th e Cour t adde d th e observation tha t th e Sixth Amendmen t righ t o f a defendan t t o a publi c tria l "doe s no t guarantee th e righ t t o compe l a privat e trial. " Th e righ t t o waiv e a constitutional right does not include the right to insist on the opposite of tha t right . Recognizing the public interest in the Sixth Amendment, the Cour t ruled, doe s not creat e a constitutional righ t on the part o f the public. "In a n adversar y syste m o f crimina l justice , there i s a public interes t in the openness o f the administration o f justice. The interest includes assuring the impartiality o f trials and officer s o f the court, deterrenc e to perjury, elicitin g witnesses, and educatin g u s about th e justice system. That interes t i s protected b y the participant s i n the litigation. " A concurrin g opinio n b y th e lat e Justic e Lewi s Powel l raise d a question tha t woul d lea d t o furthe r litigatio n regardin g th e consti tutionality o f closure . Agreein g tha t th e publi c tria l featur e o f th e Sixth Amendmen t i s fo r th e benefi t o f defendants , h e urge d tha t a reporter's interes t i n the judicia l system , a s an agen t o f the public, is protected b y th e Firs t Amendment . Justic e Powel l admonishe d tha t a flexibl e accommodatio n o f Firs t an d Sixt h Amendmen t right s i s desired, i n whic h neithe r i s subordinat e t o th e other , an d tha t tria l

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 49 judges shoul d pursu e ever y mean s t o protec t defendants ' right s t o fair trial s without impingin g on the press's right to cover those trials. Justice William Rehnquis t use d hi s concurring opinio n t o disagre e with Justice Powell, urging that the First Amendment creates no right of acces s t o judicia l o r othe r governmenta l proceedings . "Th e Con stitution doe s n o mor e tha n assur e th e publi c an d th e pres s equa l access onc e governmen t ha s opene d it s doors. " Othe r justice s weighed i n with thei r thought s o n whethe r th e majority opinio n an swered o r reserved fo r anothe r cas e the questio n o f whether the First Amendment guarantee d th e pres s access . The Suprem e Cour t soo n confronte d tha t ver y question , i n 1980 , in Richmond Newspapers v. Commonwealth of Virginia* 2 There , in the thir d retria l (fourt h trial ) o f a second-degre e murde r cas e i n a rural Virgini a county , th e defendan t move d tha t th e tria l b e close d so prospective witnesses could not be informed abou t what had tran spired a t th e presen t trial . Th e prosecuto r agreed , an d th e judg e cleared th e courtroom . Th e tria l wen t forward . The pres s appeale d th e closure , bu t th e Virgini a Suprem e Cour t upheld th e trial judge . The earlie r Gannett rulin g had bee n criticized both b y the press and in professional journal s as unclear, ambiguous, and confused. I f Gannett determine d tha t the Sixth Amendment public tria l guarante e di d no t giv e th e pres s o r th e publi c acces s t o a pretrial hearing , nor di d i t give the accuse d a right t o a private trial , could a criminal trial be closed at a defendant's reques t without proof that closur e i s necessar y t o assur e a fai r trial ? Th e U.S . Suprem e Court agree d t o revie w th e la w o n thi s subject . In th e Richmond majorit y opinion , th e lat e Chie f Justic e Warre n Burger trace d th e venerable historica l origin s o f the Anglo-America n practice o f publi c trials , a rul e o f th e commo n la w sinc e tim e im memorial: "[A] t th e tim e whe n ou r organi c law s wer e adopted , criminal trials both here and in England had long been presumptively open. This is no quir k o f history ; rather, i t has long been recognize d as a n indispensabl e attribut e o f a n Anglo-America n trial. " Suc h a rule resonate s toda y becaus e i t assure s a therapeuti c communit y in volvement i n th e justic e system ; deter s bias , perjury , an d partiality ; and provide s th e ke y t o publi c respec t an d confidenc e i n it s govern-

50 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial ment. "Th e crucia l prophylactic aspect s o f the administratio n o f justice canno t functio n i n th e dark ; n o communit y catharsi s ca n occu r if justice is done in a corner [or ] in any covert manner." An educative value als o exists, the Cour t noted . "Peopl e i n an open societ y do not demand infallibilit y fro m thei r institutions , but it is difficult fo r the m to accep t wha t the y ar e prohibited fro m observing. " The Cour t endorse d a commen t b y a n earlie r Suprem e Cour t (1947) tha t " A tria l i s a publi c event . Wha t transpire s i n th e court room i s public property," 83 an d thu s "th e publi c has a dee p interes t in trials." 84 I n th e ag e o f th e globa l village , th e medi a ha s becom e the surrogat e fo r th e public ; an d th e Suprem e Cour t ha s acknowl edged tha t "withou t som e protectio n fo r seekin g ou t th e news , free dom o f th e pres s coul d b e eviscerated." 85 Thus , th e Cour t ruled , though no t state d i n th e amendmen t explicitly , "th e righ t t o atten d criminal trial s i s implicit i n th e guarante e o f th e Firs t Amendment. " Absent a prove n overridin g interest , a crimina l cas e mus t b e "ope n to th e public. " Richmond wa s " a watershe d opinion, " i n th e word s o f Associat e Justice John Stevens ' concurring opinion , in determining that th e acquisition o f new s ha s a n independen t constitutiona l protection , dif ferent fro m th e constitutiona l right s o f a n accused . A Massachusetts case soon raised a question about how Richmond should b e interpreted. Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk deal t with a Massachusetts la w requirin g trial judge s t o exclud e th e pres s an d publi c fro m crimina l trial s fo r sex offense s involvin g youn g victims . I n a multiple-rap e trial , th e judge closed hi s courtroom i n order t o preclude potential psycholog ical damag e t o th e thre e underag e crim e victim s wh o ha d waived their rights to statutory closure. When the Globe appealed this ruling to th e U.S . Suprem e Court , th e lat e Justic e Willia m Brennan' s ma jority opinio n hel d that th e stat e mandatory closur e rule violated th e First Amendment . The Cour t concede d tha t th e genera l constitutiona l rul e state d i n Richmond di d no t provid e a n absolute righ t o f acces s t o th e pres s and the public in criminal trials. Rather, an y limitations the states do impose mus t b e justifie d b y weighty , compellin g governmenta l interests—and eve n then , onl y narrowl y tailore d limitation s woul d

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 51 be approved i n a case-by-case balancin g o f interests . Thus, the Massachusetts la w wa s declare d unconstitutional , despit e th e fac t tha t the trial had conclude d (th e defendant wa s acquitted) b y the time the Supreme Cour t issue d it s opinion . Th e stat e ba n wa s to o rigi d t o meet the constitutional requirement o f the Richmond decision , which created a presumption o f openness . Chief Justic e Burge r an d Associat e Justic e Rehnquis t dissented , complaining that the majority opinio n was " a gros s invasion of stat e authority," an d tha t i t create d " a disturbin g paradox " tha t permit s closure t o protec t th e sensibilitie s o f youn g defendants , bu t no t fo r the benefi t o f youn g crim e victims . The issu e aros e agai n i n a 198 4 Georgi a antiracketeerin g case. 86 In Waller v. Georgia, the governmen t move d t o clear th e courtroo m during a pretria l hearin g t o suppres s wireta p evidenc e i n orde r t o protect th e privac y o f peopl e othe r tha n th e defendant s mentione d on th e tapes . Th e cour t close d th e hearin g t o everyon e excep t th e parties, lawyers , witnesses , an d cour t personnel . Th e hearin g laste d seven days , only tw o an d a hal f hour s o f whic h deal t wit h th e wiretaps. After the y were convicted, the defendants appealed , questionin g the propriet y o f th e close d hearing . Justice Lewi s Powell' s majorit y opinio n restate d an d clarifie d th e court's positio n distille d fro m th e prio r recen t cases : "[T]he righ t t o an open trial may give way in certain cases to other rights or interests, such a s th e defendant' s righ t t o a fai r tria l o r th e government' s in terest i n inhibitin g disclosur e o f sensitiv e information . Suc h circum stances wil l b e rare , however , an d th e balanc e o f interest s mus t b e struck wit h specia l care. " Justice Powell als o noted tha t "th e explici t Sixth Amendment righ t of th e accuse d i s no les s protective o f a public tria l tha n th e implici t First Amendmen t righ t o f th e pres s an d public. " Th e value s war ranting thi s public interes t i n open trial s ar e no les s pertinent i n suppression o f evidenc e proceedings , Justic e Powel l added . Thes e hearings ofte n ar e a crucia l componen t i n a cas e an d ca n rais e im portant question s about police and prosecutorial conduct and judicial responsibility. A s wit h trials , ope n hearing s ten d t o discourag e per jury an d encourag e witnesse s t o com e forward . In th e Waller case , th e governmen t faile d t o prov e a n overridin g

52 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial interest i n a close d hearin g an d th e cour t di d no t pursu e alternativ e solutions t o th e proble m raised , an d thu s th e closur e wa s deeme d improper. In 1986 , i n Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, th e Suprem e Cour t considere d anothe r stat e cur b on ful l pres s acces s i n a crimina l trial , agai n involvin g a preliminar y hearing (i t laste d forty-on e days) . I n a crimina l cas e chargin g a nurs e with murderin g twelv e patient s wit h massiv e dose s o f a hear t drug , the tria l judg e though t nationa l publicit y o f th e prosecution' s cas e (no defens e witnesse s wer e called ) woul d hav e bee n prejudicia l an d unfair t o th e defendant . Th e Californi a Suprem e Cour t hel d tha t th e First Amendmen t di d no t appl y becaus e a preliminar y hearin g i s no t a crimina l trial . The U.S . Suprem e Court , i n a majorit y opinio n b y Chie f Justic e Burger, rule d tha t "th e qualifie d Firs t Amendmen t righ t o f acces s t o criminal proceeding s applie s t o preliminar y hearings. " Without a specific finding tha t substantia l prejudic e woul d follo w fro m ope n pro ceedings, no t a mer e "conclusor y assertion, " th e Firs t Amendmen t precludes closure . A dissent b y Justices Rehnquis t an d Steven s argue d that i n preliminar y hearings , i f th e state s us e reasonabl e criteria , lim ited period s o f closur e ma y b e reasonabl e wher e th e demonstrat ed nee d outweigh s th e valu e o f publi c attendance . Th e cour t als o noted tha t th e righ t t o a publi c tria l applie s i n civil as well a s crimina l cases. 87 In 1990 , a federa l appeal s cour t i n Oregon , followin g th e two-par t test—that th e proceedin g traditionall y ha s bee n ope n an d tha t pub licity woul d cur b governmen t misconduct—rule d tha t th e pres s mus t have acces s t o al l document s i n ple a agreement s becaus e suc h agree ments ofte n replac e crimina l trials. 88 The mos t recen t U.S . Suprem e Cour t opinio n o n thi s subjec t (i n 1993) aros e ou t o f a crimina l preliminar y hearin g i n Puert o Rico. 89 A loca l rul e state d tha t al l suc h hearing s wer e t o b e hel d privatel y unless th e defendan t requeste d otherwise . A reporter fo r a local news paper, El Vocero de Puerto Rico, aske d t o attend , wa s denied , an d appealed. In overrulin g th e Puert o Ric o Suprem e Court' s approva l o f th e

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • S3 local privac y rule , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t followe d it s 198 6 Press Enterprise ruling, 90 whic h require d preliminar y hearing s t o b e ope n to th e publi c becaus e the y ar e essentiall y comparabl e t o trials . Th e high cour t reaffirme d it s Press Enterprise rul e that : "I f th e interes t asserted i s th e righ t o f th e accuse d t o a fai r trial , th e preliminar y hearing shal l b e closed onl y if specific findings are made demonstrat ing that , first, ther e i s a substantia l probabilit y tha t th e defendant' s right to a fair tria l will b e prejudiced b y publicity that closur e would prevent and , second , reasonabl e alternative s t o closur e canno t ade quately protec t th e defendant' s fai r tria l rights. " Federal courts do not equate all preliminary proceedings with criminal trials, however. Th e Ninth Circui t denie d investigativ e reporter s the righ t t o examin e seale d FB I searc h warrant s an d affidavit s filed with th e tria l cour t durin g a n ongoin g crimina l investigatio n int o fraud an d briber y i n national defens e contracting. 91 The public need for a n uninhibite d investigatio n outweighe d it s nee d fo r acces s t o these document s befor e th e indictmen t an d trial , th e cour t ruled . While opennes s inform s th e citizenr y an d monitor s governmen t misconduct, court s wil l no t permi t i t t o undermin e o r frustrat e investi gations, invad e people' s privacy , o r jeopardiz e th e integrit y o f th e criminal justice system. For this reason, the secrecy of grand jury and jury deliberations an d internal cour t communications ar e not considered violation s o f th e Firs t Amendment . In th e pas t decade , th e lowe r federa l court s hav e allowe d partia l closures that wer e deeme d justifiabl e an d were "narrowl y tailore d t o serve the interests for which they were ordered." For example, partial closure wa s permitte d t o protec t a witnes s wh o feare d har m o r ha rassment i f required t o testif y i n public, 92 to protect a minor witnes s who wa s embarrasse d t o testif y a t a rap e trial, 93 an d t o avoi d dis order.94 Where ple a agreement s includ e reference s t o ongoin g investiga tions, those references will be protected.95 And, where there is a compelling publi c interes t i n qualifie d closure—a s unde r th e Federa l Victims Protectio n an d Right s Ac t provisio n protectin g childre n b y limiting identificatio n o f childre n victims—nondisclosur e i s permit ted.96

54 • The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial The curren t rul e wa s summe d u p i n tw o Nint h Circui t Cour t o f Appeals decision s reviewin g tw o notoriou s Wes t Coas t crimina l cases. 97 Th e Firs t Amendment' s qualifie d righ t o f acces s t o th e pres s and th e public , whic h applie s t o pretria l proceeding s an d documents , is justified whe n ther e i s a histor y o f opennes s tha t contribute s t o th e proper functionin g o f governmen t proceedings . I n th e cas e o f gran d jury proceedings , fo r example , th e answe r woul d b e no ; wit h peti t juries (thei r operations , no t thei r deliberations ) th e answe r woul d b e yes. Eve n then , thos e wh o wis h t o see k closur e o n fai r tria l ground s must satisf y thre e tests . First , proo f mus t b e offere d tha t withou t closure ther e woul d b e " a substantia l probabilit y tha t irreparabl e damage t o [defendant's ] fair-tria l righ t wil l result. " Pervasiv e public ity alon e wil l no t automaticall y lea d t o tha t conclusion , a s notoriou s cases lik e Watergate an d Absca m proved . Second , a substantia l prob ability mus t b e demonstrate d tha t les s drasti c alternative s t o closur e will no t adequatel y protec t th e righ t t o a fai r trial . Third , closur e must, i n al l likelihood , effectivel y protec t th e defendan t fro m th e harm perceived .

In additio n t o th e defendant' s Sixt h Amendmen t righ t t o a publi c trial, an d th e concomitan t Firs t Amendmen t righ t o f th e publi c a t large, th e Sixt h Amendmen t explicitl y guarantee s defendant s th e rights t o a speed y tria l b y a n impartia l jury , t o b e represente d b y counsel, an d t o confron t witnesse s testifyin g agains t them . Thes e el ements collectivel y hav e bee n referre d t o a s the "righ t t o a fai r trial. " A tria l i s deeme d "fair " i f th e defendan t i s not prejudice d b y th e tria l process itsel f o r b y outsid e influences . The critica l question , then , i s whether th e pervasivenes s an d powe r of television' s coverag e befor e an d durin g trial s necessaril y corrupt s the tria l proces s an d thereb y make s trial s unfair . T o mak e th e ques tion mor e confounding , conside r it s inverse: When shoul d th e ration ale o f a fai r trial—a s contraste d wit h th e righ t t o a publi c trial—b e deemed t o encompas s th e ide a tha t a defendan t ha s th e righ t t o den y the publi c acces s t o a trial ? Regardless o f th e origina l justificatio n o f a publi c trial , th e Su -

The Free Press, the Fair and Public Trial • 55 preme Cour t ha s recognize d a separate publi c righ t o f publicity , distinct fro m th e protectio n o f th e right s o f th e accused . Fo r example , in discussing the concept o f pretrial publicity, the Supreme Court has determined tha t eve n pervasive, adverse publicity doe s not invariabl y lead t o a n unfai r trial. 98 The Constitutio n i s roote d i n fundamenta l principles , bu t thes e principles must evolve with changing realities. New technological advances led to new media, which raised ne w questions whose answer s must b e foun d i n curren t application s o f venerabl e principles . A prizewinning 195 3 essa y o n th e fre e press-fai r tria l questio n effec tively illustrate d ho w th e then-moder n medi a (essentiall y befor e th e era o f television ) affecte d histori c notion s o f a "public " trial : "On e person i n th e cit y stat e o f Athen s coul d b y wor d o f mout h b e th e conscience an d th e gadfly o f the state. The New England tow n meet ing coul d dra w int o th e democrati c proces s th e entir e community . Such personal participatio n i s no longer possible. The media o f mass communication mus t b e th e vita l lin k between th e peopl e an d th e government."99 In it s decisions , th e Suprem e Cour t ha s referre d repeatedl y t o th e constraints o f logi c an d experienc e o n thi s issue . Applying this mea sure of logic and experience today, one must concede that the notio n of wha t i s a "public " tria l ha s flip-floppe d ove r th e centurie s almos t 180 degrees . Practice s hav e gon e fro m secre t proceeding s i n a finite judicial chamber to televised trials reaching a potentially infinite public. I f "contemporaneou s revie w i n th e foru m o f publi c opinion " i s the necessar y restrain t o f governmen t power , a s th e Suprem e Cour t said a s lon g ag o a s 1948, 10° i f a n ope n judicia l syste m i s the mean s by which the people maintain contro l ove r their political institutions, if th e la w i s a n evolvin g proces s tha t mus t absor b lif e a s i t exist s i n the present, and if all these premises are well-established principles— what i s th e prope r rol e o f televisio n i n courtrooms ? Tha t questio n cannot b e answere d definitivel y b y the Constitution' s Bil l of Rights . Instead, w e must tur n t o th e evolvin g standard s o f professional con duct a s the y struggl e t o adap t t o th e ne w situation s raise d b y th e explosive growt h o f communication s technology .

Chapter 3

C A M E R A S I N TH E C O U R T S THE E X P E R I M E N T

W

hen televisio n bega n coverin g publi c affair s a t mid-century , i t was me t a t th e courthous e doo r b y almos t unanimou s profes sional cynicis m abou t it s plac e i n courts . Th e America n Ba r Associ ation an d powerfu l an d prestigiou s judicia l committee s ha d passe d edicts agains t it , an d onl y a fe w state s (Texas , Colorado , an d Oklahoma) permitte d an y coverag e a t all . Inevitably , a cas e eventu ally cam e t o th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t questionin g th e ver y constitu tionality o f camera s i n courts . That landmar k litigation , Estes v. Texas, 1 argue d an d decide d i n 1965, aros e ou t o f a notoriou s swindlin g cas e i n whic h a Tyler , Texas, judg e change d th e venu e an d allowe d a continuance , bu t per mitted televise d broadcast s o f part s o f th e tria l ove r th e defendant' s objection. Afte r a n unrul y two-da y pretria l hearin g o n th e defen dant's motio n t o ba n television , th e tria l proceede d wit h hidde n cam eras broadcastin g liv e onl y th e prosecution' s argument s an d th e verdict, thoug h excerpt s o f th e proceeding s wer e als o show n i n th e news summaries . Th e Texa s appeal s cour t approve d th e tria l judge' s actions. A closel y divide d U.S . Suprem e Cour t reviewe d th e convictio n o n constitutional grounds . Severa l opinion s wer e written , an d th e dif 56

Cameras in the Courts • 57 ferences betwee n the m wer e a s importan t a s the y wer e revealing . Justice To m Clar k wrot e th e Court' s majorit y opinion , i n whic h Chief Justic e Ear l Warren an d Justices William Dougla s an d Arthu r Goldberg concurred . Justic e Potte r Stewar t wrot e a dissentin g opin ion, joine d b y Justice s Willia m Brennan , Hug o Black , an d Byro n White. Th e 4- 4 ti e wa s broke n b y a separat e opinio n fro m Justic e John Harlan , wh o concurre d wit h th e Clar k opinio n bu t expresse d reservations tha t lef t question s abou t th e ultimat e meanin g o f th e Court's ruling . The majority opinio n hel d tha t eve n limite d televisin g an d broad casting violated the defendant's Fourteent h Amendment guarantee of due process o f la w becaus e i t deprive d hi m o f a fair trial . The Cour t noted th e histor y an d meanin g o f bot h th e "public " tria l an d th e "fair" tria l requirement s o f th e Sixt h Amendmen t an d considere d how thos e right s meshe d wit h th e freedo m o f th e pres s guarantee d by the Firs t Amendment . Notin g tha t th e lega l profession feare d th e presence o f televisio n i n courts, th e Cour t conclude d tha t i t was no t necessary t o demonstrat e specifi c prejudice s resultin g from televisio n coverage. Th e simpl e fac t o f th e camera' s presenc e wa s prejudic e enough: "Th e prejudic e o f televisio n ma y b e so subtle that i t escapes the ordinar y method s o f proof , bu t i t woul d graduall y erod e ou r fundamental conceptio n o f trial. " The Cour t disagree d wit h th e argumen t tha t "psychologica l con siderations ar e fo r psychologists , not courts , because they ar e purel y hypothetical." Th e majorit y o f justice s thought , a s Justic e Dougla s wrote, that televisio n creates "insidiou s influences " o n the trial process. Admitting tha t th e impac t o f televisio n canno t b e evaluated ob jectively, th e majorit y nonetheles s decide d tha t it s presence woul d inevitably lea d t o distractions , consciou s o r unconsciou s effect s o n jurors, witnesses, and even on judges (wh o as a rule run for election), as well a s harassment s an d indignitie s fo r defendants . "Tria l b y television," th e majority warned , i s "foreig n t o ou r system, " an d thu s an inherent denia l of due process of law. "No on e could forget," on e opinion proclaimed , "tha t h e was constantl y i n the focu s o f th e 'all seeing eye ' . . . the evi l o f televise d trial s . . . lies not i n the noise an d appearance o f cameras , bu t i n th e tria l participants ' awarenes s tha t they ar e bein g televised. "

58 • Cameras in the Courts Commercialism an d politicalizatio n wer e clearl y o n th e mind s o f some o f th e justices . The y wer e disturbe d tha t th e coverag e o f th e trial wa s interrupte d b y commercia l ads . The y compare d televise d trials t o th e Sovie t Union' s tria l o f th e American U- 2 pilot , Franci s Powers, which had becom e a kind o f televised political theater. They worried tha t a televised tria l wa s aki n t o a trial i n Yanke e Stadium , where showmanshi p woul d overwhel m fairnes s an d essentia l du e process o f law . The y allude d t o recen t mas s publi c trial s i n othe r countries suc h a s Cuba , whic h ha d shocke d th e conscience s o f fair minded observers . Admitting that th e press has bee n " a might y catalyst in awakenin g public interes t i n governmenta l affairs " an d "informin g th e citi zenry," th e Cour t conclude d tha t th e guarantee o f a "public" trial is for th e benefi t o f th e defendant , no t th e press . Televisio n reporter s were to be allowed inside courtrooms, as are print reporters, but they could no t brin g thei r camera s an y mor e tha n newspape r reporter s can brin g typewriters o r printing presses. If this comparison sounde d disingenuous, the Court did add that when the art of the new medium advances to the point that its presence is not hazardous to the fairness of th e trial , "w e wil l hav e anothe r case. " Joining Justice Clark in a concurring opinion that would have gone farther, Justices Warren, Douglas, and Goldber g argued that the "televising o f crimina l trial s i s inherently a denial o f du e process." They urged tha t th e tim e wa s appropriat e "t o mak e a definitiv e appraisa l of televisio n i n th e courtroom. " A dignifie d settin g fo r a tria l i s a crucial componen t o f th e require d essentia l fairnes s o f th e crimina l justice process , the y stated . Televisio n divert s trials ; i t ha s a n inevi table impact o n the participants, singling out those defendants whos e trials ar e covered ; and , th e justice s feared , i t "give s th e publi c th e wrong impression " b y detractin g fro m th e dignit y o f th e trial . Noting the prevailing almost unanimous condemnation of televised court proceedings, the Warren opinion concluded that the "guarante e of a publi c tria l confer s n o specia l benefi t o n th e press , th e radi o industry o r th e television industry . A public trial i s a necessary component o f a n accused' s righ t t o a fair tria l an d th e concept o f publi c trial canno t b e use d t o defen d condition s whic h preven t th e tria l process fro m providin g a fair an d reliabl e determinatio n o f guilt." 2

Cameras in the Courts • 59 The majority o f justice s i n Estes concede d th e usefulnes s o f tele vision, bu t dre w a rhetorica l lin e i n th e dust : it s activitie s ma y no t extend int o th e "hallowe d sanctuary " o f th e courtroom . Ironically , the chie f justic e accompanie d hi s critica l conclusion s abou t th e evi l impact o f camera s wit h a selectio n o f seve n photograph s o f scene s at th e Estes trial . Fo r som e purposes , eve n h e agreed , a pictur e i s worth mor e tha n words . Justice Harlan' s concurrin g opinio n wa s mor e hospitabl e t o th e positive potentials o f television an d more tentative about how far th e Supreme Cour t shoul d g o i n proscribing futur e practices . Hoping t o balance th e nee d t o protec t agains t th e mischievou s potentia l o f television wit h th e nee d t o permi t state s t o experimen t wit h nove l practices, Harla n conclude d tha t onl y "i n thi s case " di d th e forme r considerations outweig h th e latter . H e remarke d tha t i f an d whe n the da y arrive s tha t televisio n ca n cove r courtroo m trial s withou t causing a n unfai r trial , th e Court' s conclusio n i n Estes shoul d b e reexamined. That reservation was key because the dissenting opinion of Justices Stewart, Black, Brennan, and White argued that their colleagues who had joine d i n th e Clar k opinio n ha d wrongfull y allowe d thei r per sonal views to escalate into "a per se constitutional rule." The subject of television' s artfulnes s i s a variable , subjec t t o "continuou s an d unforeseeable change " tha t "ma y b e modifie d tomorrow, " the y noted. Non e o f th e dir e consequence s tha t th e majorit y o f judge s predicted occurre d i n the Estes case, they pointed out ; indeed, "ther e is nothing t o sho w tha t th e tria l proceede d i n an y othe r wa y than i t would hav e proceede d i f camera s an d televisio n ha d no t bee n pres ent." Thes e fou r dissentin g justice s wer e no t willin g t o reac h a con stitutional conclusio n bannin g televisio n o n theoretica l ground s because t o d o s o would impos e o n th e pres s " a burde n o f justifyin g its presence, " contrar y t o th e presumptio n o f th e Firs t Amendment : "If wha t occurre d di d no t depriv e the petitioner o f hi s constitutiona l right t o a fair trial , then th e fac t tha t th e publi c could vie w the proceeding o n televisio n ha s n o constitutiona l significance." 3 To mak e th e dissenter' s poin t emphaticall y clear , Justice Brenna n added hi s ow n final word s t o th e Court' s Estes opinion : "Today' s decision i s not a blanket constitutiona l prohibitio n regardin g the tel-

60 • Cameras in the Courts evising o f stat e crimina l trials. " Bu t a s a practica l matter , i t wa s widely debated by interested observer s whether the Estes ruling really precluded al l television i n all courts. This uncertainty prevaile d fo r a decade an d a half . Some state s conducte d limite d experiment s wit h courtroo m cam eras i n th e year s followin g th e Estes decision . Florida , Washington , and Alabam a wer e th e firs t t o launc h pilo t projects ; soo n ninetee n states allowed som e electronic coverage of court proceedings. Florida particularly allowe d coverage of a variety of cases, civil and criminal, trial an d appellate , i n whol e an d i n part . Ther e wa s gavel-to-gave l coverage o f severa l cases in 1979 , 1980 , and 1981 , including that of serial kille r Te d Bundy , a s wel l a s les s notoriou s cases . Th e publi c responses an d professiona l reaction s t o thos e experiment s wer e fa vorable. Under th e Florid a rule , acces s wa s a t th e complet e discretio n o f the presidin g judge , an d fe w case s wer e televised . Lawyer s an d sta tion managers for th e Post-News week station in Miami (Channe l 10) devised a strateg y t o see k a rul e fro m th e Florid a Suprem e Cour t allowing presumptiv e acces s fo r electroni c media . Notin g tha t wit h the developmen t o f compact , lo w light-leve l cameras , videotapin g was actuall y les s disruptiv e tha n sketc h artist s wit h ease l an d chalk , the station' s counsel , Talbot D'Alemberte , a n eminen t Florid a attor ney wh o woul d late r becom e presiden t o f th e America n Ba r Association an d o f Florid a Stat e University , propose d a prototyp e rul e t o the Florid a Suprem e Court , whic h ha d supervisor y contro l ove r it s courts' procedures. 4 The Florida Suprem e Cour t hel d a hearing to demonstrate the new technology. Th e cour t ordere d a one-yea r tria l period, 5 afte r whic h it conducte d a surve y o f judge s an d participants , seekin g thei r eval uations o f th e experiment . A s a result , th e cour t issue d it s presen t presumptive acces s rule , which othe r state s woul d soo n emulate. 6 D'Alemberte take s prid e i n that episod e o f creativ e lega l engineer ing: "i t too k a court, " h e wrot e me , "wit h grea t intellectua l confi dence t o mak e th e decisio n whic h place d a n enormou s numbe r o f judicial proceeding s a t ris k o f displacemen t b y th e U.S . Suprem e Court," whic h a t that tim e was operating unde r th e precedent o f the Estes case.

Cameras in the Courts • 61 A case of local notoriety in Florida, which eventually was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, again raised the Estes question of whether the mer e presenc e o f televisio n a t a criminal tria l create s a constitu tional prejudice t o defendants. I n 1981 , the Supreme Court used that opportunity i n Chandler z/. Florida7 to clarify it s sixteen-year-old decision i n Estes an d t o promulgat e a ne w an d clea r rule : Televisio n may b e permitte d i n courts , s o lon g a s ther e i s n o specifi c evidenc e of actua l prejudic e resultin g fro m it . The precedentia l cas e aros e ou t o f a burglar y o f a Miam i Beac h restaurant. Th e crim e ha d severa l intriguin g features : th e burglar s were policemen ; th e ke y prosecutio n witnes s wa s a n amateu r radi o operator wh o happene d t o overhea r an d recor d th e delinquen t cops ' conversations ove r thei r polic e walkie-talkie s durin g thei r burglary . Because th e defendant s objecte d t o an y televisin g o f thei r trial , th e trial judge—operatin g unde r Florida' s ne w experimenta l rule—per mitted th e televisin g o f th e prosecution' s ke y witnes s bu t no t o f th e defense case , an d allowe d coverag e o f bot h closin g arguments . The convicte d defendant s appeale d thei r convictio n t o th e Florid a Supreme Court on the ground that the presence of a television camera deprived the m o f their constitutiona l righ t to a fair trial . The Florida high court ruled that "du e process does not prohibit electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings per se," even though neither the First nor th e Sixt h Amendment s "mandat e entr y o f th e electroni c medi a into judicia l proceedings. " The Florid a Suprem e Cour t base d it s ruling o n th e premis e tha t i t ha d supervisor y authorit y ove r it s stat e courts. The rulin g wa s appeale d t o th e U.S . Suprem e Court . Amon g th e many advisor y comment s t o th e cour t wa s a n amicu s brie f filed b y PBS an d it s Florid a affiliates , pointin g ou t tha t Estes wa s decide d when televisio n wa s stil l i n it s infancy . B y 1981, the technology ha d advanced an d state s ha d accepte d th e implici t invitatio n o f the Estes opinion t o experiment . Furthermore , th e majorit y o f American s re garded televisio n a s "th e mos t credibl e communication s medium. " The amic i pleade d th e publi c polic y argument s favorin g coverag e of court cases . Justice an d th e appearanc e o f justic e requir e publi c ob servation o f th e syste m i n action . Th e camer a i s th e technologica l surrogate fo r publi c attendanc e a t trials . Observatio n o f th e judicia l

62 • Cameras in the Courts process elevate s public understanding o f this important an d comple x part o f government , promote s discussio n o f th e lega l system , foster s confidence i n it , serve s a s a chec k o n officia l corruption , improve s the qualit y o f judge s an d tria l lawyers , protect s th e accused , an d provides th e publi c a prophylacti c o r therapeuti c sens e o f participa tion i n th e system . Th e amicu s brie f als o liste d variou s example s o f its coverag e o f judicia l proceeding s i n Florid a between 197 7 an d 1980, including gavel-to-gavel coverag e of splashy murder cases, ceremonial judicia l proceeding s (investitures) , appellat e arguments , in terviews, documentaries , an d clemenc y hearings . I t place d thi s process i n a n impressiv e noncommercia l an d educationa l context , and cite d a university stud y concluding tha t "televisio n doe s not disrupt tria l proceedings. " The defendants ' lawye r argue d t o the U.S. Supreme Cour t tha t th e mere presence of cameras in the courtroom was inherently prejudicia l and thu s deprived hi s client s o f a fai r tria l an d du e proces s o f law. 8 Although he could offer n o proof o f this claimed prejudice, he argued to th e hig h cour t tha t "huma n natur e an d commo n sense " mak e i t clear that "peopl e ac t differently, postur e differently , pos e differentl y when they know they're on TV"; we don't need psychological studies to confir m suc h a n obviou s conclusion . "[W] e al l know," h e argued , "that timi d people becom e more timid, nervous people become more nervous, peopl e wh o ar e no t use d t o bein g i n a courtroom ca n onl y have thei r anxiet y exacerbate d b y th e presenc e o f a televisio n cam era." H e als o argue d tha t ther e i s a likelihoo d tha t people—partic ularly jurors—will conclud e tha t wha t i s televised is more importan t than wha t i s not . On behal f o f the Florida Suprem e Court , the state attorney general argued tha t publi c scrutin y o f the trial courts has an educative effect . Constitutional la w shoul d no t b e predicate d upo n conjectur e abou t possible prejudicia l effects , h e urged , bu t onl y upo n demonstrate d reality. Florida' s experienc e wit h televise d trials , th e Attorne y Gen eral noted, had been positive. It is better for citizens "to see the actual image an d hea r thes e portions o f testimony" tha n "t o depen d o n the interpretation tha t a new s commentato r migh t lik e t o giv e it. " I t i s the essenc e o f federalis m tha t state s shoul d b e allowe d "t o experi -

Cameras in the Courts • 63 ment wit h nove l ideas, " h e argued . H e als o pointe d ou t tha t televi sion had becom e more "serene " and "commonplace " sinc e the Estes decision. Seventee n state s an d th e conferenc e o f chie f justice s sup ported Florida' s positio n i n amicu s briefs . The U.S . Suprem e Cour t agree d wit h Florida , concludin g tha t i t would no t interfer e wit h th e state' s decisio n unles s a particular con stitutional deprivation resulting from particular , proven practices was demonstrated. Th e Cour t use d th e Chandler cas e t o clarif y th e la w governing televise d trial s an d t o en d th e debat e ove r th e meanin g of the divide d an d debate d Estes decision : "I t doe s no t stan d a s a n absolute ba n o n stat e experimentatio n wit h a n evolvin g technology , which, i n terms o f modes o f mass communication, wa s in its infanc y in 196 4 whe n Estes wa s decided , an d is , eve n now , i n a stat e o f continuing change. " Recallin g Justic e Loui s Brandeis' s jurispruden tial comment s i n a 193 2 cas e that th e right s o f state s to experimen t in socia l an d economi c area s i s "on e o f th e happ y incident s o f th e federal system " and noting that Supreme Court justices "must be ever on ou r guard , les t we erec t ou r prejudice s int o lega l principles," the high federa l cour t deferre d t o th e Florid a Suprem e Court . Sinc e n o specific evidenc e wa s offere d t o prov e tha t th e presence o f th e tele vision camer a hampere d th e defens e o r deprive d th e defendant s o f an impartia l jur y i n th e Chandler case , an d ther e wa s n o basi s fo r the Suprem e Cour t t o supervis e th e Florid a court s withou t proo f o f a constitutiona l deprivation , th e convictio n wa s upheld . The Chandler ruling stated that generalitie s or abstract fears abou t the potentia l risk s o f televise d cour t proceeding s woul d no t b e suf ficient for a constitutional objection . Potentia l mischief t o the judicial atmosphere i s n o basi s fo r interferin g wit h carefu l stat e experimen tation wit h th e administratio n o f it s trial process . Scientific evidenc e from th e limite d survey s t o dat e di d no t definitel y demonstrat e th e truth o f prevalent fears tha t cameras in courts would inevitably make more harrowin g th e timi d witness' s experience , mor e cock y th e de fense advocat e wh o thrive s i n th e limelight , mor e plumin g th e po litical prosecutor , o r mor e self-consciou s th e presidin g judge . Agreeing tha t suc h effect s woul d b e a s deleteriou s t o th e judicia l process a s physica l disruptions , th e Suprem e Cour t refuse d t o inter -

64 • Cameras in the Courts fere without proo f tha t these problems had occurre d i n the particular case i n question . So lon g a s tria l court s ar e vigilan t i n safeguardin g defendants ' rights b y th e rang e o f procedura l curativ e device s (chang e o f venue , continuance, sequestration , etc. ) availabl e t o preven t publicit y fro m prejudicing cases , the Suprem e Cour t ruled , ther e i s no basi s to find constitutional impediments . Indeed , tw o justice s i n th e Chandler case—Potter Stewar t and Byron White—wished t o construe the high court's decisio n a s a complet e reversa l o f th e Estes decision . STATE RULE S

In Chandler, th e Suprem e Cour t harkene d bac k t o th e lat e Justic e John Harlan' s ke y concurring opinion , which created th e majority i n Estes, that "W e must judge television as we find it." How do we find the statu s o f televisio n i n court s i n th e er a afte r th e earl y day s o f state experimentation ? After th e Estes cas e i n 1965 , Colorad o wa s th e onl y stat e tha t allowed an y electroni c medi a i n courts . During th e 1970 s an d after , other states conducted their own limited experiments, the one in Florida whic h le d t o th e Suprem e Court' s Chandler decisio n bein g th e most notable. After Chandler, the American Bar Association modifie d its hortatory rule, Canon 3A(7) , to allow for televised trials. By 1990, most state s ha d studie d thei r judicia l system s an d devise d variou s procedures tha t permitted som e form o f televised trials under specifi c guidelines assuring judicial supervision an d control of local practices. The experiences in the states that experimented with televised trials were bot h simila r an d illuminating . I n 1973 , the Suprem e Cour t o f Washington authorize d a pilo t projec t permittin g televise d trials. 9 The result s wer e widel y praised , an d i n 197 6 th e cour t permitte d cameras i n th e courtroo m permanently , i n bot h tria l an d appellat e courts, a s lon g a s th e coverag e di d no t distrac t th e participant s o r jeopardize th e dignit y o f th e proceedings. 10 Coverag e o f witnesses , jurors, o r partie s wh o expresse d objectio n wa s prohibited . I n 1991, the provisio n givin g participant s th e optio n o f no t bein g filmed was omitted. In 1978 , the stat e conducted a survey of 11 1 superior court judges

Cameras in the Courts • 65 asking for thei r opinion s an d experiences with video cameras in their courtrooms. O f th e 11 1 judges , onl y 4 1 ha d an y direc t experience . Of tha t group , 3 4 reporte d a positiv e experience , whil e onl y 7 re ported negativ e responses . On e judg e explaine d hi s negativ e experi ence in a murder trial as follows: "Whether i t was real or not, at 3:3 0 or 4 o'cloc k i n the afternoo n o f eac h day , when al l the camera s an d reporters wer e absen t fro m th e courtroom , i t seeme d a s if there wa s a genera l easin g an d relaxin g o f previou s tensio n an d a sigh o f relief seemed t o breath e throug h th e crowde d court. " I n contrast, anothe r judge, who als o had trie d a first-degree murde r trial , had this advice: "I woul d sugges t tha t an y judg e wh o anticipate s havin g camera s i n the courtroom , tak e th e opportunit y befor e tria l t o casuall y discus s the se t u p wit h th e camer a me n o r reporter s s o tha t i t i s clea r tha t both side s understan d th e other' s positio n o n tha t particula r case . I did an d foun d thi s to b e very beneficial. " Th e report conclude d tha t the dat a gathere d "appear s t o suppor t a continuatio n o f allowin g cameras i n th e courtroom. " From 197 7 to 1978 , Florida conducte d a sampl e surve y o f participants' attitudes abou t trial s involving electronic media an d still photography coverage in its courts.11 (No attempt was made to determine the comparable reaction s o f participants o f trials that di d not involve media coverage. ) O f th e 2,66 0 witnesses , attorneys, court personnel , and juror s sampled , 6 2 percen t responded . Sixty-nin e percen t o f th e attorneys, 6 7 percen t o f th e witnesses , 6 5 percen t o f th e cour t per sonnel, and 7 8 percent o f the jurors surveyed ha d eithe r favorable o r very favorabl e experience s durin g thei r cour t servic e whe n cameras , photographers, an d relate d equipmen t wer e present. The majority o f jurors, witnesses, and cour t personnel conclude d tha t the presence of cameras durin g th e tria l wa s no t a t al l distracting . I n contrast , 5 9 percent o f th e attorney s fel t tha t camera s wer e a t leas t slightl y dis tracting. On e attorney , wh o sai d tha t "televisio n ha s absolutel y n o place i n th e courtroom, " though t tha t th e camera s dilute d th e jury' s attention an d diverte d i t fro m wha t h e felt t o b e the crucia l poin t of the case. One witness believed that as a result of the camera coverage, "the attorney s ac t a s thoug h the y ar e competin g fo r a n Emm y an d witnesses ge t to o nervous , affectin g testimony. " As o f Ma y 1 , 1979 , Florid a permitte d coverag e i n al l civi l an d

66 • Cameras in the Courts criminal courts, with television coverage subject onl y to the authority of th e presidin g judge . Exclusio n i s possibl e wher e i t ca n b e show n that th e proceedings woul d b e adversely affecte d becaus e of a "qualitative difference " between electroni c an d othe r form s o f coverage. 12 Of course , in 1981 , as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court' s Chandler ruling, the national rule was formulated i n some measure on the basis of Florida' s experiences . In 1978 , Wisconsin appointed a n eleven-person committee to monitor an d evaluat e th e us e o f courtroo m audi o an d visua l equipmen t for a period o f one year. 13 Eight years earlier, a similar twelve-perso n committee ha d spli t evenl y o n th e questio n o f allowin g televisio n cameras t o broadcas t judicia l proceedings. 14 Th e 197 8 committe e conducted it s stud y b y pollin g al l 18 1 circui t cour t judge s an d b y distributing questionnaire s t o attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses who wer e involve d i n televise d trials . The y als o use d graduat e an d law student s a s court observers . All thre e method s o f observatio n produce d simila r results . O f th e 181 circui t cour t judge s polled , onl y 5 5 replied . Forty-fou r o f the m stated tha t the y supporte d televise d trials and tha t televisin g the proceedings di d no t caus e an y unfai r trials . Onl y eigh t judge s were op posed t o th e us e o f photograph y i n th e courtroom . The majority o f attorneys , judges , jurors , an d witnesse s wh o re sponded t o the questionnaires state d tha t the audio and visual equipment had no bearing on the outcomes of their trials. One juror stated, "When th e tria l wa s going , I was obliviou s t o them . When we came back i n [t o the jur y box ] you' d say , 'Oh , th e cameras ar e there,' bu t I go t to o absorbe d t o notic e them. " On e o f th e cour t observer s re ported that , "Overall , th e medi a equipmen t di d no t appea r t o b e obtrusive." The verdic t wa s no t unanimous . Whe n aske d wha t effec t medi a coverage had o n a 197 8 arso n trial, the prosecuting attorne y replied : "I woul d lik e t o sa y none , bu t I might hedg e t o a degree . Sinc e th e jurors wer e isolated , the y wer e no t expose d t o [medi a reports] . I think th e fac t tha t the y wer e ther e indicate d th e significanc e o r im portance o f th e trial , an d migh t hav e bee n a signal [t o the jurors] t o be more scrutinizin g an d carefu l t o com e u p wit h a decision. "

Cameras in the Courts • 67 The committe e conclude d tha t televisin g trial s i s "i n th e publi c interest" an d shoul d b e permitted i n the state' s courtrooms . The com mittee quote d a statemen t (mad e i n anothe r context ) o f th e lat e As sociate Justice Willia m O . Dougla s i n 1947 : "A tria l i s a public event . What transpire s i n th e courtroo m i s publi c property . . . . Those wh o see an d hea r wha t transpire s ca n repor t i t wit h impunity . Ther e i s no specia l prerequisit e o f th e judiciar y whic h enable s it , a s distin guished fro m othe r institution s o f democrati c government , t o sup press, edit , o r censo r event s whic h transpir e i n proceeding s befor e it." 15 The committe e propose d twelv e specifi c rule s t o gover n th e us e o f audio an d vide o equipmen t i n th e courtroom . I n addition , i t mad e two recommendation s t o th e Wisconsi n Suprem e Court : tha t th e Su preme Cour t shoul d permanentl y adop t th e committee' s propose d rules; an d tha t radi o broadcasting , stil l photography , an d televisio n cameras shoul d b e allowe d int o courtrooms , provide d tha t th e rule s of th e Cour t ar e strictl y adhere d to , and specificall y tha t th e presidin g judges hav e wid e discretio n t o assur e fai r trials . Since July 1 , 1979 , al l tria l an d appellat e court s i n Wisconsin hav e allowed radi o broadcasting , stil l photography , an d televisio n cover age o f bot h crimina l an d civi l matters , subjec t t o th e adopte d regu lations. 16 In 1980 , Massachusett s create d a fourteen-membe r advisor y com mittee t o overse e th e experimenta l us e o f camera s an d recordin g equipment i n it s courtrooms. 1 7 Camera s an d recordin g device s wer e permitted i n bot h tria l an d appellat e court s fo r th e two-yea r experi mental period . Th e advisor y committee' s primar y concer n wa s tha t television coverag e o f pretria l hearings , suc h a s arraignments an d bai l hearings, coul d prejudic e potentia l jurors . Durin g thi s period , thirty eight ou t o f sixty-nin e case s involve d televisio n coverage . After th e completio n o f a murde r tria l i n Dedham , Massachusetts , which receive d televisio n coverage , th e juror s an d witnesse s wer e given questionnaire s t o asses s th e effect s o f medi a coverag e o n th e trial. O f th e thirty-nin e witnesses , 6 2 percen t though t tha t th e pres ence o f a televisio n camer a di d no t interfer e wit h th e conduc t o f th e trial, 1 7 percen t disagreed , an d 2 1 percen t wer e undecided .

68 • Cameras in the Courts The committe e highlighte d a positiv e ramificatio n o f th e medi a coverage i n th e courtroom . Th e combinatio n o f televisio n an d prin t media seeme d t o maximiz e th e exposur e o f th e tria l t o th e genera l public: "It seems that the two media are playing complementary roles in suc h trials , the televisio n capsulize s th e day' s lates t development s in the evening , an d th e newspape r th e next mornin g follows u p with detailed presentatio n an d analysis. " Th e committe e recommende d continued us e o f camer a an d recordin g apparatu s i n courtrooms , with th e presiding judg e having a large degree of discretion to assur e a fai r trial . As o f Januar y 1 , 1983 , electronic coverag e ha s bee n permitte d i n Massachusetts tria l an d appellat e courts . In addition, the use of electronic o r photographi c medi a t o presen t evidence , fo r perpetuatio n of a record , fo r th e purpose s o f judicia l administration , an d fo r th e preparation o f educationa l material s wa s allowe d whe n authorize d by court rules. 18 In January 1978 , the Minnesot a Suprem e Cour t allowe d coverag e of it s proceedings b y cameras o n a n experimenta l basi s for a n indef inite perio d o f time . O n Marc h 18 , 1981 , various medi a group s petitioned th e cour t fo r eithe r a permanen t rul e o r a two-yea r experiment tha t woul d allo w medi a coverag e i n tria l an d appellat e courts. The petitioners, including radio and television stations, newspapers, an d journalis m associations , appeare d befor e th e Minnesot a Advisory Commissio n o n Camera s i n the Courtroom , whic h i n tur n submitted it s report t o th e stat e suprem e court. 19 In it s January 198 2 report , th e commissio n conclude d tha t televi sion technolog y ha d becom e sufficientl y advance d a s to b e relatively unobtrusive. However , th e commissio n als o note d tha t n o empirica l evidence exists to support th e position that cameras in the courtroom are eithe r detrimenta l o r beneficia l t o th e judicia l process . I t i s im possible t o reac h conclusion s regardin g th e impac t o f televisio n cov erage on the trial participants, the report stated, because relevant data is base d o n "opinion , behaviora l theories , unprovabl e supposition s and persona l prejudices. " Th e commissio n conclude d tha t th e peti tioners ha d faile d t o sustai n th e burde n o f showin g tha t the y wer e entitled t o th e acces s they requested .

Cameras in the Courts • 69 While no t favorin g a permanen t rule , th e commissio n di d recom mend tha t vide o an d audi o coverag e o f tria l proceeding s b e allowe d on a n experimenta l basi s fo r a period o f tw o years . The commissio n also recommende d tha t al l participant s i n th e experimen t b e re quested, i f no t required , t o provid e feedbac k t o th e Suprem e Court . The experimental period was then extended to January 1,1994 . Presently, tria l coverag e i s permitte d o n a case-by-cas e basis . Camer a coverage ha s bee n allowe d i n Minnesota appellat e court s sinc e April 20, 1981 . On March 1 , 1982, Arizona bega n a one-year experimental perio d during whic h electroni c an d stil l photograph y o f publi c proceeding s was permitte d i n al l stat e courts . Th e decisio n t o permi t coverag e was withi n th e sol e discretio n o f th e presidin g judge . Prio r t o thi s one-year period , medi a coverag e ha d onl y bee n permitte d i n the appellate court s fo r abou t tw o an d a hal f years . A committe e wa s establishe d t o conduc t a ver y structure d stud y during th e experimenta l period. 20 The stud y addresse d five major ar eas o f concern : physica l disruption , prejudicia l publicity , selectiv e coverage, psychological impact , and procedural delay . Detailed questionnaires were sent to 440 jurors, witnesses, court personnel, judges, and attorneys , 7 5 percent o f who m responded . Fifty-eigh t percen t of all respondent s though t tha t th e continue d coverag e o f tria l cour t proceedings woul d b e beneficial . Eighty-tw o percen t o f th e judge s and attorney s respondin g state d tha t i n their opinio n jurors were not more sensitiv e t o publi c opinio n du e t o th e presenc e o f th e media . Forty percen t o f th e judge s respondin g though t tha t th e presence of the equipmen t an d it s operator i n the courtroom mad e them person ally mor e attentive . As a resul t o f th e committee' s favorabl e review, th e Arizon a Su preme Court issued an order on June 30, 1983, permanently allowing electronic coverag e o f proceeding s i n al l stat e courts. 21 A 198 0 repor t o f a Marylan d judicia l committe e considere d whether t o exten d medi a coverag e t o cour t proceedings. 22 The com mittee noted that the use of still cameras presented a greater potentia l for physica l disruptio n tha n th e operatio n o f vide o equipmen t because of the noise and movement associate d with still photographers.

70 • Cameras in the Courts Indeed, th e repor t note d tha t a vide o camer a woul d likel y remov e most medi a fro m th e courtroom , thereb y decreasin g an y distractio n from reporter s writin g o n notepads , sketc h artist s drawing , o r th e clicks o f prin t photographers ' cameras . The report expresse d confidenc e tha t jurors could accomplish their job in spite of camera coverage: "it is our experience that jurors bring to th e cour t an d deliberatio n room s a ver y stron g sens e o f th e im portance o f thei r tas k an d responsibilit y fo r thei r decision , an d i t i s unlikely tha t unobtrusive , extende d coverag e i n a dignifie d settin g will adversel y affec t thei r attentio n t o th e cas e o r thei r vot e o n th e outcome." Th e repor t als o note d tha t undu e apprehensio n o n th e part o f witnesse s coul d b e thwarte d "i f car e i s take n t o ensur e tha t a prope r settin g i s maintained. " T o accomplish this , the repor t rec ommended givin g judges broad discretio n t o control an y "circus-lik e atmosphere" tha t migh t b e created b y th e camera s an d lights . While acknowledgin g tha t th e presenc e o f a vide o camer a place s additional responsibilitie s o n trial judges , the report note d tha t mos t judges' oppositio n decrease d afte r havin g ha d experienc e wit h a televised trial . Th e committe e als o believe d tha t an y additiona l publi c pressure o n judge s resultin g fro m T V coverag e woul d no t substan tially affec t judicia l decisions . The Marylan d Cour t o f Appeal s passe d a permanent rul e i n Ma y 1984 permittin g coverag e o f civi l trials. 23 Coverage o f appellat e civil proceedings remain s o n a n experimenta l basis . State legislatio n pro hibits coverag e o f al l criminal proceedings . Hawaii conducte d it s first televise d tria l i n 1982. 24 Th e one-da y case involved a misdemeanor thef t trie d before a jury. Only one camera wa s allowe d durin g voi r dir e an d th e trial , an d th e footag e wa s not release d t o th e media . Al l parties ha d consente d t o th e presenc e of cameras . Afte r deliberatin g fo r thre e hours , th e jur y returne d a verdict o f no t guilty . Immediately afte r th e jury' s verdict , surve y questionnaire s wer e filled out b y fourteen prospectiv e jurors , twelve jurors, one alternat e juror, an d thre e witnesses . Th e prospectiv e juror s wer e seate d i n a public galler y wit h camer a coverage . Two-third s o f th e prospectiv e jurors responde d "ver y unfavorable " t o the presence o f the cameras.

Cameras in the Courts • 71 However, th e actua l juro r response s wer e mor e favorable . Th e con trast between the two juror groups was highlighted by their responses to the question o f whether they would b e reluctant to serve as a juror solely becaus e o f th e presenc e o f televisio n cameras . Som e o f th e prospective juror s sai d the y woul d b e reluctant . Bu t al l th e actua l jurors sai d the y woul d no t b e reluctan t t o serv e again . Whe n aske d if the y wer e afrai d tha t som e psychological , reputational , physical , or financial har m woul d com e t o the m a s a resul t o f th e camer a coverage, th e prospectiv e juror s wer e divide d i n thei r answers . Bu t all thirtee n o f th e rea l juror s answere d no . Tw o o f th e witnesse s reported that the y were aware of the camera bu t were not distracted . The thir d witnes s reporte d h e neve r wa s awar e tha t a camer a wa s present. On Decembe r 7 , 1987 , afte r a four-yea r experimenta l perio d o f audio-visual coverag e o f al l stat e courts , the Hawai i Suprem e Cour t ordered permanen t extende d medi a coverag e o f stat e proceedings. 25 The permanent rule s required prio r consent of the judge for coverag e of tria l proceedings ; however , consen t i s no t require d fo r coverag e of appellat e proceedings . In Nevada , experimenta l coverag e o f tria l an d appellat e proceed ings bega n i n Apri l 1980. 26 Afte r th e completio n o f thi s one-yea r experimental period , a report wa s prepare d b y the stat e Administra tive Offic e o f th e Courts . I n collectin g dat a fo r th e report , survey s were sen t t o ever y cour t i n Nevad a an d distribute d t o judges , attor neys, media representatives , an d witnesses . Judges an d attorney s wer e b y fa r th e mos t supportiv e o f camera s in th e courtroom ; 7 5 an d 7 0 percent , respectively , wer e completel y or slightl y i n favo r o f th e experimenta l rule . Witnesses wer e leas t i n favor o f camera s i n the courtroom ; 4 5 percent were slightl y o r completely opposed . I n addition , 4 8 percen t o f judges reported tha t wit nesses were extremely distracted , and half o f the judges reported tha t a party o r witness objected t o the media's presence in the courtroom . One attorne y commente d tha t medi a coverag e affect s witnesse s ad versely, i f a t all . On e witnes s state d tha t th e presenc e o f camera s made him feel lik e he was on trial rather tha n th e defendant. Finally , an administrativ e concer n voice d i n th e repor t wa s tha t witnesse s

72 • Cameras in the Courts who were waiting to testify coul d hear and see the testimony of other witnesses o n monitor s i n the halls , thus nullifyin g th e witness exclu sion rule . The repor t conclude d tha t th e overal l reactio n t o th e presenc e o f cameras i n th e courtroo m wa s positiv e an d recommende d tha t a yearly evaluatio n shoul d b e conducte d b y a standin g committe e o n cameras i n the courtroom . Followin g a n eight-yea r experimenta l period, medi a coverag e wa s permitte d o n a permanen t basi s i n bot h trial an d appellat e court s a s o f Apri l 1988 . The consen t o f th e par ticipants i s no t required . Th e issu e o f coverag e i s place d a t th e dis cretion o f th e presidin g judge , excep t fo r proceeding s tha t ar e mad e confidential b y law. 27 In Alaska , prio r t o 198 5 i t wa s necessar y t o ge t th e defendant' s permission befor e new s coverag e wa s allowed ; defendant s rarel y agreed. A judicial rul e change d thi s practice, and afte r Jul y 1 , 1985, Alaska's court s wer e ope n t o th e genera l publi c vi a television . I n January 1988 , afte r a three-yea r initia l perio d o f experimentation , the Alaska Judicial Counci l submitted a report on the impact of news cameras i n th e stat e court s t o th e Alask a Suprem e Court . Th e cour t then ordered a ten-year experimental period during which news cameras were allowe d i n appellat e an d tria l courts . After th e earlier experiment, the judicial council favored new s cameras i n Alask a courtroom s o n a permanen t basis , provide d a pla n was establishe d t o promot e smoot h relation s betwee n th e judicia l branch an d th e media . Th e counci l recommende d i n it s report : 1. Th e medi a shoul d b e abl e t o challeng e a denia l o f access ; 2. Witness' s objections to cameras should be considered on a caseby-case basis ; 3. Judge s shoul d hav e discretio n t o assur e a fai r trial ; 4. Camer a acces s shoul d b e assumed. 28 As o f January 15 , 1990 , media coverag e ha s bee n extende d t o al l Alaska trial and appellate courts in criminal and civil matters, though some restrictions d o apply. 29 The consent o f al l parties i s required i n most famil y proceedings . Jurors ma y no t b e filmed or photographe d except durin g th e retur n o f th e final verdict . Victim s o f sexua l of -

Cameras in the Courts • 73 fenses ar e protected fro m new s coverage. Anyone who violates these rules of the Alaska Media Pla n is subject t o suspension of their media privileges fo r u p t o on e year . In Virginia , i n 1987 , broadcas t o f judicia l proceeding s wa s per mitted o n an experimental basi s in both trial and appellate courts fo r two years. Prior to 1987 , television cameras were permitted i n courtrooms fo r th e sol e purpos e o f preservin g th e cour t record . Durin g the experimenta l period , camera s were to b e allowed i n the Suprem e Court, th e Cour t o f Appeals , tw o circui t courts , an d tw o genera l district courts . The focus o f the state study was on the presiding judges, since they would b e affected o n a daily basis by the presence of cameras in their courtrooms.30 Survey s were sent to the 12 7 active circuit judges. Seventy-four o f those responding concluded that the presence of cameras in the courtroom ha d a negative impact o n the judicial system, while only ten though t tha t the y ha d a positive impact . Among the judges' chief complaint s wa s tha t th e experimenta l progra m ha d resulte d i n sensational, biased , an d distorte d coverage . Also, the judges believed that th e purpos e o f th e medi a durin g th e experimenta l perio d ha d been t o entertain , rathe r tha n educate , the public . The stud y conclude d tha t th e negativ e effect s o f camera s i n th e trial courtroom fa r outweig h an y positive o r educational effects . Television coverage of appellate proceedings was so rare during the twoyear experimenta l perio d tha t th e impac t wa s deeme d insignificant . As a result o f the findings of this study , the experimental perio d wa s extended. After thre e additiona l years of experimentation, legislatio n was passed i n March 199 2 allowin g permanent extende d medi a coverage of trial and appellate proceedings for criminal and civil matters, subject t o som e limitations. Coverag e o f jurors an d certain witnesse s is prohibited , alon g wit h coverag e o f adoption , juvenile , chil d cus tody, divorce , spousal support , sexua l offense , an d trade secre t hear ings, as well a s hearings o n motion s t o suppres s evidence. 31 In Maine , i n 1993 , a specia l stat e advisor y committe e conducte d a two-year surve y o f the effect s o f cameras i n the courtroom o n par ticipants in two courthouses. 32 Ten trials, fourteen arraignments , five bail hearings , thre e pleas , an d thirtee n sentencing s wer e covered .

74 • Cameras in the Courts Questionnaires wer e sen t an d response s receive d fro m thirty-eigh t judges, twenty-one prosecutors , sixteen defense attorneys , and eleven court personnel . Forty-nin e ou t o f eight y juror s responde d an d eighty-four ou t o f on e hundre d fifty witnesses responded . The researchers , a n advisor y committe e o f appointe d judges , lawyers, an d consultants , reporte d tha t th e performanc e o f judge s an d attorneys was not affected b y camera coverage . Rather, most ignored the camera s an d focuse d o n thei r work . N o evidenc e o f playin g t o the camera s wa s witnessed . Th e researcher s als o foun d tha t witnes s anxiety dissolve d afte r witnesse s wer e informe d tha t the y would no t be shown on camera. Finally, the researchers found tha t witness anxiety, reporte d i n nearl y 2 0 percen t o f cases , could no t b e eliminate d completely, bu t i t coul d b e abate d b y allowin g th e tria l judg e t o exclude particula r witnesse s fro m coverage . The advisor y committe e concluded tha t "ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t substantiv e right s o r out comes wer e affecte d b y th e presence o f camera s insid e th e court room." When th e Main e Suprem e Cour t reviewe d thi s 199 3 report , i t issued an order on July 11, 1994, authorizing extended media coverage of tria l court s i n al l location s o n a permanent basis. 33 New Yor k Stat e ha s a n extensiv e an d well-documente d histor y of experimental coverag e in its trial courts. Television was permanentl y adopted i n stat e appellat e court s o n Januar y 1 , 1981 , with n o ex perimental period. That same year, an experimental program for coverage o f tria l proceeding s wa s ordere d bu t neve r implemente d because it violated Section 52 of New York's Civil Rights Law, which bans coverag e whe n witnesse s appea r o r ma y appea r unde r sub poena. Thi s rul e i s still i n effec t today . On Decembe r 1 , 1987 , th e Ne w Yor k stat e assembl y an d senat e passed bill s permittin g experimenta l coverag e i n civi l an d crimina l trial cour t cases . At th e en d o f th e two-yea r period , Chie f Adminis trative Judge Alber t M . Rosenblat t submitte d a report o n th e effect s of audio-visual coverage on the conduct of judicial proceedings. 34 His study included a surve y o f 1,09 5 witnesses , attorneys , judges , an d media personnel . O f th e judge s surveyed , 6 0 percen t ha d favorabl e opinions o f medi a coverage . However , 1 5 percen t o f th e judge s

Cameras in the Courts • 75 thought tha t th e equipment an d personnel detracte d fro m th e dignity of th e proceedings . Several attorney s commente d tha t audio-visua l coverag e infringe d on the privacy right s o f witnesses an d the constitutional right s of the defendants. Also , exper t witnesses , wh o wer e initiall y nervou s i n front o f cameras, worried tha t camera s would inhibi t and cause anxiety t o nonexper t witnesses . Th e recommendatio n o f thi s 198 9 re port, t o adop t a permanen t statut e allowin g coverag e i n stat e tria l courts, was modifie d i n favo r o f extendin g th e experimenta l period . The Ne w Yor k Stat e Defender s Associatio n strongl y criticize d th e 1989 report, 35 characterizin g i t a s a myth . Th e associatio n pointe d out tha t th e surve y researc h di d no t accoun t fo r th e psychologica l effects o f camera s o n tria l participant s an d als o note d numerou s methodological flaws . In 1991 , a New York advisor y committee conducted a similar sur vey whic h collecte d evaluatio n form s fro m 92 2 tria l participants . More tha n 9 0 percen t o f th e tria l judge s surveye d reporte d tha t au dio-visual coverag e was either neutra l o r nondistracting , an d 9 4 percent o f the m though t tha t coverag e ha d n o effec t o n th e fairnes s o f the proceedings. Only 38 percent of the attorneys responding favore d cameras i n th e courts , whil e 3 7 percen t reporte d tha t the y though t that th e camera s mad e th e atmospher e o f th e courtroo m tense . Almost al l o f th e juror s surveye d (9 8 percent ) state d tha t the y fel t n o pressure t o acqui t o r convic t a s a result o f the media coverage . Also, 81 percen t o f th e juror s though t tha t coverag e di d no t effec t th e fairness o f the proceedings or , i f it did, di d s o in a positive way. The study recommende d a permanen t rul e allowin g medi a coverag e i n trial courts , bu t onc e agai n th e experimenta l perio d wa s extended . In 1994 , th e Committe e o n Audio-Visua l Coverag e o f Cour t Pro ceedings echoed th e recommendations o f the 198 9 and 199 1 studies. The committee' s stud y consiste d o f analyzin g comment s o f tria l judges, complaints an d violation s regardin g camer a coverage , appli cations fo r camer a coverage , prior studies , statute s i n other jurisdic tions, and the findings of public hearings. This third, and most recent, recommendation fo r permanentl y allowin g camera s i n Ne w Yor k trial court s als o wa s rejected , an d th e experimenta l perio d i n Ne w

76 • Cameras in the Courts York wa s extende d again , thi s tim e t o Jun e 30 , 1997 . Ne w York' s ten-year experiment , endorse d b y thre e legislativ e commission s cre ated t o stud y it s effects , ende d o n Jun e 30 , 1997 , despit e recommendations tha t th e practic e o f televise d trial s b e mad e per manent. In stat e afte r state , the result s wer e similar . Initia l skepticis m wa s replaced b y genera l acceptanc e afte r actua l experience s wit h televi sion. Whil e al l state s wer e carefu l t o attemp t t o gai n insight s abou t the impac t o f televisio n o n th e tria l participants , no t a singl e stat e that trie d th e practic e rejecte d it . Uniformly , thes e participant s con cluded that earlie r fears were misplaced. The experience in Tennessee exemplifies th e trend awa y fro m ban s an d restrictiv e conditioning of courtroom broadcasting . Until 199 5 Tennessee banned cameras fro m courts unles s al l partie s i n a cas e agreed—an d the y rarel y did , ac cording t o a local report. 36 Bu t the state supreme court's administra tive offic e conducte d a year-lon g stud y o f th e subjec t an d recorde d comments fro m attorneys , judges, media, an d th e public. As a result of it s report, th e cour t decide d t o conduc t a one-yea r pilo t progra m in 199 6 allowin g camera s an d recordin g devices , an d thereafte r t o decide whether t o mak e th e ne w rule permanent. 37 Unde r th e exper iment, judge s ha d discretio n t o allo w television , a s wel l a s th e re sponsibility t o assur e decoru m an d t o protec t juror s an d childre n from exposure . After a year, th e rul e wa s mad e permanent . States proceeded cautiously, implementing rules to control the conditions unde r whic h televise d trial s woul d b e implemented . Th e na tion-wide experienc e coul d b e viewe d a s a classi c exampl e o f federalism a t it s best , wit h state s operatin g a s loca l laboratorie s fo r experimentation, subjec t t o the Suprem e Court' s oversigh t in balancing th e broa d constitutiona l issue s b y whic h th e stat e experiment s would b e ultimatel y measured . In 1996 , Indian a becam e th e forty-eight h stat e t o dro p it s ba n o n courtroom camera s whe n i t permitted televisin g the argument s i n its supreme court , leavin g onl y Sout h Dakota , Mississippi , and th e District o f Columbi a continuin g th e ban . The experiment wil l provide a basis fo r evaluatin g whethe r t o expan d camera s int o othe r court s in Indiana.38 Earl y indication s ar e tha t th e experimen t ha s bee n sue -

Cameras in the Courts • 77 cessful. Th e chie f justic e state d tha t th e practic e increase d publi c un derstanding o f ho w court s work . Th e deput y attorne y genera l wh o gave th e firs t televise d argumen t ( a capital punishmen t case ) reporte d that th e camera s wer e no t a distraction : "i t wa s i f [they ] weren't eve n there." Th e defens e counse l agreed , a s di d a stat e suprem e cour t spokesman. The Radi o an d Televisio n New s Director s Associatio n (RTNDA ) reviews annuall y th e experienc e o f th e forty-eigh t state s tha t allo w television i n courts. 39 It s result s ar e charte d i n Tabl e 1 an d i n Ap pendix A . Presently, forty-fiv e state s hav e permanen t rule s tha t permi t som e forms o f televisio n tria l coverage ; si x state s hav e experimenta l rule s (four o f thes e hav e bot h permanen t an d experimenta l rules) . Forty two state s permi t camera s i n bot h th e tria l an d appellat e courts ; i n all bu t tw o states , th e rul e applie s i n bot h civi l an d crimina l cases . One state , Pennsylvania , onl y allow s coverag e o f civi l trials . Tw o states, Marylan d an d Texas , allo w tria l an d appellat e coverag e onl y in civi l cases . Fou r state s (Delaware , Idaho , Illinois , an d Louisiana ) permit coverag e i n civi l an d crimina l cases , bu t onl y i n appellat e courts. Forty-on e state s permi t camera s i n crimina l tria l proceedings ; of those , onl y five requir e th e consen t o f th e defendant . Not ever y cas e i s eligibl e fo r coverage . Al l state s tha t hav e exper imented wit h televisio n i n court s hav e precondition s o r limitation s on th e coverag e allowed . Thes e condition s fal l int o variou s catego ries. Th e first involve s th e permissio n o f certai n tria l participants . Forty-seven state s requir e th e court' s consen t (i n twenty-nin e state s prior consen t i s a n absolut e condition ; i n eleve n state s prio r notic e is a n absolut e condition ; thirtee n state s d o no t requir e prior consen t or notice , bu t d o requir e th e court' s consent) . Fiv e state s requir e th e defendant's consen t i n crimina l trials . Th e prosecution' s consen t i s required i n thre e state s an d no t require d i n thirty-eigh t states . Th e party's consen t i n civi l case s an d crimina l appeal s i s required i n eigh t states an d i s no t require d i n forty-on e states . Th e consen t o f th e counsel i n civi l trial s an d al l appeal s i s required i n five state s an d no t required i n forty-four . Th e consen t o f witnesse s i n civi l an d crimina l trials i s no t a n absolut e conditio n anywhere , thoug h ther e ar e nu -

Criminal

T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

A — T,A T,A

T,A

Civil

T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

A — T,A T,A

T,A

State

Alabama (P ) Alaska (P ) Arizona (P ) Arkansas (P ) California (P ) Colorado (P ) Connecticut (P )

Delaware (E ) District o f Columbi a Florida (P ) Georgia (P )

Hawaii (P )

N

N

Y

N — N Y

N — N N

N — N Y-T/A N-S N-A

Y N N Y N N Y

Y C N Y N N N

— ID — N — ID 13D-A 3D-T Y — N —

Y Y Y N Y Y Y

Coverage of participants limited

Party's consent required

Notice to court required

t rule s e Cour t onl y l photograph y onl y l court s n approva l o f judge ; , unles s juro r object s s

Court's consent required

A=Appellate = court s P Permanen = Au=Audio onl y S Suprem B=Background shot = s onl y St Stil C=Certain type s o f case s = onl y T Tria = D=Day(s) U Upo E=Experimental rule s or = N = N o Y Ye

COURTROOM PROCEEDING S

of

N

— — Y B

B N B N N B B

jurors

Coverage

TABLE 1 . SUMMAR Y O F EXPANDE D M E D I A COVERAG E O F STAT E

Y

N — N N

Y N Y Y N Y Y

Certain matters excluded

T,A

A — T,A T,A T,A A T,A T,A

T,A T,A T,A

— T,A T,A T(Au),A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

Idaho (P,E )

Illinois (P ) Indiana Iowa (P ) Kansas (P ) Kentucky (P ) Louisiana (P ) Maine (P ) Maryland (P )

Massachusetts (P ) Michigan (P ) Minnesota (P,E )

Mississippi Missouri (P ) Montana (P ) Nebraska (P,E ) Nevada (P ) New Hampshir e (P ) New Jerse y (P ) New Mexic o (P ) New Yor k (P,E ) N. Carolin a (P ) N. Dakot a (P )

— T,A T,A T(Au),A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

T,A T,A T,A

A — T,A T,A T,A A T,A A

T,A

N Y N-A Y-T — Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y

N-A Y-T N — Y N Y N Y Y

— 5D Y N 3D — — ID 7D-T N 3D-A 7D-T

Y 3D 1D-A

5D — 14D 7D — 20D — 5D

N N — C N N N N N-A Y-T N N N-A Y-T — N N N N N N N C N N

N

— Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y

N Y Y

N — Y Y N N Y Y

N

— N Y — B U B N N N N

B N N

— Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N

Y N Y

N — N N N N Y Y

— — B B Y — N Y

Y

N

T,A

T,A T T,A T,A — T,A T,A T(St),A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

T,A T,A

Civil

T,A

T,A — T,A T,A — T,A A T(St),A T,A T,A T,A T,A T,A

T,A T,A

Criminal Y Y N-A Y-T Y N Y — Y Y Y-A N N Y Y N N-A Y-T — N Y — 2D — 2D-A N N — — 3D N-A 1D-T

1D-S — —

Notice to court required

Court's consent required

N N N — C Y N N N N N N N

N C N

Party's consent required

Y N N — Y N Y N Y N N Y Y

Y Y Y

Coverage of participants limited

— B B — N — N B N Y Y B N

N U N

Coverage of jurors

Y Y N — N N N N Y N N Y N

N N Y

Certain matters excluded

* Further categorization s o f tria l coverag e ar e no t include d her e becaus e guideline s hav e no t bee n issue d yet . Note: Al l state s i n whic h coverag e i s indicate d permi t audi o an d vide o coverag e fo r radi o an d television , plu s stil l photography . Source: Copyrigh t © 199 7 b y the Radi o an d Televisio n New s Director s Association . Use d wit h permission . News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A Survey of the States, Januar y 1 , 1997 . Th e ful l tex t o f thi s publicatio n shoul d be consulte d fo r a mor e detaile d description o f th e rule s o f th e respectiv e states .

Wyoming (P )

Oregon (P ) Pennsylvania (E ) Rhode Islan d (P ) S. Carolin a (P ) South Dakot a Tennessee (P) Texas (P)* Utah (P ) Vermont (P ) Virginia (P ) Washington (P ) W. Virgini a (P ) Wisconsin (P )

Ohio (P ) Oklahoma (P )

State

1 {Continued)

TABLE

80 • Cameras in the Courts

Cameras in the Courts • 81 merous limite d condition s i n seventee n states . The witnesses ' permis sion i s no t require d a t al l i n twenty-nin e states . Eightee n state s prohibit coverag e o f jurors ; seventee n state s limi t th e coverag e o f jurors, an d si x state s hav e n o rule s regardin g coverag e o f jurors . Most stat e rule s requir e advanc e notic e o r request s t o th e cour t before televisio n coverag e i s allowed . I n twenty-on e states , n o par ticular tim e fram e i s prescribed; seve n state s requir e on e day' s notice ; fourteen state s requir e betwee n tw o an d seve n days ; thre e state s require seve n days ' notice ; an d eleve n state s hav e n o notic e require ment a t all . Most state s exclud e specifi c kind s o f case s o r categorie s o f wit nesses fro m televisio n coverage . Fo r example , thirtee n state s limi t coverage i n adoptio n cases , fifteen i n chil d custod y cases , an d four teen i n divorc e cases . Eightee n state s limi t coverag e o f juvenil e pro ceedings. Te n state s limi t coverag e o f notice s t o suppress . Nine state s limit coverag e o f polic e informants , si x o f relocate d witnesses , an d fourteen o f se x crim e witnesses . I n case s wher e trad e secret s ar e in volved, eleve n state s limi t witnes s coverage . Eleve n state s limi t cov erage o f undercove r agents , an d thre e limi t coverag e o f witnesse s i n orphans court . Finally, ther e ar e specifi c limitation s o n broadcastin g certai n type s of hearings . I n camer a proceeding s ar e no t covere d i n five states ; proceedings befor e clerk s o f cour t an d magistrate s i n on e state ; prob able caus e proceeding s i n tw o states ; mino r (age ) witnesse s i n fou r states; notice s t o dismis s i n thre e states ; voi r dir e hearing s i n eleve n states; notice s fo r acquitta l an d fo r directe d verdict s i n tw o states ; i n limine proceeding s i n tw o states ; witnesse s i n jeopard y o f bein g hur t in on e state ; hearing s o n th e admissibilit y o f evidenc e i n on e state , of domesti c dispute s i n tw o states , an d o f arraignment s i n on e state . Though ther e i s little chanc e tha t th e presenc e o f camera s wil l prej udice th e partie s o r th e judicia l proces s i n appellat e cases , and thoug h the educationa l potentia l o f appellat e proceeding s i s obvious , mor e trials tha n appeal s hav e bee n televised. 40 Sinc e mos t request s t o tel evise proceeding s ar e initiate d b y th e media , the y ar e missin g a tac tical advantag e b y ignorin g thi s opportunity . Cynic s ar e likel y t o presume tha t broadcaster s ar e les s intereste d i n th e edifyin g issue s i n

82 • Cameras in the Courts appeals tha n the y ar e i n th e mor e entertainin g feature s o f notoriou s trials. A notabl e exampl e o f th e successfu l televisin g o f th e appellat e process bega n quietl y an d inconspicuousl y i n Olympia , Washington , in 1993 . A former stat e legislator , Denni s L . Heck, starte d TVW , a twenty-four-hour, free , dail y cabl e channel . I n 199 5 TV W bega n t o broadcast gavel-to-gave l liv e coverage, like C-Span, o f legislative sessions, executiv e board s an d commissions , publi c event s an d cere monies, and appellat e legal arguments befor e th e state supreme court to million s o f viewers . I t als o provide s audi o archive s o f thes e ar guments on the Internet. With funds provide d b y the state legislature, matched b y grant s fro m individuals , corporations , an d foundations , TVW reache d 1. 5 millio n peopl e i n 643,00 0 household s i n it s first year o f operations . The basi c impetu s behin d TVW i s t o mak e th e working s o f gov ernment mor e accessibl e t o th e people . Th e nonprofi t company' s founder ha s n o interes t i n expandin g th e compan y o r sellin g fran chises in other states ; his only interest i s in assisting othe r state s tha t want t o follow TVW' s initiative in their jurisdictions. When networ k television an d newspaper s shran k thei r coverag e o f th e state' s busi ness (despit e trend s towar d opennes s i n governmen t proceedings) , and poll s showed stron g an d broad-base d publi c interest i n unedite d coverage o f governmen t operations , Hec k starte d th e Washingto n Public Affair s Network . Drawin g o n th e experience s o f C-Spa n an d the si x state s tha t provide d gavel-to-gave l coverag e o f nonjudicia l branches o f government, usin g start-up funds provide d b y the Washington legislature , an d exploitin g th e relativel y lo w cost o f transmit ting throug h a n optica l fiber cabl e infrastructure , TV W wa s abl e t o provide statewid e programmin g ove r cabl e i n les s than tw o years . When TV W began , Hec k presume d th e court s woul d resis t an y participation wit h th e planne d network . T o hi s surprise , th e admin istrator o f th e stat e court s aske d him : "Wh y di d yo u leav e u s out? " Heck me t wit h th e suprem e court' s Bailiff , Jac k Day , an d the y quickly and easily worked out ground rules (never written, everything was done with a handshake). The justices unanimously approve d th e plan.

Cameras in the Courts • 83 Several shoebox-size d roboti c camera s ar e place d strategicall y i n the courtroo m an d operate d fro m a contro l roo m acros s th e street . Video an d audi o signal s are carried b y fiber-optic cable. This is done so unobtrusivel y tha t on e attorne y wa s surprise d t o lear n tha t hi s argument ha d bee n broadcast . Th e voice-activate d camera s ar e pointed a t th e speakers ' heads—attorney s arguing , judge s question ing; there ar e n o dramati c follow-u p shots , nor d o camera s zoo m i n on speakers . The justice s suppor t coverag e o f thei r court' s proceeding s enthu siastically. On e justic e campaigne d o n th e issu e o f ope n hearings . Another helpe d TVW ge t th e legislatur e t o suppor t an d fun d th e project. A thir d justic e endorse d i t befor e th e stat e ba r association . One justice was pleasantly surprise d whe n h e was approached b y an umpire a t a littl e leagu e basebal l gam e wh o complemente d an d thanked hi m fo r hi s interestin g question s i n a cas e tha t ha d bee n televised. For thos e cynic s who feare d tha t onl y sensationa l case s would at tract public attention an d that legal issues would make dull programming, Washington' s experienc e teache s a lesson . A variet y o f important issue s wer e presente d t o th e publi c i n th e fort y case s televised in the first year. Cases were argued on such subjects as whether an employe e coul d b e fired fo r violatin g a compan y rul e whe n h e assisted a citize n take n hostage , th e applicatio n o f th e state' s resti tution laws , wha t procedure s shoul d gover n th e prosecutio n o f ju veniles an d mentall y il l defendants , th e operation s o f th e stat e discrimination laws , th e constitutionalit y o f certai n crimina l proce dures, th e legalit y o f ter m limit s fo r electiv e office , appropriat e la beling o f musi c with profan e lyrics , whether hat e crim e law s offen d freedom o f speech guarantees, and the application of product liability and lega l malpractice laws . The coverage was edifying an d dignified . Through it , a broader publi c ha s come to kno w mor e abou t it s legal and judicia l system . No longe r i s the operatio n o f the government in Washington ope n onl y t o th e vie w o f thos e i n Olympia . Th e TV W model is , in the enthusiastic word s o f its annual report , " A serendipitous blend of the wisdom of our founding father s an d the technology of th e 21s t Century." 41

84 • Cameras in the Courts This networ k i s not intereste d i n ratings, s o it doe s not selec t sensational cases , nor doe s it provide interpretatio n an d analysis . It simply covers deliberation s thoroughly , withou t soun d bite s or editoria l commentary. Like the televising of entertainment an d sports, full coverage present s "th e rea l thing, " no t a journalis t intermediary' s ver sion o f wha t happened . Interactiv e capabilitie s wil l giv e viewers th e choice t o ta p int o a databas e tha t provide s additiona l backgroun d about th e case. Free access is provided t o educational institution s fo r classroom use , bu t TV W denie s us e o f it s program s fo r commercia l or politica l purposes . A permanent vide o recor d i s provided t o th e stat e archive . Audi o records o f thes e argument s ar e available , live , o n th e Internet . Thi s extensive coverag e o f stat e suprem e cour t case s provide s Washing ton's citizen s (an d peopl e outsid e the state, as well) with informatio n about its government, the knowledge required for democracy to work best, an d i t doe s s o fo r relativel y lo w cost s (th e annua l operatin g TVW budge t i s $1.7 million; start-up capita l expenditure s were $1. 5 million). Several othe r state s hav e sough t TVW' s assistanc e i n layin g plan s to adop t comparabl e programs . I n 1996 , Michiga n followe d th e Washington model . Throug h it s nonprofi t stat e cabl e network , MGTV, ora l argument s befor e th e stat e suprem e cour t ar e no w broadcast statewide . Thi s stat e mode l provide s impressiv e evidenc e against th e U.S . Suprem e Court' s rational e fo r it s histori c an d ada mant oppositio n t o th e expansio n o f televisio n int o th e hig h court . THE FEDERA L RUL E

Despite Justic e Brandeis' s admonitio n tha t Suprem e Cour t justice s should no t elevat e thei r persona l view s int o constitutiona l doctrine , and the nearly unanimous trend in the states to permit televised trials, the federa l judicia l establishmen t ha s continue d it s histori c ba n re garding televisio n i n federa l courts . I n n o smal l measure , thi s resis tance t o chang e i s due to th e antagonis m o f succeedin g chief justice s who hea d th e Judicia l Conference , th e administrativ e rule-makin g and advisor y agenc y o f th e federa l judiciary . I t i s ironic tha t federa l

Cameras in the Courts • 85 judges wh o ar e appointe d fo r lif e an d wh o wiel d awesom e power s are mos t resistan t t o bein g observe d publicly , whil e stat e judges , many o f who m ar e elected , ma y b e observed widel y through th e televising o f judicia l proceedings . Since 1946 , Federal Rul e o f Crimina l Procedur e 5 3 has barred television fro m federa l court s i n crimina l cases . Th e Judicia l Confer ence, mirrorin g th e American Ba r Association' s Cod e o f Judicia l Conduct, promulgate d Cano n 3A(7 ) bannin g al l televised trials . Following th e Chandler cas e an d th e evolvin g experiment s i n th e stat e courts durin g th e 1970s , media organization s petitione d th e Judicial Conference t o reexamin e it s rule, bu t i t refused . In 1988 , a Judicia l Conferenc e committe e recommende d a pilo t program to experiment with television in courts. Eventually, in 1990, the Conferenc e bega n a three-year pilo t program. Federal trial courts in Indiana , Massachusetts , Michigan , Ne w York , Pennsylvania , an d Washington an d appellat e court s i n th e Secon d an d Nint h Circuit s volunteered t o b e i n th e pilo t program . Controlle d b y th e presidin g judges, limite d t o civi l cases , an d subjec t t o specifi c guidelines , th e pilot progra m bega n i n Jul y 199 1 an d continue d unti l th e en d o f 1994. Durin g th e experimenta l period , court s approve d 8 2 percen t of th e 25 7 medi a application s t o cove r trials . The Federal Judicial Cente r monitored th e program for the Judicial Conference.42 It s anecdota l findings wer e clea r an d persuasive . Neu tral judge s presidin g i n thes e trial s dre w favorabl e conclusion s fro m their experiences . Participatin g judge s an d lawyer s observe d littl e o r no effec t o f th e camera s o n th e tria l participant s o r o n courtroo m decorum. Th e medi a wer e cooperative . An d stat e cour t evaluation s of thei r experience s disclose d tha t mos t participant s reporte d "min imal o r n o detrimenta l effect s o n juror s o r witnesses. " The report concede d tha t the surveyors could onl y record, throug h their questionnaire s an d interviews , th e perception s o f th e partici pants (jurors , witnesses , lawyers , an d judge s wer e questioned) , bu t could no t measur e actua l effects . Di d televisio n motivat e witnesse s to tel l the truth ? Di d i t violate thei r privac y o r mak e them unwillin g to testify? Di d it distract them or make them nervous? Or did it make them mor e attentive , mor e responsible ? Wer e attorney s bette r pre -

86 • Cameras in the Courts pared, mor e theatrical , mor e courteous ? Wer e judge s more attentiv e and courteous , mor e incline d t o b e uncontroversial ? Wa s th e publi c educated abou t courts ? Ther e wer e n o answer s t o thes e questions . Nor wer e th e appraiser s o f th e experimen t abl e t o measur e differ ences betwee n a contro l grou p an d a secon d grou p t o determin e whether th e absenc e o f medi a mad e a differenc e i n th e results . Bu t the anecdota l report s i n th e surve y wer e informativ e an d quit e pos itive. In all , 324 day s o f coverag e durin g th e two-year perio d wer e con sidered. This included fifty-six trials and a scattering of miscellaneous proceedings—twenty-seven pretria l hearings , four bankruptc y cases, twenty-four appeals , injunctio n an d show-caus e hearings , an d eve n a judge' s swearing-i n ceremony . Th e tw o larges t categorie s o f thes e civil case s were civi l rights an d persona l injur y cases . Perhaps th e mos t revealin g conclusio n cam e fro m th e interview s with the participating judges. Preconceived negative concerns seemed to b e assuage d b y thei r actua l experience s wit h electroni c coverage . The surveyor s conclude d tha t th e "judge s apparentl y experience d these potential effects t o a lesser degree than they had expected," and thus their change d attitude s coul d b e attributed t o actual experience s rather tha n an y change d genera l attitud e towar d th e media . Sinc e there i s scan t empirica l proo f tha t problem s ar e cause d b y th e mer e presence o f television , an d th e debat e ha s bee n limite d b y these per ceptions, thes e change d perception s base d o n actua l experience s ar e revealing. The sam e was true fo r attorney s (plaintif f an d defendan t lawyers) . Those wh o responde d t o th e stud y questionnair e generall y ende d u p with mor e favorabl e attitude s abou t electroni c coverag e (2 8 percen t were mor e positive , 4 percen t les s so , 6 8 percen t unchanged) . The evaluator s als o conducte d telephon e interview s wit h judges , media representatives , an d involve d cour t staff . Generally , thos e questioned though t tha t th e guideline s wer e workabl e an d tha t th e pooling arrangements worked smoothly (requiring fewer media members i n th e courtroom) . Interestingly , mos t o f th e judge s conclude d that "audi o an d visua l acces s enhanced new s coverage" and tha t th e coverage wa s "mor e beneficia l an d realisti c tha n conventiona l cov -

Cameras in the Courts * 87 erage," despit e th e fac t tha t i t wa s selectiv e (ke y testimony , openin g and closin g remarks , verdicts ) an d wa s requeste d whe n ther e wer e "high profile " litigants , case s o f loca l interest , o r broa d issue s wer e involved. Medi a representative s agreed : "Vide o tell s a muc h bette r story tha n a sketc h artist' s rendition—on e ca n se e when a judg e get s angry an d th e facia l an d bod y expression s o f th e parties. " However , the surveyors ' repor t abou t thei r conten t analysi s add s weigh t t o cyn ics' claims . Th e stud y conclude d tha t "th e storie s di d no t provid e a high leve l o f detai l abou t th e lega l process, " bu t rathe r wer e use d t o accompany reporters ' narratio n an d reinforc e an d illustrat e thei r commentary. O f course , ther e wa s n o gavel-to-gave l coverag e i n an y of thes e cases . The federa l stud y als o commente d o n twelv e stat e studie s o f th e effects o f electroni c medi a o n witnesse s an d jurors , mostl y i n stat e criminal cases . Thes e studie s showe d tha t fe w witnesse s o r juror s reported bein g distracte d o r nervou s a s a resul t o f th e media . I n al l twelve states—Arizona , California , Florida , Hawaii , Kansas , Maine , Massachusetts, Nevada , Ne w Jersey , Ne w York , Ohio , an d Virginia—television ha d cause d n o distraction s t o jurors , no r di d i t influence jur y decision-making . Televisio n coverag e di d no t lea d ju rors t o conclud e tha t th e cas e wa s important , no r di d th e presenc e of televisio n mak e juror s les s willin g t o serve . Th e states ' findings (strong i n ever y case , overwhelming i n som e place s suc h a s Californi a and Ne w Jersey ) supporte d th e Judicia l Cente r staff' s recommenda tions. Othe r states ' studie s reviewe d b y th e Judicial Cente r i n it s sur vey, thoug h no t cite d becaus e thei r methodologie s wer e deeme d insufficiently rigorou s b y th e Cente r staff , "ten d t o repor t result s tha t are simila r t o ou r findings an d othe r stat e cour t findings." Thus , th e federal surveyor s conclude d tha t th e result s o f thes e stat e survey s were consisten t wit h thei r ow n findings i n the federa l experimen t tha t electronic medi a cause d eithe r n o deleteriou s effect s o r "onl y t o a slight degree." 43 As a resul t o f th e federa l experimen t an d th e Judicia l Center' s ap praisal o f it , th e researc h staf f mad e severa l recommendation s t o th e Judicial Conference . Federa l tria l an d appeal s court s shoul d provid e two-camera acces s t o civi l proceeding s subjec t t o th e carefu l guide -

88 • Cameras in the Courts lines followe d i n th e experiment . Becaus e extende d coverag e en hances the educational functio n o f the judicial process, gavel-to-gavel coverage wit h tw o camera s shoul d b e required . Permanen t camer a facilities shoul d b e refined an d used . When the Judicial Conferenc e me t (i n closed session , as is its practice) i n Decembe r 199 3 t o revie w th e staf f evaluatio n o f th e pilo t program an d conside r it s recommendations , i t aske d fo r a supple mental repor t dealin g wit h thre e questions . First , th e Conferenc e wanted t o kno w wh y th e evaluator s relie d o n survey s o f judge s an d attorneys, rathe r tha n o f juror s an d witnesses . Second , i t inquire d what other studies by various states had determined about the impact of televisio n o n juror s an d witnesses . Third , i t aske d wha t th e cost s would b e t o instal l permanen t electroni c medi a facilitie s i n federa l courtrooms. The respondin g staf f repor t replie d tha t juror s an d witnesses were not well-situate d t o mak e vali d judgment s abou t th e effec t o f elec tronic medi a o n themselves. 44 Stat e surveys , the respons e continued , confirmed thei r findings tha t mos t tria l participant s though t elec tronic media presence had no or minimal detrimental effec t o n jurors and witnesses . Finally , th e repor t state d tha t th e cos t o f equippin g each federa l courtroo m fo r electroni c medi a woul d b e between $70,000 an d $120,000 . Despite th e results o f th e experimen t an d th e recommendations of the staff, th e prohibition agains t televise d coverag e o f civil and criminal proceedings was not changed . As the New York Times reported , the federa l experimen t "assuage d som e deep-seate d fear s abou t th e impact o f televisio n i n the courtroom, " bu t i t "wo n fe w enthusiasti c converts, an d th e issu e remain s a subjec t o f heate d debate." 45 Th e experiment "ultimatel y fel l victim to a yawning cultural gap betwee n the Federa l judiciary' s self-imag e an d th e exigencie s o f televisio n news. . . . The judge s wer e offende d . . . a t bein g use d a s backdrop s or visual aids for th e self-styled expert s and talking heads of network news."46 Steve Brill, Court TV's founding impresario , wryly observed the irony that th e judges "threw ou t their own evidence" from "thei r own in-hous e thin k tank." 47 Recent years , however , hav e see n crack s i n th e wal l o f resistanc e

Cameras in the Courts • 89 to cameras in the federal courts . The first appeare d i n 1996 , in a civil case i n th e federa l tria l cour t i n Ne w Yor k City . Th e case , Marisol v. Giuliani** involve d a clas s actio n o n behal f o f eleve n plaintiff s against th e city' s Chil d Welfar e Administratio n (th e mayo r an d th e governor wer e parties , a s well ) askin g Federa l Distric t Cour t Judg e Robert J . War d t o appoin t a receive r t o reorganiz e an d ru n th e beleaguered an d lon g criticize d agency . The fact s givin g ris e t o th e cas e wer e egregious—a n abuse d fiveyear-old gir l ha d bee n starved , locke d i n a closet , an d horribl y bru talized i n a foster hom e wher e ther e wa s dru g dealing , violence, an d neglect. Th e cit y agenc y kne w o f th e condition s i n thi s home , bu t had returne d th e chil d t o he r foste r mother' s custody . Children' s rights organization s brough t th e lawsui t seekin g a top-to-bottom re form o f th e controversia l agency , a s had happene d i n othe r cities — the Distric t o f Columbia , Kansa s City , an d Philadelphia—wher e in stitutional negligence was proven. The child advocate groups charged the Ne w Yor k Cit y agenc y wit h lac k o f accountability , swolle n caseloads, untraine d caseworkers , poo r supervision , inadequat e re sources, and mismanagement . Court T V asked th e cour t fo r permissio n t o televis e th e complet e oral argument s b y th e lawyers . Th e plaintiff s agree d t o th e request , but the defendants oppose d it, arguing that the public could not comprehend th e procedura l aspect s o f th e cas e an d th e lega l nuance s o f the arguments . Th e cit y attorney s sai d the y woul d no t oppos e tele vising th e tria l itself , bu t di d fea r th e implication s o f televisin g th e pretrial arguments . Counsel fo r Cour t T V urge d tha t th e variou s distric t court s eac h have thei r ow n intramura l regulation s regardin g camera s i n thei r courts, an d thos e regulation s ar e no t overrule d b y the Judicial Con ference recommendation s o n th e subjec t generally . Televisio n an d children's right s advocate s argue d tha t peopl e ough t t o b e informe d about th e abuse s tha t wer e bein g questioned . A s on e children' s ad vocate remarked : "Th e mor e thes e issue s ar e aire d publicly , the bet ter." Broa d cultural change s originate, she argued, from a n informe d and attentiv e public , an d televisio n woul d hel p tha t cause . The law yer fo r Cour t T V added : "Thi s civi l right s actio n raise s on e o f th e

90 • Cameras in the Courts most significan t issue s in American socia l and political life today." A case o f suc h profound publi c importanc e shoul d b e witnessed b y the public, h e argued . Judge War d agree d tha t "th e publi c interes t woul d b e served " b y televising the two-hour proceedings . He acte d unde r hi s court's local rule an d di d no t consul t wit h th e Judicial Conferenc e befor e makin g his ruling. The court wa s no t willin g to conclude, as the governmen t attorneys ha d suggested , tha t th e publi c wa s unabl e t o gras p th e meaning o f th e informatio n communicated— a rathe r arrogan t no tion t o pres s upo n an y court , an d on e which, i f true , commentator s on bot h side s o f th e cas e coul d correc t o n Cour t TV . A New York Times editoria l calle d Judge Ward's decisio n "a n ac t of judicial independence" 49 tha t challenge d th e view that the Judicial Conference effectivel y banne d camera s i n federa l courts . Th e edito rial argue d tha t Judge Ward's rulin g was i n the public's interes t an d urged Congress t o rethin k th e statutor y ba n o n camera s i n al l criminal cases . Soon thereafter , i n April 1996 , Cour t T V aske d permissio n o f an other federa l judg e i n Ne w Yor k Cit y t o televis e a n ora l argumen t of a pretria l motion. 50 Th e hearin g pertaine d t o a clas s actio n civi l case, Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, charging the Victoria' s Secret compan y wit h discriminator y pricin g o f it s mai l orde r cata logue. Cour t T V relie d o n loca l Rul e 7 , whic h allow s tha t cour t t o establish loca l rules, as well as its prior experience s in televising fiftyone federa l cases . The plaintif f supporte d th e motion ; th e defendan t opposed it . Court TV' s attorney s pointe d ou t tha t thre e Ne w Yor k studie s evaluating experiment s wit h televise d trial s demonstrate d tha t the y enhanced publi c educatio n abou t th e justic e syste m an d lega l prin ciples an d raise d th e leve l o f othe r pres s coverage . They argue d tha t because ther e coul d b e no witnesses o r jurors, motion argument s ar e more aki n t o appeal s tha n trials . And the y stresse d tha t Cour t TV' s gavel-to-gavel coverag e avoide d th e commonl y advance d criticis m that soun d bite s distor t th e publi c perceptio n o f cour t proceedings . In grantin g th e motion , Judge Rober t Swee t clarified th e tangle of contradictory rules governing this situation. The Federal Rule of Civil

Cameras in the Courts • 91 Procedure 83(a)(1 ) allow s federa l distric t court s t o mak e rule s gov erning their practices . Rule 7 was adopte d b y the Board o f Judges of this cour t pursuan t t o it s power—indeed , th e powe r o f al l congres sionally establishe d courts—t o "prescrib e rule s fo r th e conduc t o f their business." 51 The Judicial Conference, whil e declinin g t o follo w the recommendation o f its task force to allow the televising of federa l civil trial s an d appeal s (i n Septembe r 1994 ) lef t t o th e eleve n indi vidual Courts of Appeals (in March 1996 ) the right to decide whether to permi t televisin g appellat e arguments . Th e Conferenc e urged th e Circuits t o "abrogat e an y loca l rule s o f court " tha t defie d it s horta tory position ; bu t a s Judge War d note d i n hi s Marisol opinion , th e Conference's position , howeve r influential , doe s not i n fact supplan t the governin g loca l rul e adopte d b y tha t tria l court . Thus, in this New York distric t a t least, the individual judges have the discretion to permit cameras in their courts. Other courts in other districts havin g simila r rule s may , too , an d no w ther e i s preceden t for thei r doin g so . Judge Swee t conclude d tha t ther e i s " a presump tive First Amendmen t righ t o f th e pres s to televis e a s well as publish court proceedings , an d o f th e publi c t o vie w thos e proceeding s o n television." The importanc e o f th e Marisol an d Katzman precedent s i s tha t they demonstrat e t o th e othe r ninety-fou r federa l distric t court s tha t the judicial conferenc e polic y o n cameras i n courts doe s not overrid e practices permitte d unde r loca l rules . On e recen t articl e state d tha t fourteen ou t o f th e ninety-fou r district s hav e rules permittin g judge s to allo w cameras , bu t sixty-si x district s ba n cameras. 52 The Marisol and Katzman case s wer e th e first time s camera s wer e permitte d i n federal courtroom s afte r th e federal experimen t ende d i n 1994 . New York wa s on e o f th e district s tha t ha d participate d i n th e successfu l federal experiment . However , bot h broadcast s wer e o f civi l cases , and th e federa l ba n stil l applie s t o crimina l trials . Th e coverag e in volved strictl y ora l argument s b y lawyers , an d no t examinatio n o f witnesses befor e a jury. Bu t the tw o case s d o provide precedent s fo r judges i n district s havin g loca l rule s permittin g camera s i n limite d situations to depart from th e recommended tota l ban without seekin g permission fro m th e Judicial Conference .

92 • Cameras in the Courts The issue arose agai n in a sexual discriminatio n an d wrongful em ployment terminatio n cas e i n whic h neithe r part y objecte d t o Cour t TV's applicatio n t o televise the trial, though the defendant's la w firm was concerne d abou t sensitiv e testimon y concernin g salaries. 53 Al though it s tria l recor d i s public , th e cour t reasoned , ther e i s none theless a distinctio n between th e availabilit y o f informatio n an d th e broadcasting o f it . Usin g a kil l switc h t o contro l wha t wa s an d wa s not transmitted , thu s allowin g sensitiv e testimony t o b e blocked, th e court allowe d broadcas t coverage . In 1996 , th e Easter n Distric t Cour t o f Ne w Yor k followe d th e Southern District's rulings in the Marisol and Katzman cases. 54 Court TV ha d petitione d t o televis e th e argument s o f motion s i n a cas e where th e estate s o f tw o victim s o f gunfir e sough t damage s agains t firearms companies . Despit e pressure s fro m th e Judicial Conference , that cour t interprete d Rul e 7 , permitting judge s to decid e the appro priateness o f televise d proceedings , t o allo w Cour t T V t o interven e and broadcast arguments in a case. "[T]he public should be permitted and encourage d t o observ e th e operatio n o f it s court s i n th e mos t convenient manne r possible , s o lon g a s there i s no interferenc e wit h due process , th e dignit y o f litigants , jurors , o r witnesses , o r wit h other appropriat e aspect s o f th e administratio n o f justice, " Judg e Jack Weinstein ruled. About the revolutionary influenc e o f television, Judge Weinstei n wrote : "I n ou r democracy , th e informe d ten d t o b e more robustl y engage d i n publi c issues . Informatio n receive d b y direct observatio n i s ofte n mor e usefu l tha n tha t straine d throug h th e media. Actually seeing and hearing court proceedings, combined with the commentar y o f informe d member s o f th e pres s an d academia , provides a powerfu l devic e fo r monitorin g th e courts. " Despite it s adaman t refusa l t o en d it s ba n o f televisio n trials , th e Judicial Conferenc e vote d o n Marc h 12 , 1996 , to allo w eac h o f th e thirteen circui t court s t o decid e fo r themselve s whethe r t o allo w television coverag e o f appellat e arguments . The vote was close, 14-12 ; it applie s t o civi l cases , bu t i t i s unclea r whethe r i t change s Federa l Criminal Procedur e Rul e 53 , which ban s cameras in federal crimina l trials. A t th e time , on e respecte d judicia l proponen t o f televise d ap peals stated, "Ther e ar e no witnesses, no juries, and it' s a fairly brie f

Cameras in the Courts • 93 proceeding fo r ever y case." A critical colleague replied that th e practice threatene d judges ' privacy . In permittin g th e individua l circuit s t o decid e abou t coverag e i n their ow n courts , the Judicial Conferenc e strongl y urged each Circui t Judicial Counci l no t t o permi t televisio n coverag e o f distric t court s under thei r supervisio n an d "t o abrogat e an y loca l rule s o f court " that conflic t wit h th e Conference' s 199 4 decisio n no t t o permi t tel evised trials— a direc t retor t t o th e recen t ruling s i n New York . Th e Conference reminde d tha t i t feare d "th e intimidatin g effec t camera s may hav e o n som e witnesse s an d jurors." 55 As the principa l policy-makin g authorit y o f al l the federa l courts , the Judicia l Conferenc e ha s persuasive , thoug h no t determinative , powers. I t exhort s an d influences , bu t i t ma y no t legislat e o r com mand. Te n day s afte r th e Conference' s pronouncement , th e Nint h Circuit (coverin g nin e wester n state s an d headquartere d i n Califor nia) approve d televise d coverag e o f al l case s excep t direc t crimina l appeals an d extraditio n proceedings . A s on e o f th e tw o appellat e courts i n th e earlie r federa l pilo t program , th e Nint h Circui t ha d positive experience s an d alread y ha d develope d guideline s t o cove r these situations . Th e chie f judg e o f th e Sixt h Circui t recommende d that hi s fello w judge s vot e t o permi t cameras , statin g " I don' t se e a problem i n appellat e courts. " In June 1996 , the Firs t Circui t passe d a resolution t o continue th e ban, a s di d th e Sevent h Circuit . On e judg e commente d tha t h e wa s affected b y th e O . J . Simpso n case , "wher e th e lawyer s an d judg e were see n b y man y a s bein g preoccupie d wit h th e media. " Anothe r judge proteste d tha t "th e publi c shoul d b e abl e t o se e what's goin g on i n th e courtroom . I n today' s world , th e onl y practica l wa y o f seeing what's goin g o n i n th e court s i s through television." 56 The American Judicatur e Society , a prestigious an d venerabl e pri vate organizatio n o f te n thousan d judges , lawyers , an d privat e citi zens with a special interest i n the court system , publicly endorsed the U.S. Judicial Conferenc e polic y allowing the thirteen circuit courts to adopt rule s permittin g th e televisin g o f appellat e proceedings . Th e Society's executiv e vic e presiden t an d director , France s K . Zemans , argued tha t th e Conferenc e recommendation s di d not go far enough :

94 • Cameras in the Courts "We urg e al l federa l appellat e court s t o enhanc e publi c knowledg e about ou r lega l syste m b y allowin g broadcas t coverage . . . . We're glad t o se e th e Judicia l Conferenc e mov e beyon d th e negativ e buz z about televised court proceedings generated durin g the O. J. Simpson trial, bu t we' d lik e t o se e them mov e farthe r an d faste r b y allowin g coverage o f federa l trials , no t jus t appellat e arguments . . . . [I]n to day's world , televisio n i s th e mos t effectiv e wa y t o brin g th e publi c into court. We hope this action b y the Judicial Conferenc e i s a signal that th e movemen t towar d allowin g camera s fulle r acces s t o ou r courtrooms i s regaining momentum." 57 The Suprem e Court , whil e refusin g t o ba n televise d stat e trial s o n constitutional grounds , has consistently refuse d t o endors e televisin g its ow n proceedings . I n th e Estes case , eve n libera l member s o f th e Warren Cour t voiced their objections to any television of trials. Chief Justices Burge r an d Rehnquist , opposite s o n th e judicia l spectru m from th e Warren Court , have clearly condemned the idea of televising the Suprem e Court' s appellat e arguments . In 1996 , Associate Justice David Soute r state d t o a Hous e Appropriation s Subcommitte e tha t there woul d b e televisio n i n th e Suprem e Cour t "ove r m y dea d body," an d hi s colleagu e Associat e Justice Anthon y Kenned y agree d with thi s conclusion, althoug h i n less dramatic rhetoric. One insightful reporte r commented , tha t "th e Justices cheris h thei r privacy , . . . and hav e n o wish t o becom e electroni c visitor s to th e nation' s livin g rooms." 58

Whatever th e future o f televised trials in the United States, and whatever th e disagreement s ove r it s role , impact , an d limitations , th e American judiciar y ha s fa r mor e extensiv e experienc e wit h thi s medium tha n an y countr y i n the world. D e Tocqueville wrot e lon g ag o that Americ a wa s a country uniquel y involved with its laws and lawyers; perhap s th e public' s interes t i n televise d trial s i s th e lates t ex pression o f thi s phenomenon . Othe r countrie s hav e fundamentall y different lega l an d tria l systems , an d varie d policie s abou t th e open ness o f thei r trials . Fe w place s outsid e th e Unite d State s hav e ha d any experiences or dispositions to experiment with cameras in courts.

Cameras in the Courts • 95 The fe w tha t hav e mad e exception s t o bannin g camera s i n court s have don e s o infrequently. 59 Canada's histori c ba n o n cameras i n courts has onl y recently bee n lifted t o permi t televisin g tw o Suprem e Cour t cases , an d a two-yea r limited experimenta l projec t bega n i n 1994 . Mexico ha s ope n trial s and no ba n o n cameras. While it has permitted fil m excerpt s of cases to be broadcast, there have been no televised live trials. In most Latin and Centra l American countries , even if trials are open to the public, cameras ar e banne d an d onl y snippet s o f tria l proceeding s ar e per mitted t o b e show n afte r th e fact . Th e mos t notabl e televise d trial s abroad were in Israel, which as a general rule bans cameras (the court can permit filming); there, in the Eichmann and Demjanjuk wa r crime trials, which were televised worldwide, the educational and historical message overwhelme d al l previou s regulations . Th e mor e autocrati c the government structure—Japan , China , an d Korea , for example — the more decisively cameras have been forbidden. Yet , even countries with mor e democrati c traditions , suc h a s th e Czec h Republi c an d Denmark, ar e ver y conservativ e o n thi s subjec t an d generall y den y the filming o f cour t proceedings. Som e countries allo w exceptions in rare instances—archiva l usag e o f case s o f historica l interes t (i n France), unusua l constitutiona l issue s o f publi c interes t (Germany) , and on e networ k (i n Italy ) tha t broadcast s trial s regularl y whe n th e judge an d partie s agree . With rar e exception s suc h a s these, the general rul e aroun d th e world ha s bee n n o televisio n i n courts . The American experienc e wit h televise d trials , whateve r it s limi tations an d despit e concern s ove r it s implications, i s in the forefron t in involvin g th e publi c i n th e country' s court s an d justic e systems . The tren d i s clearl y an d increasingl y towar d mor e commo n accep tance o f televisio n i n courts. As technology improves , administrativ e problems ar e eliminated , an d th e practic e become s mor e widel y ac cepted, i t i s difficul t t o imagin e a reversa l o f thi s trend . Indeed , a s the ne w centur y arrives , the Suprem e Cour t ma y wel l fac e th e question of whether television has a constitutional right to be in all courts, subject onl y to reasonabl e judicia l control s i n the interests o f justice.

Chapter 4

A THIN G OBSERVED , A THIN G CHANGE D WHAT I S TH E I M P A C T O F T E L E V I S I O N ON T R I A L S ?

T

here i s an unstate d presumptio n tha t th e us e of a television camera i n a courtroo m inevitabl y affect s th e tria l participants . Lawyers primp , witnesse s fret , judge s pose , juror s ar e pressured—o r s o common wisdo m ha s it . A s a resul t o f thes e suppose d reaction s b y trial participants , the justice syste m is thought t o b e disturbed, i f not perverted. Howeve r logica l an d sensibl e thi s presumptio n ma y see m at first glance, very little unequivocal evidenc e exists to prove it. Major polic y decision s mus t b e based o n more than intuition , especially when—as i n th e contex t o f camera s i n courts—ther e ar e profoun d constitutional implications . Few studie s hav e teste d th e hypothesi s tha t courtroo m camera s change behavior ; suc h a hypothesi s i s difficul t t o prov e o r disprove . However, anecdota l experience s with televised trials seem to indicate that th e widesprea d fea r o f camera s ma y b e unfounded . I n th e stat e and federal survey s of trial participants, described in chapter 3 , onceskeptical critic s o f th e ide a generall y expresse d satisfactio n wit h th e practice afte r actuall y experiencin g i t i n rea l cases. Before Florid a adopte d it s mode l rule , which le d t o th e Chandler decision an d whic h othe r state s would late r emulate , the Florid a Su preme Cour t conducte d a surve y t o asses s it s one-yea r pilo t experi 96

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 97 ment wit h camera s i n courts. 1 I t wa s a pos t ho c sampl e surve y o f 2,750 participants ' attitude s an d perceptions, admittedly eclectic and nonscientific, bu t telling in its results. Though most of the state court judges were unsympathetic with the notion, response levels were high and mos t concern s abou t televise d trial s were addressed . Littl e effec t on th e dignit y o f th e proceeding s wa s noted . Distraction s wer e negligible. Neither th e truthfulness o f witnesses nor the concentration of jurors seeme d t o b e affected . Participant s wer e somewha t consciou s of th e presenc e o f th e cameras , an d som e were slightl y nervous , bu t both jurors and witnesses thought they were more responsible in their actions. Littl e differenc e wa s note d between televisio n an d print media representatives . Th e supervisin g justice s adde d thei r comment s that "w e found n o adverse effect upo n the participants' performanc e or th e decoru m o f th e proceedings. " In 1995 , Court TV commissioned a survey of judges who had presided over the three hundred civi l and criminal trials it had broadcas t from federa l an d stat e court s i n thirty-two state s durin g its first four years o f cabl e coverage. 2 Th e judge s wer e asked whethe r Cour t T V personnel wer e courteous , respectfu l o f th e cour t an d it s processes , dressed appropriately , o r did anything they shouldn't have done, and whether camera s impede d th e fairnes s o f th e proces s o r portraye d trial event s s o a s t o contribut e t o publi c understandin g o f th e lega l system. Th e judge s wer e als o invite d t o mak e an y othe r comment s they wished . A large majority (7 1 percent) o f th e judge s (19 7 o f th e 27 8 ques tioned) responde d positivel y t o Cour t TV' s presence , and thei r com ments provid e importan t insight s t o th e question s commonl y raise d about th e impact o f camera s i n courts. A California judg e said, "Af ter th e first five minute s w e didn' t eve n notic e th e camer a i n th e courtroom." A Texas judg e reported : " I confes s t o havin g som e significant concern s prio r t o th e beginnin g o f trial , bu t wa s actuall y reassured b y anothe r judg e wh o ha d bee n televise d b y Cour t TV . That judg e ha d advise d m e that actuall y Cour t TV' s professionalis m had brough t th e leve l o f othe r medi a personne l t o wha t h e believe d was a higher professional standard . My experience was very similar." A soli d majorit y (6 5 percent ) conclude d tha t televisio n coverag e

98 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed "helped conve y th e event s o f th e tria l i n a wa y tha t contribute d t o the public' s understandin g o f th e lega l system. " A New Yor k judg e stated that the jury told him "the cameras did not interfere with their responsibilities." A Denver judg e note d tha t th e audienc e seeme d t o learn abou t th e judicial system . A Michigan judge concluded tha t the television coverage provided " a very large public service"; it provided a bette r wa y t o se e ho w court s wor k tha n relyin g o n a reporter' s version, on e o f hi s colleague s added . A Florida judg e praise d televi sion's educationa l capacity . An d a Mississipp i judg e added , "Th e courts belon g t o th e public , an d th e publi c ha s the righ t t o se e what we do. " How vali d ar e thes e anecdota l assessments ? Ar e the y th e bes t evidence that ca n b e gathered o n the subject? Ar e there more thoroug h and reliabl e source s tha t illumin e th e impac t o f televisio n o n trials ?

There ar e lesson s t o b e learne d fro m socia l scienc e research . Socia l scientists ar e concerne d wit h th e validit y o f thei r technique s o f ob servation, an d som e o f thei r consideration s bea r o n th e questio n o f cameras i n th e courts . In doin g research , scientifi c observer s ar e aler t t o th e impac t thei r presence ha s upo n th e group s bein g observed . I t i s likel y tha t ob servers canno t avoi d havin g som e degre e o f influenc e o n th e group s they observe ; th e questio n alway s is , Ho w muc h doe s th e for m o f observation influenc e th e behavior o f the observed? 3 How much does the ver y ac t o f observatio n chang e o r distor t th e reality ? Th e relia bility an d legitimac y o f a socia l scientist' s findings ma y b e affecte d by th e reactio n hi s o r he r wor k elicit s fro m th e peopl e o r group s being observed . There ar e variou s researc h method s o f observation , rangin g fro m participatory t o strictl y observational, 4 th e latte r comin g closes t t o the camer a i n th e courtroom . Th e behavio r o f thos e observe d i n a research situatio n i s termed "reactivity. " Th e importan t issu e i n social scienc e researc h i s the exten t t o whic h th e subject s demonstrat e certain behavio r simpl y becaus e the y ar e bein g monitored. 5 In som e academi c circles , question s hav e bee n raise d abou t th e

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 99 validity o f som e observationa l research. 6 An exampl e i s the criticis m of th e conclusion s advance d i n anthropologis t Margare t Mead' s celebrated boo k abou t th e sexua l habit s o f youn g Samoa n girls . On e critic claime d tha t he r finding s wer e unreliabl e becaus e the y wer e obscured b y he r fault y field researc h techniques . H e argue d tha t Mead's preconceive d idea s an d attitude s towar d th e girl s influence d their behavio r an d responses , an d thu s invalidate d he r findings. 7 Much moder n criticis m i s base d o n th e fundamenta l questio n o f how muc h one' s history , gender , race , an d experience s ma y distor t one's observations . I n a post-O. J., post-deconstructionis t world , we have come to realize that standards of justice are perceived differentl y according t o th e socia l biase s o f th e perceivers . Black s an d whites , men an d women , t o resor t t o th e mos t obviou s examples , judge th e "facts" i n a tria l differentl y becaus e thei r perception s o f th e sam e "facts" ar e refracted throug h fundamentally differen t persona l lenses. The survey s o f publi c opinio n abou t th e O . J. Simpso n verdict mad e this insigh t ver y clear . Thus , som e scientist s acknowledg e i n thei r work "th e omnipresenc e o f th e uncertaint y principle, " tha t th e ac t of observing a phenomenon inevitabl y changes it. They seek scientifi c objectivity throug h insistin g o n th e mos t scrupulous , noninferential , nondisruptive technique s o f observation . But a n additiona l questio n mus t b e asked : I f observatio n affect s behavior, ho w d o w e kno w whethe r i t affect s i t negativel y o r posi tively? Som e expert s believ e tha t observatio n increase s sociall y ac ceptable behavio r an d decrease s negativ e behavior . Eve n i f a n observer i s no t present , i f peopl e ar e awar e tha t som e for m o f ob servation is taking place they react to being observed. 8 Human beings alter their behavio r throug h self-monitoring , an d thus may be, to use the prevailin g terminology , "self-reactive." 9 Studie s hav e confirme d that observe d subject s amplif y thei r sociall y beneficia l behavio r an d suppress thei r adversiv e behavio r unde r scrutiny. 10 That w e exercis e self-contro l whe n w e ar e watche d i s hardl y a shocking revelation . A n exampl e o f thi s fac t wa s relate d t o m e b y author Bettyan n Kevles . Because radiologist s mak e error s i n readin g X-rays, an experiment was conducted to determine if miss rates could be improved. 11 A compariso n wa s mad e betwee n accurac y rate s i n

100 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed ordinary circumstances and in situations where the radiologists' reads were observe d b y anothe r docto r o r thei r dat a wa s reviewe d b y a computer. I n the latte r situations , accuracy rate s went up . Yet, however logical this conclusion may be, it is at war with the presumptions about wha t kin d o f behavio r camera s provok e amon g tria l partici pants. M y persona l experience s a s a tria l lawye r sugges t t o m e tha t judges behav e bette r whe n the y ar e observed , an d mor e idiosyncrat ically when they operate in imperious isolation. Of course, the degree of reactivit y i s variable , an d wha t positivel y inhibit s on e observe d subject ma y negativel y stimulat e another. 12 In addition , researcher s hav e conclude d tha t a proces s o f accli mation t o th e presenc e o f observin g outsider s ma y alleviat e initia l influences an d restor e normalc y i n observed groups. 13 The impact of being observe d graduall y diminishes , an d thu s s o doe s th e reactio n of th e observed. 14 Tha t woul d explai n th e comment s o f participant s in televise d trial s wh o remarke d tha t th e camer a quickl y becam e a s invisible a s a piece o f courtroo m furniture . Researchers als o hav e note d tha t th e degre e t o whic h a n observe r does o r doe s no t conflic t with—o r provok e anxiet y an d disrespec t in—those bein g observed affect s th e latter's reaction . In this respect, there ar e significan t difference s betwee n th e camera s i n th e court rooms an d th e reporter s outsid e coverin g th e cases . The forme r ar e relatively anonymous , passive participant-observers, to use social science categories , an d d o no t interac t directl y wit h th e observed ; th e latter ar e activ e an d interferin g agents , wh o ofte n caus e ope n an d hostile conflict s wit h th e peopl e observed . Recal l commo n scene s of pushing reporters and hoisted broadcastin g equipment on courthouse steps, and compar e tha t scen e with th e invisible camera i n the courtroom. One insight, derived from socia l science research techniques, is relevant t o question s abou t th e impac t o f televisin g cour t proceedings . It i s a syllogism . Observationa l dat a collecte d b y observer s create s reactive effects o n the observed. The observers' involuntary selectivity and interpretation distort s the object observed. Any observer's ability to witnes s al l aspect s o f an y phenomenon i s thereby limite d t o som e extent. Therefore , howeve r imperfec t th e courtroo m camer a ma y b e

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 101 in portrayin g a scientificall y tru e picture , i t ma y b e les s subjectiv e (albeit more powerful) tha n the other traditional forms of journalistic coverage. Th e hidde n camer a ma y no t revea l som e sor t o f unadul terated, objectiv e reality , bu t i t ma y com e close r t o doin g s o tha n human reporters . Two areas of scientific inquir y outsid e the legal arena ar e pertinent to th e questio n unde r discussion : th e Heisenber g Uncertaint y Prin ciple o f quantu m physic s an d th e Hawthorne Principl e o f measurin g worker performance . HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINT Y PRINCIPL E

Is ther e an y wa y t o prov e o r disprov e b y objective , har d scientifi c evidence the general presumption tha t publicity disturbs trials? What insights migh t othe r disciplines , suc h a s quantu m physics , offe r to ward answerin g thi s question ? In 1927 , as a postdoctoral assistan t t o physicis t Niel s Bohr in Copenhagen, Werne r Kar l Heisenber g formulate d a theor y o f matri x mechanics ( a for m o f quantu m physics) . Fro m i t evolve d wha t ha s come to b e known a s the uncertaint y principle . The young physicisttheorist, late r a Nobel Priz e winner, develope d th e idea that physica l theories "shoul d onl y b e concerne d wit h thing s tha t ca n actuall y b e observed b y experiments." 15 By drawing from th e principles of quantum mechanics an d it s explanations o f the interactions betwee n matter an d energy , Heisenber g cam e t o a ne w understandin g abou t th e physical world : w e canno t determin e certai n fact s wit h exactitud e because th e observe r affect s th e observed. 16 Put i n it s mos t simpl e terms , Heisenberg' s theor y o f uncertaint y established tha t a t a subatomi c level , a t least , on e canno t observ e a phenomenon withou t changin g it . Thus, there i s an uncertaint y tha t limits our powers of exact knowledge. 17 To observe is to disturb. For example, "eve n th e meageres t attemp t t o observ e a n ato m i s so disruptive t o th e ato m tha t i t i s no t eve n possibl e t o pictur e wha t a n atom look s like." 18 Mor e specifically , i t i s th e measuremen t o f th e variables i n a quantu m mechanica l syste m (suc h a s movemen t an d position o f a n atom ) tha t ar e disrupte d durin g observation . I n addi-

102 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed tion, th e mor e precis e th e measuremen t o f on e variable , th e greate r the disruptio n o f th e others . "I n th e mos t extrem e case , absolut e precision o f on e variabl e woul d involv e absolut e imprecisio n regard ing th e other." 19 O n a n atomi c scale , i n othe r words , th e proces s b y which w e observ e th e stat e o f a mechanica l syste m permit s u s t o obtain informatio n abou t tha t system , bu t a t th e sam e tim e allow s fluctuation t o enter . Does thi s microscopi c scientifi c principl e o f uncertaint y appl y t o a macroscopic societa l proces s lik e a trial ? Doe s th e camer a modif y th e reality o f a tria l b y displayin g it ? Historically, scientist s hav e develope d theorie s abou t th e natur e o f macro-observation. Galileo , fo r example , explore d th e differenc e be tween passiv e an d activ e observation . Th e forme r involve s situation s where th e presenc e o f th e observe r ha s n o effec t o n th e natur e o r outcome o f wha t i s observed . A n exampl e i s th e settin g o f th e sun , which result s fro m th e earth' s rotation ; i t occur s regardles s o f it s being observed . Galile o introduce d th e notio n tha t ther e ma y b e ac tive observatio n tha t doe s no t disrup t natur e i n explainin g it . Classical physic s i s roote d i n th e searc h fo r objectiv e reality , bot h of th e physica l univers e an d o f huma n behavior . Isaa c Newto n dem onstrated tha t activ e observatio n wa s simpl y a n extensio n o f passiv e observation, an d thu s tha t instrument s o f scienc e detecte d bu t di d not alte r th e worl d the y explored . If an y measuremen t o f a syste m disturb s tha t syste m unpredictably , as Heisenber g proved , i s ther e n o wa y t o observ e withou t contami nating th e observed ? Heisenber g note d tha t i f one agree d wit h a for m of objectiv e measurement— a rule r measure s distance ; a cloc k meas ures time—th e myster y o f tim e an d spac e vanishes . Wha t happens , he asked , whe n a concep t ha s n o generall y accepte d measuremen t o f its operationa l definition ? H e deal t wit h atom s an d microscope s an d light waves . W e dea l i n thi s boo k wit h th e concep t o f justic e an d th e workings o f th e tria l system . Applie d t o huma n affairs , Heisenberg' s revelations ma y b e viewe d a s a metaphor . A s on e schola r o f scienc e told me , "Huma n activitie s ar e no t a t th e atomi c leve l an d the y in volve entitie s wit h min d an d wil l an d emotion s unlik e atoms." 2 0 Several year s afte r Heisenberg' s Principl e wa s enunciated , anothe r

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 103 physicist advanced a profound ide a about quantum mechanics. Erwin Schrodinger, a n earl y twentieth-centur y Austria n scientist, propose d a hypothetica l situatio n involvin g a mythica l cat , t o mak e a poin t about th e differenc e between everyda y perception s o f principle s o f physics an d th e insight s o f quantu m mechanics , which ar e base d o n principles of probabilities. Suppose, Schrodinger suggested, that a live cat and a phial of poison were put in a closed, otherwise empty room. Suppose als o that th e poison wa s positioned s o that ther e was a 50 50 chanc e tha t it s containe r woul d ope n an d th e ca t woul d b e poi soned. Withou t lookin g inside , ordinar y rule s o f chanc e woul d sug gest tha t ther e i s a n equa l chanc e th e ca t i s dea d o r alive . Bu t b y rules o f pur e quantu m mechanics , neither possibilit y i s real unles s it is observe d t o b e so—th e ca t i s i n a n indeterminat e stat e unti l a n observer see s what i s in the room . Schrodinger' s notio n i s that ther e is no fundamenta l realit y i n th e worl d unles s an d unti l th e worl d i s observed.21 Schrodinger's an d Heisenberg' s insight s ar e ofte n compared; 22 th e former focuse d o n state s o f things a s the sourc e o f change, while the latter focuse d o n the variation o f observables. 23 Dare one enter these deep and , t o many , alien , waters, to speculat e whethe r ther e ar e lessons to be applied from Heisenberg' s Principle to the issue of cameras in courts? No t scientifically , becaus e these principles do not appl y t o human systems . Bu t th e idea s len d credenc e t o th e suppositio n tha t the additio n o f televisio n t o court s affect s th e judicia l process . O f course, even metaphorically, it does not suggest whether those effect s would b e positive o r negative . THE HAWTHORN E PRINCIPL E

One are a o f socia l scienc e researc h concernin g worke r performanc e also suggest s interestin g insight s to th e questio n abou t th e impact of observation. Between 1924 and 1932 , seven studies of worker productivity were conducted a t the Western Electri c Company' s Hawthorn e Plan t near Chicago. Thes e studie s attempte d t o asses s whether worke r produc tivity increase d whe n certai n variabl e employmen t condition s wer e

104 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed changed—such thing s a s illumination , morale , milieu , supervision , rest pauses , duration o f work , grou p influences , an d metho d o f payment. A t the conclusio n o f th e experiment , improvement s i n worker performance wer e noted . However , becaus e certai n increase s coul d not b e attributed t o the control variables, the thesis was propounde d that som e othe r influence s effecte d th e improvement . Labeled th e Hawthorn e Principle , thi s thesi s state d tha t th e mer e awareness o f thei r rol e i n th e experimen t resulte d i n th e workers ' improved outpu t ove r a perio d o f time. 24 Th e stud y conclude d tha t the experimen t itsel f ha d produce d a n unwante d o r a t leas t unplan ned effect . Fro m th e widel y note d study , th e theor y evolve d tha t unexplained result s i n experiment s o n huma n being s ma y b e attrib uted simpl y to the fact tha t the y were observed i n an experiment an d as a resul t experience d somethin g the y woul d no t hav e otherwis e experienced. This stud y i s often cited—a s i s the Heisenber g principl e o f uncer tainty in quantum physics—for th e proposition that a thing observed is a thing changed. That conclusion has been questioned by reputable social scientists. 25 On e criti c ha s postulate d tha t "somethin g othe r than wha t th e experimenter s explicitl y introduce d mad e workers ' productivity increase." 26 Bu t what wa s thi s extraneou s variable ? H e speculated tha t conditionin g throug h reinforcement s suc h a s infor mation feedbac k an d financial reward , a s wel l a s improve d skills , might wel l hav e le d t o th e workers ' progressiv e increase s i n perfor mance. In th e languag e o f behavio r modification , "th e consequence s of subjects ' performanc e affec t wha t subject s do. " Anothe r author , studying th e applicatio n o f th e Hawthorn e Principl e t o crimina l justice research , argue d tha t th e principl e i s misunderstood. 27 B y providing feedbac k an d removin g obstacle s t o improve d performance , standards ar e improved . Contrar y t o som e interpretation s o f th e Hawthorne experiment , h e argued , mer e interes t i n employees' wellbeing is not enough .

Does applyin g th e Hawthorn e Principl e t o th e questio n o f televise d trials sugges t tha t observatio n woul d chang e th e proces s fo r th e bet -

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 105 ter? D o people behav e bette r whe n the y are being watched? Usually , we do. In trials, lawyers an d judges are likely to b e less idiosyncratic if thei r behavio r i s observe d publicly . Certainly , i n othe r situation s people ar e incline d t o behav e bette r whe n the y ar e bein g observe d than whe n the y ar e not . Withou t contro l groups , however , i t i s impossible t o matc h th e behavio r o f tria l participant s i n televise d an d nontelevised trials . And i t is impossible t o create exactly comparabl e groups, even i f on e ha d th e inclinatio n an d resource s t o try . Relatively littl e lega l researc h exist s measurin g whethe r an d ho w press publicity affect s trials . Some law an d judicia l journal s an d dissertations have explored the questions considered here; none are conclusive, though som e are suggestive. For example , while most peopl e presume tha t extensiv e pres s coverag e o f a cas e destroy s th e abilit y of th e juror s t o decid e th e cas e fairly , littl e empirica l dat a support s this conclusion . I f judge s ar e presume d t o b e abl e t o withstan d th e human effect s o f crim e news , why no t juries ? Is th e journalis m o f crimina l trial s a reflection , rathe r tha n th e creator, o f communit y attitudes ? D o jurie s reflec t communit y atti tudes? Are jurors swayed more by press comments than b y their own past experience s an d predispositions—thei r gende r o r race , fo r ex ample? I f th e pres s i s just on e o f th e multitud e o f force s interactin g on the collectiv e psych e o f th e jury, why contro l thi s one and ignor e the others? The influence o f the press over juries is psychological and , though speculation s abound , littl e ha s bee n don e t o examin e i t an alytically. A s on e la w journa l reported : "Th e initia l attitude s o f th e community an d th e circulatio n o f th e publicatio n ar e relevan t facts. But a t th e cente r o f th e analysi s li e difficult sociologica l questions — to wha t exten t d o newspaper s creat e communit y attitudes?—an d psychological questions—t o wha t exten t d o community attitude s af fect the mind of the juror? The courts will have to rely on speculation from commo n experienc e t o reac h conclusions , unti l mor e reliabl e and specifi c studie s ar e mad e tha n exis t a t th e present time." 28 Some studies have looked a t th e effec t o f the communications media o n communit y mores . On e sociologis t studie d crim e reporting in a grou p o f metropolita n newspaper s throughou t th e country , con cluding tha t crim e new s wa s noticeabl y embellished. 29 Suc h embel -

106 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed lishment sell s paper s an d attract s a wide r audienc e o n radi o (presumably mor e s o o n television) . Therefore , th e advertiser s wh o support th e communications medi a ge t their product s befor e a larger segment o f th e publi c whe n sensationa l crime s ar e featured . Strangely, anothe r authorit y note d tha t afte r th e Hauptman n trial , during whic h on e paper' s circulatio n increase d five hundre d thou sand, newspaper s actuall y los t money. 30 Seemingly , a lowe r caliber of reader was attracted t o the papers b y the crime news. Those readers wer e no t intereste d i n th e advertisements . Consequently , adver tisers, finding th e newspaper s o f littl e us e i n sellin g thei r wares , discontinued thei r advertisements . In Radio and the Printed Page, 31 Paul Lazarsfel d pointe d ou t tha t radio had a strong commercial effect , bu t no profound socia l impact. According t o him , radi o broadcaster s ten d t o b e conservativ e i n social matters . Thus , i t woul d appea r tha t th e communication s medi a would hav e littl e influenc e o n th e prosecutoriall y dispose d mas s au diences o f th e larg e urba n center s i n which mos t crimina l trial s tak e place. Then, too , advers e publicit y ma y hav e th e revers e effec t fro m that intended . Th e crowd , instea d o f judgin g harshly , ma y sympa thize wit h a n accuse d becaus e h e i s the underdog . Readers ten d t o rea d onl y tha t wit h whic h the y agre e an d d o no t seek conflictin g opinions , on e researche r concluded. 32 New s tha t gives immediat e psychologica l satisfaction , suc h a s crim e reports , is of the greatest interest to the young and less educated. Probably most jurors rea d paper s whos e reportin g come s closes t t o thei r ow n pre conceived attitudes , anothe r indicatio n tha t th e pres s cater s t o pre formed idea s rathe r tha n settin g ne w standard s o f belief . A strikin g illustration o f th e way s i n whic h newspaper s reinforc e preforme d ideas was reporte d i n a study o f loca l newspaper s a t the time o f on e notorious cas e i n Baltimore. 33 Fou r cit y paper s reporte d th e killin g of a whit e woma n b y a blac k man . Thre e papers , whic h targete d primarily white readers, favored a conviction. By contrast, the fourth , an African-American paper , stressed the favorable backgroun d o f the accused. Th e sam e division s o f opinio n alon g racia l line s were glar ingly eviden t durin g th e notoriou s O . J. Simpso n trial . A University of Souther n Californi a sociolog y professor wh o studie d th e effects o f

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed •107 media coverag e among differen t race s in the Simpson case concluded that i t "ha d littl e effec t o n people' s view s ove r th e cours e o f th e trial." 34 Wha t peopl e perceive d merel y confirme d wha t the y alread y thought. Many variable s influenc e th e effec t o f mas s medi a o n th e public . Erwin Hovlan d observe d tha t suc h variable s a s th e orde r i n whic h points ar e presented , wh o say s what , a s wel l a s wha t i s said , th e prestige o f th e medium , an d th e interes t i n the topic al l figure prominently.35 Although socia l science has cast some light on the proble m of publi c opinio n an d fai r trials , it ha s no t yet , an d ma y never , pro vide a definitiv e answe r t o th e questio n o f th e media' s influenc e o n trials. Until the psychological issue s are resolved, provisional and imperfect remedie s suc h a s continuances, change o f venue, and seques tration mus t suffice . The Suprem e Cour t sai d a s much i n reviewing a California capita l murder case. 36 In Stroble v. California, one o f the grounds o f appea l was tha t inflammator y newspape r coverag e o f th e defendant' s arres t and confessio n o f brutall y killin g a six-year-ol d gir l deprived hi m of a fai r tria l si x week s later . Howeve r hysterica l th e widesprea d pub licity was , th e Suprem e Cour t ruled , defens e counse l neve r sough t a change o f venue . Withou t firm evidenc e o f a prejudice d jury , th e Court refuse d t o presum e tha t th e publicity ha d impede d a fair trial . Justices Hug o Blac k an d Willia m Dougla s dissented , urgin g tha t "Precisely becaus e th e feelin g o f th e outsid e worl d cannot , wit h th e utmost care , b e kep t wholl y outsid e th e courtroo m ever y endeavo r must b e take n i n a civilize d tria l t o kee p i t outside. " Th e dissenter s despaired a t th e lac k o f scientifi c evidenc e t o asses s th e impac t o f pretrial publicit y upo n a jury: "Scienc e with al l its advance s ha s no t given u s instruments fo r determinin g whe n th e impact o f such newspaper exploitatio n ha s spen t itsel f o r whethe r th e powerfu l impres sion boun d t o b e mad e b y suc h inflamin g article s a s her e precede d the tria l ca n b e dissipate d i n th e min d o f th e averag e juro r b y th e tame an d ofte n pedestria n proceeding s i n court." 37 Early socia l scienc e research , based o n newspape r an d radi o cov erage, i s o f limite d applicatio n t o television . Man y thin k tha t th e pervasiveness o f television create s a difference o f kind, not merely of

108 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed degree, fro m th e impact s o f radi o an d th e printe d page . Mos t re search directl y dealin g with th e effect o f cameras i n courts conclude s that thei r presenc e doe s no t adversel y affec t cour t proceedings , though fe w studie s ca n b e considered scientificall y conclusive . While courts aspire to remain as open an institution as democracy demands, they hesitat e t o adop t change s base d o n substandar d science . Muc h social science research varies largely in quality, and the risk of basing a lega l rul e o n flawe d researc h i s obvious. Court s shoul d plac e con fidence i n socia l scienc e researc h i f i t "(a ) ha s survive d th e critica l review o f th e scientifi c community , (b ) has use d valid research meth ods, (c ) is generalizable t o th e lega l questio n a t issue , and (d ) is supported b y a bod y o f othe r [related ] research. " Th e critica l questio n regarding socia l scienc e is "how muc h succes s a scientific clai m must have befor e court s wil l rely o n it." 38 Research int o th e effect s o f camera s i n courtroom s ha s consiste d largely o f thre e types : surveys , cas e studies , an d experiments . Th e most commo n researc h t o dat e ha s bee n base d o n survey s usin g evaluative procedure s suc h a s after-the-fac t interview s an d question naires o f tria l participants . Th e proble m o f determinin g th e effect o f press comments o n jurors i s compounded b y the practical difficultie s of researc h i n thi s area . Court s hav e bee n extremely protectiv e o f jurors' right s o f privacy . Althoug h juror s ma y subsequentl y disclos e what wen t o n i n their mind s durin g th e trial an d thei r deliberations , these late r statement s ma y b e misleadin g o r inaccurat e sinc e juror s cannot b e observe d i n th e actua l proces s o f deliberation . Survey researc h provide s informatio n regardin g individuals ' atti tudes towar d a particula r situation , bu t " a surve y o f publi c opinio n cannot establis h causal inference . . . w e cannot prove that TV causes prejudice simpl y becaus e peopl e believ e i t does." 39 Furthermore , a report o f wha t som e people thin k i s anecdotal i s not necessaril y fac tual. A s on e commentato r noted , " A surve y o f judge s an d lawyer s on thei r opinio n o f th e validit y o f th e Pythagorea n Theore m woul d not chang e it s true nature." 40 An earl y exampl e o f surve y researc h wa s conducte d durin g Flor ida's year-lon g experimen t wit h televisio n i n selecte d courtroom s i n 1977-1978. 41 Researcher s interviewe d 12 1 tria l participant s a t th e conclusion o f five criminal trials . Of the jurors, 39 percent found th e

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 109 cameras distracting, and 20 percent of these said cameras made them tense. In addition, 24.5 percent of the jurors thought that the cameras interfered wit h the conduct o f the trial. Interestingly, 70. 5 percent of them thought televising the trial was in the best interest of the public. The surve y author s conclude d tha t th e questio n o f subtl e psychological effects o f camera s i n the courtroom , base d o n witness testimon y and jur y decision-making , remaine d unanswered . In 1987 , tw o researcher s investigate d people' s belief s abou t whether courtroo m camera s would caus e subtle psychological effect s on participants in rape trials. 42 The researchers interviewed a random sample of male and female resident s in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan are a an d found tha t more than 9 0 percent believed that the rape victim' s traum a woul d increas e a s th e resul t o f televisin g th e trial. Nearl y 7 0 percen t believe d camera s woul d disrup t th e tria l process. Of the residents participating, 6 8 percent o f respondents believed televising rape trials would reduce the reporting of rapes, while 42 percen t believe d doin g s o woul d rais e awarenes s o f rap e issue s and 3 5 percen t though t televisin g th e rap e trial s woul d encourag e more rapes . The researcher s reasone d tha t th e participants ' answer s were mor e negativ e regardin g th e effect s o f televisio n i n th e court room tha n th e effect s outsid e th e courtroom . The y attribute d thi s to the fac t tha t peopl e ar e more capabl e o f imagining television camer a effects insid e th e courtroom . In 1990 , a n informa l surve y o f federa l distric t cour t judge s foun d that th e majorit y o f th e sittin g judge s wh o responde d supporte d a continued absolut e ba n o n televisio n i n th e federa l courts. 43 Whil e 62 percen t oppose d an y medi a coverag e o f pretria l proceeding s an d 50 percen t oppose d coverag e o f tria l proceedings , nearl y 65 percen t opposed an y us e o f televisio n i n th e courtroom . Onl y 1 3 percen t strongly favore d televisio n coverage . The researcher s als o detecte d a sincere concern amon g judges that televise d coverage of a courtroo m might affect jurors ' abilities to perform thei r duties. As one judge put it: Ordinarily, the problem which results when jurors talk with others about a case despite admonitions not to do so may not be too great. First, the temptation o f the outsider to force th e conversation i s not too high when he knows little o r nothing t o begi n with, so the ad-

110 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed monition ma y no t b e to o ofte n ignored . Second , bot h partie s ar e likely t o accep t th e premis e tha t th e opinio n o f th e on e who i s there is probably mor e valid . Whe n bot h ar e "there, " however , th e equa tion change s dramatically , an d i t i s muc h harde r fo r th e on e wh o must reach the actual verdict to defend hi s or her opinion. It is, therefore, muc h mor e subjec t t o undu e influence . A 199 1 surve y conducte d i n Ne w Yor k Stat e supporte d thi s sus picion. 44 Whe n five hundre d randoml y chose n voter s were aske d ove r the telephon e "ho w likel y the y woul d b e t o testif y i n cour t i f the y were a victi m o f crim e an d learne d tha t th e tria l woul d b e videotape d for broadcas t o n th e evenin g news, " virtuall y hal f (4 8 percent ) wer e less willing t o testify . Fewe r respondent s (4 3 percent) sai d the y woul d be a s willin g t o testify . Onl y 1 0 percen t o f thos e surveye d responde d that the y woul d b e mor e willin g t o testify . Th e researcher s conclude d that "fo r ever y perso n wh o woul d b e mor e willin g t o testif y whe n cameras ar e i n th e courtroom , five peopl e woul d b e les s willin g t o come forwar d an d testif y . . . o r fou r ou t o f te n potentia l victim s . . . will b e les s willin g t o testif y i n a crimina l case. " As note d earlier , Cour t TV' s 199 2 informa l surve y focusin g o n judges' reaction s t o camera s i n th e courtroo m conclude d tha t th e cameras di d no t imped e th e judicia l process ; indeed , 6 0 percen t o f the judge s though t Cour t TV' s camer a "helpe d conve y th e event s o f the tria l i n a wa y tha t contribute d t o publi c understandin g o f th e legal system." 45 An d th e Federa l Judicia l Center' s questionnaire s an d telephone interview s o f judge s an d attorney s regardin g camera s i n the courtroo m (durin g th e perio d fro m Jul y 1 , 1991 , t o Jun e 30 , 1993) conclude d tha t judges ' attitude s towar d electroni c medi a im proved ove r time . Both judge s an d attorney s reporte d witnessin g littl e effect o f camera s o n tria l participants . O n th e basi s o f thi s study , th e research projec t staf f recommende d th e authorizatio n o f th e us e o f cameras nationwid e i n civil proceedings, subjec t t o certai n guidelines . This stud y ha d limitations : onl y perceive d effect s o n courtroo m par ticipants wer e measured ; onl y civi l proceeding s wer e covered ; th e sample wa s voluntary , no t random ; an d mos t judge s ha d prio r ex perience wit h medi a coverag e i n thei r courtroom. 4 6 The secon d typ e o f researc h involve s th e cas e study . Thi s i s a n

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 111 examination o f the impact of television on a single trial. The problem with thi s mode o f analysis , from th e perspectiv e o f policy-makers, is its lac k o f generalizability . Simpl y becaus e on e tria l wa s o r wa s no t conducted fairly with camera coverage does not necessarily mean that other trial s wit h othe r participant s woul d lea d t o th e sam e results . One doctora l dissertatio n conclude d tha t "traditiona l speculatio n a s to possibl e disruptio n t o th e judicia l proces s b y courtroo m camera s appears t o b e unwarranted." 47 Tha t stud y focuse d o n th e new s coverage o f fou r crimina l trial s i n Florida' s Eight h Judicial Distric t an d used participan t observatio n ( a researche r sittin g i n a courtroo m watching proceedings) , conten t analysi s (analyzin g tria l coverag e i n local media), and juror exit polls (questionnaires answered by jurors). Among other things, participants were asked whether broadcast journalists following th e guidelines disrupted the trial process. Generally, they answere d tha t the y di d no t fee l distracte d b y courtroo m cam eras, nor di d the y hav e unfavorabl e feeling s abou t them . The autho r admitted th e limit s o f hi s study , whic h onl y include d a handfu l o f trials in a single jurisdiction and, therefore, must be replicated to have any validity . Bu t h e advance d hi s conclusio n tha t "Th e empirica l study doe s suppor t th e theoretical evidenc e presented b y the handfu l of earlie r experimenta l studie s . . . that th e mere presence of camera s does no t lea d t o disruptio n o f th e judicia l process. " Criticism of the survey and case study approaches include "the lack of wel l planned , comprehensiv e surve y instruments , th e failur e t o devise studie s whic h woul d isolat e an d contro l th e influenc e o f a specific variable , th e absenc e o f stric t contro l grou p comparisons , unstructured dat a collectio n methods , an d superficia l reportin g o f results." Furthermore , th e dat a collecte d i n thes e studie s i s purel y anecdotal; i t give s individual attitude s an d perception s o f what hap pened, rathe r tha n attemptin g t o demonstrat e wha t migh t hav e actually occurred. 48 A 1990 doctoral dissertatio n attempte d to respond to this criticism in conductin g a cas e stud y o f th e four-mont h murde r tria l o f Joe l Steinberg, the first major Ne w Yor k cas e in which televised coverag e was seen on a daily basis, including gavel-to-gavel coverage of a leading witness' s testimony. 49 Th e crime , chil d an d wif e beating , wa s

112 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed gruesome, and th e battere d wif e was the key witness. The study used the cas e a s a foru m t o explor e th e questio n o f whethe r th e presenc e of a television camera affect s th e performance o f court members and, ultimately, th e natur e o f th e proces s itself . Th e researche r believe d his cas e stud y coul d "tak e int o accoun t th e subtletie s o f huma n in teraction an d ca n uncove r type s o f behavio r an d perception s tha t otherwise ma y b e difficul t t o ascertai n o r eve n recogniz e throug h traditional researc h methods. " H e use d a qualitativ e researc h ap proach i n whic h unobtrusiv e observation , in-dept h interviews , an d follow-up interview s wer e use d no t t o see k th e trut h o r moralit y o f the case , but rathe r a n understandin g o f peoples ' perspectives . In thi s study , a s in th e stat e survey s describe d i n chapte r 3 , many participants reevaluate d thei r previousl y hel d belief s abou t camera s in th e courtroom , finding tha t thei r experience s wer e differen t tha n their earlie r beliefs . More importantly , th e researcher discovered tha t "many participants appeared to 'live up' to the expectations that they believed the medium had of them, and it was that peculiar interactio n that playe d a par t i n thei r performanc e durin g th e trial. " I n othe r words, the wa y th e particula r participan t define d th e mediu m ha d a direct effec t o f he r o r hi s performance . On e witness , wh o sa w tele vision i n term s o f entertainment , shielde d he r tw o daughter s fro m any television coverage for fea r i t would b e harmful. Th e prosecution viewed the cameras as a self-promotion too l o f the television station s and avoide d watchin g nightl y account s o f th e tria l altogether . Th e defense attorney s admitte d t o usin g th e dail y new s conference s a s a medium t o attemp t t o influenc e th e jur y an d watche d dail y broad casts t o gaug e thei r progres s i n manipulatin g publi c opinion . The y even admitte d changin g thei r lega l strateg y afte r seein g how a majo r witness's testimon y appeare d i n th e new s reports . Th e judge , wh o perceived th e camer a a s a too l fo r self-evaluation , sai d h e change d his behavio r afte r seein g a new s repor t depictin g hi s ange r a t a de fense attorney . The researche r conclude d tha t hi s cas e stud y reveale d a comple x environment i n which participant s ofte n interacte d wit h the mediu m based upo n thei r previousl y hel d perception s abou t ho w thei r rol e should unfol d withi n thi s ne w environment . I n certai n case s this in -

The Scope s Trial . Clarenc e Darro w vs . William Jenning s Bryan , debatin g th e teachin g o f evolution, dre w suc h larg e crowd s tha t th e tria l wa s move d outdoors , du e t o th e suffocat ing hea t i n th e courtroom . (Courtes y o f UPI/Corbis-Bettmann )

Bedlam i n th e courtroo m durin g th e tria l o f Brun o Hauptman n i n Ne w Jersey , January 7 , 1935, whic h resulte d i n a fifty-yea r ba n o n broadcastin g trials . Hauptman n wa s charge d with th e kidnapin g an d murde r o f Charle s Lindbergh' s son . Lindberg h ca n b e seen , seate d in th e secon d row , nea r th e extrem e left , whil e Hauptman n i s o n th e extrem e right . (Cour tesy o f AP/Wid e Worl d Photos )

The scen e i n th e pres s roo m (locate d i n th e priso n garage ) afte r Brun o Hauptmann' s elec trocution. Newsme n typ e thei r account s o f th e executio n an d wir e thei r narrative s t o a waiting world . (Courtes y o f AP/Wid e Worl d Photos )

Dr. Sa m Sheppar d returnin g t o th e courtroo m afte r reces s i n hi s first degre e murde r tria l in Novembe r o f 195 4 o n charge s o f beatin g hi s wife , Marilyn , t o death . (Courtes y o f AP / Wide Worl d Photos )

Convicted te n year s earlie r t o lif e i n jail , Sheppar d sign s paper s fo r hi s freedo m unde r a $10,000 bon d afte r hi s releas e fro m a n Ohi o penitentiary . Th e forme r osteopat h wa s free d by a Dayto n judg e wh o believe d h e di d no t receiv e a fai r tria l du e t o prejudicia l medi a coverage. Th e Suprem e Cour t ha d rule d that , whe n camera s i n court s creat e a carniva l atmosphere, judge s mus t tak e contro l o f conduc t i n thei r presence , o r ris k th e reversa l o f convictions. (Courtes y o f AP/Wid e Worl d Photos )

Before th e Este s an d Chandle r cases , a fe w state s di d experimen t wit h photographe d trials . After Chandler , mos t states—forty-eigh t a s o f 1997—permitte d som e broadcastin g o f tri als. Thi s 195 5 bomb-murde r tria l o f Henr y Washbur n i n Waco , Texas , wa s reportedl y th e first murde r tria l televise d i n th e Unite d States . (Courtes y o f Librar y o f Congress )

The Este s trial . (Courtes y o f th e Nationa l Archives )

Cameras photographin g a hearin g t o exclud e cameras . I n th e earl y day s o f television , at tempts t o broadcas t trial s wer e criticize d b y mos t lawyer s an d judges , nearl y resultin g i n a Supreme Cour t ban . Thes e image s depic t th e activitie s o f stil l an d motio n pictur e photog raphers a t a preliminar y hearin g t o exclud e camera s fro m th e courtroom . (Courtes y o f Na tional Archives )

O. J . an d Overkil l Journalism . Th e camera s outsid e th e hom e o f O . J . Simpso n durin g th e double-murder tria l o f th e footbal l an d televisio n celebrit y O . J . Simpson . Camera s wer e so conspicuou s an d plentifu l outsid e th e courtroo m tha t th e are a acros s th e stree t fro m th e courthouse becam e know n informall y a s Cam p O . J . Coverag e o f suc h notoriou s trial s ca n create havo c a t th e scen e an d inflam e communities . (Courtes y o f AP/Wid e Worl d Photos ; photograph b y Michae l Caulfield )

The Tria l o f Timoth y McVeigh . Eve n whe n camera s ar e banne d insid e courtrooms , thei r presence durin g celebrate d trial s i s nonetheles s ubiquitou s an d influential . Here , Stephe n Jones, lea d defens e lawye r fo r Oklahom a Cit y bombe r Timoth y McVeigh , i s besiege d b y the medi a a s h e arrive s a t th e federa l courthouse . (Courtes y o f AP/Wid e Worl d Photos ; photograph b y E d Andrieski )

On Tria l i n Washington . Ne w technolog y ca n eliminat e physica l disruptio n an d interfer ence b y cameras . I n th e Suprem e Cour t o f Washingto n State , al l argument s ar e televised , with littl e prejudicia l effec t o n participants . (Courtes y o f TVW ; photograp h b y Michae l Peters)

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 113 teraction fostere d th e pursui t o f persona l agendas ; i n other s i t en hanced a sens e o f publi c duty . Stil l other s regarde d i t a s a n impediment t o th e traditiona l function s o f th e court , believin g i t al tered th e deliberativ e processe s o f law . In contrast, on e eight-year stud y o f television in the courtrooms of eleven states , which included cas e studies , surveys, and experiments , concluded tha t "camer a coverag e o f trial s (eve n sensational crimina l cases) doe s not necessarily influenc e th e majority o f trial participant s to behave in ways that are noticeably differen t fro m behavio r in nontelevised trials . This i s not t o sa y that man y tria l participant s d o not have mixe d o r negativ e attitude s towar d camer a coverage , onl y tha t the bul k o f empirica l researc h conducte d t o dat e show s littl e cor relation betwee n th e presenc e o f camera s a t trial s an d perceive d prejudicial behavio r o n th e par t o f jurors , witnesses , judges , o r at torneys."50 This stud y als o note d a correlatio n between positiv e attitude s to ward camera s and increased experience with camera coverage . Many participants reporte d tha t th e presenc e o f camera s i n th e courtroo m was more likel y t o affec t thei r neighbo r rathe r tha n themselves , perhaps because "ther e may be a general tendency to see others as more easily manipulate d an d misle d tha n oneself . . . . While acknowledg ing that a message i s quite powerful, the y may claim a superior level of resistanc e t o it s effects." I n othe r words , television ma y hav e ha d a ba d image , bu t i t seeme d t o foste r positiv e experiences . The thir d devic e fo r studyin g th e interactio n o f camera s an d par ticipants i n th e courtroo m i s experimenta l research . Thi s techniqu e is rare becaus e o f it s expense an d complexity . On e commentator ha s stated, "Socia l scientist s measur e th e intelligenc e o f monkey s mor e effectively tha n court s hav e attempte d t o ascertai n th e effect s o f tel evision i n the courtroom." 51 I n a n experiment , th e "investigato r ca n systematically manipulat e o r alte r a n elemen t o f reality an d the n an alyze the results that follow." 52 Additionally , "t o test hypotheses, the experimenter deliberatel y introduces changes into the environment of subjects an d observe s or measures the effects o f the changes. Because greater contro l i s exercise d ove r th e condition s o f observatio n tha n in any other research strategy, experiments more effectively eliminat e

114 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed the possibilit y o f extraneou s variable s offerin g alternativ e interpre tations o f researc h findings. Fo r thi s reason , experimenta l studie s have lon g bee n regarde d a s th e optima l wa y t o tes t causa l hypothe ses." 53 The five essential characteristic s o f a good experimenta l desig n are unbiase d observation , quantifiabl e descriptions , a hig h leve l o f precision, a n objectiv e tes t o f a hypothesis , an d a n overal l efficiency of desig n (minimu m cos t fo r maximu m results). 54 A vali d field stud y i s sai d t o b e on e i n whic h a researche r observe s real-life condition s an d deliberatel y manipulate s on e o r mor e varia bles. Befor e a n experimenta l simulatio n ca n b e carrie d out , "i t i s first necessary t o identif y th e [prejudicial ] factor s operatin g i n th e tria l environment befor e camera s ar e introduced." 5 5 Prejudic e occur s if the presence o f camera s "distort s th e courtroo m atmospher e i n suc h a way tha t th e jur y i s 'persuaded ' t o reac h a verdic t i t woul d no t hav e reached otherwise." 56 Th e obviou s proble m wit h thi s approac h i n th e trial contex t i s tha t real-lif e courtroo m trial s canno t b e manipulate d as experimenta l researc h environments . A s on e commentato r ha s pointed out , "An y manipulatio n o f standar d tria l procedure s o r se lection o f tria l participant s . . . would b e constitutionall y reprehen sible." 57 A s a result , researcher s intereste d i n experimentin g wit h th e effects o f camera s i n th e courtroo m ar e force d t o rel y o n simulations . Critics conten d tha t thi s limitatio n i s fata l t o th e result s produce d because "th e simulate d tria l lack s th e ver y substanc e tha t i s the sub ject o f thes e communicatio n processe s . . . actors ar e incapabl e o f conveying 'subtl e informatio n . . . relating t o th e issue s tha t figure prominently i n a rea l trial—guilt , innocence , fault , credibility , verac ity, objectivity , accuracy , an d persuasiveness. ' " 5 8 Others, however , ar e mor e hospitabl e t o th e ide a tha t simulate d trials migh t provid e revealin g insights . We thin k i t highl y improbabl e tha t suc h uniqu e behavior s exis t unless tria l participant s experienc e som e mysteriou s typ e o f commu nication metamorphosi s whe n the y testif y a t trial , a metamorphosi s that significantly alter s their behavior when compared to "testimony " provided in non-legalistic contexts such as interpersonal relationships. . . . [T]here may b e changes in communication behavior s attributabl e to th e increase d stres s o f th e courtroom , bu t thes e woul d constitut e

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed •

115

an indictmen t o f educatio n generall y an d la w schoo l educatio n spe cifically. Th e educational process relies extensively o n the use of simulations t o teach . . . . "Mock trials " are a n integra l par t o f mos t la w school curricul a an d provid e developin g lega l practitioner s wit h ex perience that supposedl y generalizes to the actual courtroom environ ment.59 During th e pretria l period , potentia l juror s ma y b e prejudice d b y pretrial publicity , whic h ma y b e filtere d ou t i n th e jur y selectio n an d voir dire . On e informa l probabilit y stud y suggest s tha t w e hav e a n exaggerated notio n o f th e frequenc y o f th e pretria l pres s prejudic e problem. Usin g nationa l crim e statistic s an d conservativ e assump tions regardin g juro r behavior , th e surve y asserte d tha t suc h bia s would rarel y occur. 60 Th e researche r posite d tha t th e condition s nec essary fo r pres s coverag e t o prejudic e juror s ar e threefold . First , ther e must b e a jury trial , which occur s i n onl y 1 0 percent o f cases . Second , the cas e mus t b e covere d prejudiciall y b y th e press , whic h occur s 5 percent o f th e time . Third , th e juror s mus t acquir e an d retai n throughout th e tria l a prejudic e fro m th e pres s reports , whic h occur s only 2 percen t o f th e time . B y multiplyin g th e thre e percentages , th e researcher predicte d tha t press-induce d bia s o f juror s woul d occu r only i n on e i n ever y te n thousan d cases . O n thi s basis , the researche r concluded tha t "medi a reportin g o f felonie s an d arrest s rarel y affect s a defendant' s right t o a fai r trial. " Those wh o fea r th e impac t o f introducin g camera s int o courtroom s must remembe r tha t eve n withou t cameras , trial s ar e no t pristin e events. Durin g th e tria l itself , prejudice s ma y aris e throug h juro r characteristics (som e juror s ma y b e mor e authoritativ e o r prejudice d than others) , defendant characteristic s (whethe r th e defendant i s credible o r sympathetic) , th e adversar y proces s (th e searc h i s no t alway s for th e truth) , th e presentatio n o f evidenc e (th e numbe r an d orde r o f arguments), attorne y characteristic s (prestige , age , appearance , an d forcefulness), th e subtl e behavio r o f tria l judge s (thei r "editorial " smiles, frowns , head-shaking) , an d judicia l instructions . Finally , dur ing deliberatio n afte r th e evidenc e i s presented , prejudic e ma y occu r in man y invisibl e forms : racism , sexism , an d socio-economi c differ ences i n th e relationshi p amon g jurors . Fo r thi s reason , critic s ma y

116 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed conclude, a s on e autho r did , tha t "whethe r camera s ar e presen t o r not, a courtroo m i s certainl y no t a n impartia l foru m fo r th e pres entation o f evidence . . .. I t i s a n environmen t ful l o f subtle , an d sometimes obvious , prejudices , an d th e fac t tha t camera s ma y b e present wil l no t necessaril y alte r th e criteri a use d b y jurors i n reaching th e verdict." 61 The first relevant example of experimental research simulation was carried ou t i n Wisconsi n i n 1976 . Th e experimen t sough t t o deter mine whether individual s ar e affected b y the awareness tha t they ar e being televised. 62 Subject s wer e show n a brie f film an d wer e late r asked question s abou t it s content. Thre e group s wer e used . The first group o f subject s answere d th e question s whil e a visible camera wa s in th e roo m an d the y wer e tol d i t wa s operating . Th e secon d grou p of subjects answere d th e questions afte r the y were told a camera was operating behin d a one-wa y mirror . Th e thir d grou p o f subject s an swered the questions in a room with no camera and only a researcher taking notes . The results of the first group were most striking: they got the most answers correct , gav e the longes t answers , use d th e mos t numbe r o f words i n answering , an d waite d th e leas t amoun t o f time to answer . The projec t director , James L . Hoyt, wh o head s th e broadcas t new s sequence i n th e Schoo l o f Journalis m an d Mas s Communicatio n a t the Universit y o f Wisconsin , conclude d tha t "th e assumptio n tha t when face d b y a televisio n camera , persons ' memorie s ma y fail . . . was no t supported " becaus e n o significan t differenc e wa s foun d i n the respondent's verba l behavio r whe n face d wit h a visible or hidde n cameras. Hoyt explaine d tha t "[p]eopl e apparentl y fee l mor e compelle d t o speak mor e an d t o paus e les s whe n the y ar e conspicuousl y awar e they are being televised." Hoyt thought the key question was whether the length y answer s b y thes e subject s wer e ful l an d correct : "Th e longer answer s d o no t contai n additiona l incorrec t information . What the y d o contai n i s significantl y mor e correc t informatio n di rectly relevant to the questions." He concluded, "[t]hese data indicate that fa r fro m bein g a danger an d a potential hindranc e to a fair trial , in thi s contex t televisio n camera s can , i n fact , lea d t o a faire r trial .

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 117 Because th e witnesse s coul d b e expecte d t o generat e mor e complet e and mor e correc t informatio n i n respons e t o th e question s fro m th e various attorneys , bot h side s shoul d benefi t fro m th e increase d in formation o n whic h th e court' s decisio n coul d b e reached. " Unfortunately, fo r severa l administrativ e reason s th e Hoy t stud y has been deemed as only exploratory an d inconclusive. 63 In the group working wit h n o camera , th e subject s di d no t hav e t o answe r ques tions i n th e presenc e o f conventiona l medi a coverage , for exampl e a print journalist or sketch artist. This ultimately meant that the "stud y did not adequatel y approximat e th e reality of a trial which is covered by conventiona l means. " A s a result , "n o statemen t concernin g th e effects o f electroni c medi a coverag e relativ e t o conventiona l medi a coverage shoul d b e made." 64 The second major simulatio n was conducted i n California between 1980 and 1981. 65 This eighteen-month study was based on interviews with participants, evaluator observations , and general attitudinal surveys o f judges , lawyers , an d jurors . Th e experimen t lacke d th e ran domization o f subject s tha t occur s i n tru e experiments , bu t i t followed a n experimenta l approac h throug h th e us e of field research evaluators. Thes e evaluator s "wer e abl e t o se e for themselve s i f witnesses wer e nervous , i f prosecutor s 'playe d u p t o th e camera, ' i f ju rors wer e distracted , an d i f judge s wer e unabl e t o kee p order. " Th e primary purpos e o f th e stud y wa s t o focu s o n th e potential negativ e effects o f extende d medi a coverag e o n th e proceeding s b y focusin g on two questions: "Whether the presence and operation of broadcast , recording, o r photographi c equipmen t i n a courtroom wa s a signifi cant distractio n t o tria l participants , disrupte d proceedings , o r im paired judicia l dignit y an d decorum , an d whethe r tria l participant s changed thei r behavio r becaus e o f bein g televise d i n a wa y tha t in terfered wit h th e fai r an d efficien t administratio n o f justice. " Of th e judge s an d attorney s interviewed , mor e tha n 8 0 percen t perceived n o los s o f courtroo m dignit y an d decoru m becaus e o f th e presence o f th e media . Mos t o f th e judges eithe r conclude d tha t media presenc e ha d virtuall y n o effec t o n th e proceeding o r perceived a positive effect ; fe w (onl y 8 percent ) sa w a n overal l negativ e effect . Judges wer e evenl y divide d regardin g thei r experience s wit h medi a

118 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed presence, with onl y 7 percent o f al l respondent s viewin g thei r expe rience negatively . The jurors' responses were more evenly split. Onethird o f thos e polle d conclude d tha t medi a presenc e had virtuall y n o effect o n th e proceeding , whil e anothe r thir d perceive d a positiv e effect. Th e remainin g thir d wa s spli t between perceivin g som e nega tive effec t an d seein g a n overal l negativ e experience . Whe n aske d their preferenc e regardin g th e presenc e o f electroni c media , 2 3 per cent o f judges , 3 8 percen t o f attorneys , 24 percen t o f witnesses, and 20 percent of jurors preferred no t to have cameras present. But, when asked if they would have any reluctance to participate again in a trial with camera s present , 8 9 percent o f judges , 8 1 percent o f attorneys , 86 percen t o f witnesses , an d 8 7 percent o f juror s state d the y woul d not. Th e stud y conclude d tha t "electroni c medi a coverag e rarel y changes the behavior o f proceeding participants in a significantly det rimental fashion. " A 198 1 stud y investigatin g th e effect s o f television camera s o n the content o f witnes s testimon y supporte d th e conclusio n o f th e Cali fornia study. 66 Usin g a n actua l courtroo m setting , testimon y fro m two groups (totalin g fifty-eight college students) was gathered durin g a simulate d tria l i n whic h onl y on e grou p wa s televised . Thi s testi mony wa s the n analyze d t o determin e it s content, averag e word fre quency, total length , an d rati o o f trivial words compared t o the total number o f word s used . Th e researcher s foun d tha t thos e individual s who wer e naturall y apprehensiv e becaus e o f th e courtroo m settin g tended t o repea t mor e words , thereb y givin g longe r testimony . Th e researchers ultimatel y conclude d tha t "th e presenc e o f th e camera , when considere d a s a singl e factor , ha d littl e o r n o effec t o n th e verbal behavior of witnesses as far a s possible effects ca n be measured statistically." I t i s questionable wha t insigh t to a n actua l trial ca n b e drawn from thi s relatively unstressful courtroo m situation, upon such an atypica l grou p o f pseudo-witnesses . Bu t such i s the nature o f thi s kind o f academi c study . A 198 2 stud y looke d a t the exten t t o which th e negative belief s of jurors ma y b e linke d t o televisio n coverag e abou t a cas e garnere d from camera s outsid e th e courtroom. 67 Thi s researc h explore d th e possible effect s o f communit y pressur e o n tria l jurors ' abilit y t o ac t

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed •

119

independently whe n thei r identit y i s know n t o th e public . I n thi s experiment, 14 5 undergraduat e subject s fro m Texa s A & M Univer sity wer e spli t int o tw o groups . Bot h group s rea d identica l new s sto ries an d watche d identica l videotape d excerpt s o f a trial . Whil e answering a questionnair e i n whic h the y wer e aske d t o rende r a ver dict, on e grou p wa s informe d tha t the y wer e bein g televised . Result s indicated tha t 6 0 percen t o f th e televise d experimenta l grou p foun d the defendan t guilty , compare d t o onl y 4 2 percen t o f the nontelevise d group. Th e researche r conclude d tha t "th e dat a fro m thi s study , al though certainl y no t conclusive , di d sugges t tha t televise d trial s coul d have a n effec t o n juror s whos e identit y i s availabl e t o th e commu nity." The fifth majo r simulate d experimen t testin g th e effect s o f camera s in th e courtroo m wa s conducte d i n 1983. 6 8 I t wa s designe d t o tes t the contentio n tha t T V camera s distrac t jurors , thereby reducin g thei r reliance o n evidenc e i n th e decision-makin g process . Thi s vie w i s known a s th e distractio n hypothesis : "prejudic e i s believe d t o aris e in juror s eithe r directl y becaus e juror s ar e distracted , thereb y reduc ing thei r knowledg e o f th e evidence , o r indirectl y b y alterin g th e be havior o f th e othe r tria l participant s an d th e attitude s o f th e surrounding community. " Thi s researche r hypothesize d tha t "th e camera woul d impai r recal l i n th e initia l stages , bu t tha t subject s would graduall y adap t t o it s presence , redirec t thei r attentio n t o th e environment, an d sho w a n improvemen t i n thei r subsequen t perfor mance." H e speculate d tha t thi s tren d woul d occu r becaus e "ove r the extende d lif e o f a televise d trial , on e migh t expec t a n habituatio n e f f e c t . . . a 'respons e decreas e a s a resul t o f repeate d stimulation. ' " In addition , th e researche r hypothesize d tha t individua l juror s woul d differ i n sensitivit y t o th e presenc e o f T V camera s becaus e o f wha t he calle d th e "Publi c Sel f Consciousness " theory . Unde r thi s theory , an individual' s concer n abou t hi s o r he r appearance , behavior , an d self-presentation t o other s i s "th e dispositiona l analo g t o th e stat e o f self-awareness tha t i s induce d b y a n audienc e o r a camera. " Juror s with highe r publi c self-consciousnes s level s were expecte d t o b e mor e adversely affecte d b y th e cameras ' presence . The experimen t separate d fifty-on e subject s int o tw o mai n group s

120 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed of moc k jurors . Eac h wa s show n a videotap e o f a civi l negligenc e case an d late r wa s asked t o answe r factua l questions . While answer ing, th e subject s wer e separate d int o a physical distractio n grou p i n which a vide o camer a wa s presen t bu t no t operating , an d a n unob trusive camera group where there was no camera present but subject s were tol d i t wa s behin d a ceilin g vent . Th e result s o f th e stud y in dicated tha t "th e presenc e o f a camer a di d no t systematicall y affec t mock jurors ' verdicts o r evaluation s o f th e individua l witnesse s o r the tria l a s a whole. It did impai r recal l performance (presumabl y as a function o f inattention), but this effect wa s limited in two important ways." First , th e subjects ' post-tria l recal l o f importan t informatio n was no t significantl y affecte d b y th e cameras , presumabl y becaus e they adapte d t o thei r presence . Second , th e camer a impaire d th e recall o f thos e subject s wit h low , rathe r tha n high , publi c self consciousness levels , presumabl y becaus e thos e wit h hig h publi c self-consciousness level s are more focused o n themselves, rather tha n on th e tas k a t hand . Th e researche r conclude d tha t "th e presenc e of TV cameras does not irrevocably impair jurors' functioning[,] . . . the presence o f T V camera s woul d no t alte r th e outcom e o f jur y delib eration," an d ultimatel y "th e disruptiv e effec t o f a camera o n juror s is short-live d an d ha s n o bearin g o n verdicts o r evaluation s o f testi mony." A 198 5 doctora l dissertatio n investigate d whethe r photographi c coverage o f trial s woul d negativel y affec t audienc e members , poten tial jurors , an d witnesses. 69 A tota l o f 10 9 subjects , rangin g i n ag e from eightee n t o sixty-fiv e years , wer e randoml y assigne d t o fou r groups. Eac h grou p watche d a videotape d new s recordin g coverin g the same fictitious trial, but each group's news broadcast was slightly different: on e containe d actua l vide o coverag e o f th e trial , on e a sketch and voice-over, anothe r a talking head news reporter, and one a non-courtroo m new s segment . The subject s filled out a questionnair e tha t helpe d th e researcher s determine recall of material, attitudes toward th e justice system, willingness to testify i n a criminal trial or serve on a jury, and perceptions of defendants ' guilt . The researchers foun d tha t th e presence of cameras i n th e courtroo m an d th e viewin g o f a videotap e ha d n o effec t

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 121 on a subject' s willingnes s t o testif y i n a crimina l cas e o r t o serv e o n a jury , o r o n thei r perception s o f defendants ' guilt . Again , th e re search resulte d i n a finding that "camera s i n the courtroom enhanc e viewers' informatio n abou t th e tria l bu t [reveal ] n o attitud e change s that woul d imperil justice. " An extensiv e experimen t wa s conducte d i n 199 0 b y three Univer sity o f Minnesota professors. 70 Th e study , conducted i n a laborator y setting, deal t onl y wit h a crimina l case . I n th e experiment , contro l groups wer e use d t o establis h th e causa l inference s o f th e typ e o f media. Tw o medi a contro l group s wer e used . A total o f 17 8 under graduate student s takin g introductor y psycholog y courses at the university wer e randoml y spli t int o thre e separat e groups : electroni c media coverag e (EMC) , in which a video camera wa s present; a conventional medi a coverag e (CMC ) group , i n whic h a journalis t wa s present; and a no media contro l grou p (Control) , in which no media representative o r equipmen t wa s present . Al l th e subject s viewe d a five-minute color videotap e o f a simulate d arme d robber y an d wer e then spli t int o thre e group s t o serv e a s eithe r juror s o r witnesse s i n simulated trials . A few day s later , th e student s testifie d a s witnesse s to th e crim e i n fron t o f a jury o f peers . Two majo r result s wer e reached . First , whil e th e presenc e o f th e camera di d hav e som e perceive d psychologica l effec t o n witnes s behavior an d there was greater nervousnes s among the EMC witnesses, the actua l witnes s performanc e wa s no t affected . Th e author s con cluded tha t "suc h findings d o no t see m t o suppor t th e concern s o f those i n th e medi a wh o believ e tha t camera s woul d b e a distractin g influence an d mak e i t more difficul t t o get the truth ou t of witnesses, whose power s o f observation , recollectio n an d communicatio n ar e already limite d i n th e emotiona l stres s o f th e courtroom. " Second, the study found tha t perceived witness nervousness did not adversely affec t th e jurors ' perception s o f th e qualit y o f thos e wit nesses's testimony . I n al l thre e categories , juror s perceive d witnes s testimony a s believable . Th e stud y foun d tha t thos e wh o wer e ex posed t o electroni c medi a ha d fewe r negativ e attitude s tha n thos e who wer e not . Again, th e stud y foun d a larg e ga p betwee n wha t individual s be-

122 • A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed lieve i s happening an d wha t th e empirica l evidenc e suggest s really is happening: "whil e peopl e ma y believe that EM C i s associated wit h a hos t o f disruptive effect s o n judgment, memory, and decisio n making, the weigh t o f empirica l evidenc e fro m th e presen t researc h doe s not provid e suppor t fo r suc h concerns. " Th e researcher s suggeste d that thei r stud y refute d th e lat e Justic e To m Clark' s concern , ex pressed i n Estes v. Texas, tha t th e impac t o f camera s i s "simpl y in calculable . . . memories ma y falter , a s wit h anyon e speakin g publicly, an d accurac y o f statemen t ma y b e severel y undermined. " In a 199 1 dissertation, anothe r researche r investigate d whether the presence o f a camer a woul d affec t th e cours e o f a trial—i n thi s in stance, the recall of testimony in a simulated rape trial. 71 At Colorado State University , 10 8 undergraduate s i n introductor y psycholog y courses wer e selecte d fro m a large r grou p o f 23 8 student s wh o ha d completed a pre-screenin g tes t designe d t o scal e thei r publi c self consciousness level . The subject s wer e randoml y assigne d int o thre e experimental groups to watch videotaped reenactments of a rape trial based o n th e transcrip t o f a n actua l trial . Th e firs t grou p viewe d the tap e wit h n o camer a present . Th e secon d grou p di d th e same , with tw o camera s directe d a t them . Th e thir d grou p viewe d th e tape with two camera s directe d awa y from them . Each group had a n even matc h o f subject s wit h hig h an d lo w publi c self-consciousnes s levels. The result s indicate d n o statisticall y significan t differenc e betwee n groups i n their recal l ability. However, th e group o n whom th e camera consistentl y focuse d ha d th e lowes t recal l level s o f an y o f th e experimental groups . Th e researche r reporte d tha t hi s result s wer e generally i n lin e wit h th e 198 3 stud y discusse d previously , whic h found tha t camera s ha d a short-live d disruptiv e effec t o n th e juror' s evaluation o f testimony . H e believe d tha t "th e temperamenta l char acteristic o f self-consciousnes s account s fo r mos t o f th e varianc e i n recall a s opposed t o the situational variabl e o f camera presence. " He did conclude , however , tha t hi s findings provide "cautiou s evidenc e that camer a presenc e doe s serv e to inhibi t recal l o f trial testimony to some smal l degree , especiall y i f th e subjec t alread y harbor s th e ten dency t o becom e easil y self-consciou s anyway. "

A Thing Observed, a Thing Changed • 123

However limite d thes e studie s ma y be , the y represen t th e onl y sci entific attempt s t o measur e th e impac t o f camera s i n courts . Take n together, the y sugges t that commo n la y assumptions abou t the likely impact o f televisio n o n trial s ar e of f th e mark . Where d o w e g o fro m thi s bod y o f inconclusiv e evidence ? Upo n whom shoul d th e burde n o f proo f lie ? Shoul d critic s o f televisio n have th e burde n o f demonstratin g th e soun d basi s o f thei r fear s be fore freedo m o f th e pres s i s impinged? O r shoul d proponent s o f television b e required t o justif y th e presence o f cameras t o b e sure tha t the fairnes s o f trials i s not jeopardized ? I s an objectiv e answe r t o th e question eve n possible ? Although scientifi c evidenc e is accumulating tha t tends to disprov e the fear s tha t televisio n inevitabl y prejudice s participants , i t i s un likely tha t satisfactor y conclusiv e answer s ca n com e fro m suc h re search. A s on e grou p o f researcher s concluded : "Scientificall y vali d evidence neve r wil l b e available . No r ca n an y universa l conclusion s comfortably b e embraced ; th e positiv e o r negativ e effec t o f camera s certainly depend s muc h mor e o n th e natur e o f th e proceeding s an d the participant s uniqu e t o eac h cas e tha n i t doe s o n th e camera s themselves."72 Support fo r televisio n i n th e courtroo m mus t com e fro m some where othe r tha n th e common presumption s tha t ar e made abou t it s presence. I t woul d b e helpfu l i f ther e wer e scientifi c avenue s t o a clear-cut conclusion . But , ultimately, the conclusions lie in subjectiv e value judgments that def y scientifi c proof . As one knowledgeable observer o f th e federa l Judicia l Cente r surve y suggested : "Merel y dem onstrating th e absenc e o f a consistentl y malevolen t effec t o n th e proceedings doe s not mak e the case for openin g the federal judiciar y to suc h significan t chang e an d th e administrativ e an d organizationa l workload tha t woul d invariabl y accompan y it . Th e answe r lies , of course, i n th e enormou s benefi t tha t societ y an d th e federa l syste m itself woul d realiz e i n th e lon g ru n b y suc h a chang e i n th e posi tion." 73

Chapter 5

THE CRUCIBL

E

COURT T V

T

he ver y word s Court T V soun d anomalous . Court s an d televi sion? On e i s quiet , decorous , serious ; the othe r loud , garish , friv olous. H o w coul d the y b e spoke n o f together ? H o w coul d s o illogica l a mi x o f institutions—on e o f law , th e othe r o f communications — have evolve d int o suc h a fascinatin g chapte r i n th e sociolog y o f law ? In th e decad e afte r th e Chandler decisio n i n 1981 , most state s con ducted studie s tha t le d t o th e openin g o f court s t o televisio n unde r specific guidelines . B y 1990 , th e cabl e industr y ha d evolve d and , drawing o n thi s ne w opportunity , on e cabl e networ k devote d itsel f to televisin g trial s o n a regula r basis . Th e first si x year s o f tha t net work, Cour t TV , includin g gavel-to-gave l coverag e o f si x hundre d trials (abou t two-third s crimina l an d one-thir d civil ) i n fort y states , provides a n extensiv e marke t tes t fo r a n ide a whos e tim e appear s t o have arrived .

A goo d ide a ha s man y fathers , a venerabl e adag e instructs . Bu t th e unconventional notio n tha t a cabl e televisio n channe l dedicate d t o gavel-to-gavel coverag e o f actua l trial s woul d prospe r coul d b e sai d to hav e ha d a conventiona l fathe r and mother . However , th e off 124

The Crucible • 125 spring, Cour t TV , ha s bee n raise d an d nurtured—t o complet e th e metaphor—by it s father . Eve n h e woul d agree , however , tha t th e general ide a o f camera s i n th e court s wa s no t th e ide a o f an y on e person, bu t "i s th e stor y o f th e electroni c media' s longstandin g an d avid interes t i n coverin g judicia l proceedings " an d "th e explosiv e growth o f cabl e television." 1 Cour t TV' s extensiv e experimen t wit h cameras i n court s provide s th e bes t availabl e evidenc e fo r measurin g the succes s o f televise d trials. 2

THE FATHE

R

Court T V i s a n exampl e o f wha t ca n happe n whe n a smart , aggres sive entrepreneu r combine s a goo d ide a an d rip e timing . Steve n Bril l is a Yale-traine d lawye r wh o specialize s i n th e journalis m o f law . First a writer , the n a publishe r o f la w reports , lega l newspapers , an d a magazine , Bril l expande d hi s timely visio n t o televisio n i n 199 0 an d became th e chie f executiv e o f th e Courtroo m Televisio n Network , the successfu l phenomeno n know n a s Cour t TV . I t i s a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a-wee k cabl e new s channe l tha t report s o n th e lega l and judicia l syste m i n th e Unite d State s an d abroad . I n it s formativ e years, i t wa s ru n b y a privat e company , America n Lawye r Media — of whic h Bril l i s a minorit y owner , thoug h th e majo r influence . Brill's caree r a s a n impresari o o f popula r lega l journalis m ha s bee n prescient an d fast-paced . Hi s first inspiratio n cam e whe n h e wa s a student a t Yal e La w School . One da y I was standing in front o f the placement offic e a t the Yale Law School, . .. I had a job . . . and on the bulletin board , there were all these letters from al l these law firms saying they wanted t o recrui t at Yal e La w School , an d the y al l said they offere d prospectiv e appli cants a n unusua l amoun t o f responsibilit y fo r a n unusuall y divers e group o f unusuall y interestin g an d unusuall y importan t client s an d an unusua l amoun t o f practic e area s an d they wer e lookin g fo r un usual standard s o f integrit y an d unusua l standard s o f academic achievement. An d I decided i f they ar e all looking for somethin g tha t unusual, it can't b e that unusual . . . . And i t struck m e that there had

126 • The Crucible to b e differences amon g these law firms—they al l couldn't b e exactly alike—and that' s whe n I go t th e notio n tha t I shoul d writ e abou t law firms. Soon afte r h e graduate d fro m la w school , Bril l wrot e a magazin e article abou t tw o la w firms. Tha t articl e le d t o th e ide a o f doin g a regular colum n abou t lawyer s i n a nonlega l magazine . Cla y Felker , whom Bril l reporte d t o a t New York Magazine, ha d take n ove r Esquire. Bril l starte d a colum n i n Esquire abou t lawyers . "Th e premis e was tha t whil e . . . lawyers ha d thi s certai n kin d o f anonymity , tha t is t o sa y tha t lawyer s shouldn' t b e tarre d wit h o r identifie d wit h hi s or he r client , . . . but i t didn't mea n tha t lawyer s shoul d b e completel y anonymous o r wer e irrelevant . . . . I n an y majo r lega l battl e o r lega l juncture, who th e lawyer s were , who th e judge s were reall y mattered . . . . I t als o helpe d tel l th e busines s story. " When th e colum n di d well , Bril l thought , "Wh y don' t I turn i t int o a magazine ? I sai d t o Clay , I' d lik e t o tal k t o you r financial backers , which wa s a compan y calle d Associate d Newspaper s base d i n Lon don." Felke r arrange d fo r Bril l t o mee t wit h Vee r Holmsberg , Lor d Rothsmere, a t th e Pierr e Hote l i n Ne w York . Th e meetin g wa s brief , from 11:0 0 t o 11:4 5 o n a Saturda y morning , an d successful . Brill' s career wa s n o longe r a s a journalist ; h e wa s no w a businessman . Bril l and Associate d Newspaper s create d a partnership , Th e America n Lawyer, an d Bril l hire d a smal l staf f o f editors , wh o worke d i n cramped quarter s i n Esquire's offices . Brill prepare d a four-pag e memo , stream-of-consciousnes s style , detailing th e kin d o f storie s h e intende d t o us e i n th e ne w magazine . By th e nex t America n Ba r Associatio n Convention , Bril l wa s i n th e lobby o f th e Hilto n Hote l personall y handin g ou t copie s o f hi s cre ation, th e American Lawyer, t o surprise d lawyers . Subscription s ros e gradually t o thei r presen t leve l o f eleve n thousand , mostl y lawyer s and other s i n th e lega l profession . Brill ha d onl y jus t begun . H e initiate d a venture , first wit h Simo n and Schuster , the n wit h Little , Brown , t o develo p boo k projects . I n 1985, American Lawyer expande d b y buyin g loca l lega l newspaper s (several purchase s wer e mad e i n on e da y s o tha t wor d woul d no t ge t

The Crucible • 127 out an d th e price s g o up) . Lega l newspaper s i n Atlanta , Connecticut , New Jersey , an d othe r place s acros s th e countr y wer e cobble d o n t o Brill's medi a organizatio n an d remade . Venerable , dull , an d barel y profitable, thes e paper s ha d bee n littl e mor e tha n tear-sheet-style d bulletin board s fo r lega l notice s o f cour t calendars , loca l wil l pro bates, an d bankruptcies . Bril l adde d editorial s an d features , classifie d and displa y advertising , an d spu n of f newsletters . Subscription s ros e markedly, a s di d costs . Th e origina l ventur e wa s becomin g a smal l empire wit h a readershi p no w totalin g abou t on e hundre d thousan d subscribers. I n fact , ther e ar e man y mor e reader s becaus e la w firms may bu y onl y on e copy , bu t i t i s rea d b y man y lawyer s an d parale gals. By 1989 , Bril l wa s wel l know n a s a lega l publisher . Prin t journal ism n o longe r seeme d challenging ; alway s ambitious , h e wa s read y for a jum p t o a ne w medium . I n June 1988 , Bril l was ridin g i n a tax i in Ne w Yor k Cit y listenin g t o a radi o accoun t o f a sensationa l trial , when h e ha d a n epiphany. 3 H e ha d alread y demonstrate d tha t news papers devote d exclusivel y t o la w new s coul d b e profitable . Com mercial televisio n ha d prove d th e public' s fascinatio n wit h fictional courtroom drama ; wh y no t tak e th e lea p fro m Perry Mason an d LA Law t o th e rea l thing ? H e ha d th e networ k o f journalisti c an d busi ness connection s t o jump-star t hi s idea . "I go t thi s ide a tha t th e wa y t o brin g th e lega l syste m t o nonlaw yers i s t o sho w i t t o them , th e wa y juror s se e whe n the y ar e jurors. " The network s woul d no t b e the righ t plac e fo r suc h a schem e becaus e in Brill' s min d i t couldn' t b e don e wit h individua l programs . " I wanted t o sho w th e whol e tria l . . . the rea l gut s o f i t ha d t o b e th e motion o f showin g gavel-to-gave l o r long-for m coverag e o f trials. " In a conversatio n i n hi s Manhatta n office , Bril l describe d hi s initia l vision fo r televise d trials . What's dramatic isn't the sound bite of what the Post says whatever the new s is . It' s whe n yo u ge t u p an d sa y "Goo d morning , Mr . Boesky, ho w ar e you , sir? " It' s th e leadin g u p t o it—that' s wha t makes a trial, and that's what makes the trial for a jury. It's the whole thing, it' s no t th e takin g ou t th e te n bes t quotes . An d that' s wh y i t wouldn't hav e worke d i n prin t a s a magazin e articl e o r an y tria l I

128 • The Crucible have eve r rea d a s a magazine article . I was never abl e t o make i t as dramatic a s the trial. I thought I wrote prett y goo d stuff , bu t I never thought I did justice, becaus e yo u never ge t the rhythm an d cadence of th e trial, th e way you do through sho w an d tell. S o it was really as a dramatic an d as a truth tellin g devic e that I had the notion tha t you hav e t o d o long-for m trials . No w i f yo u d o a long-for m trial , then yo u ca n als o d o othe r stuff . . . . There i s nothin g wron g wit h CBS doin g a five-minute repor t o n a trial , i f we'r e doin g th e whole thing, becaus e the n a t leas t ther e i s a fram e o f referenc e i f someon e really want s t o se e the whole trial . I' m no t for new s purpose s deni grating soun d bite s o f trials; what I' m sayin g is , the real appea l was a network , that doe s it. The timin g fo r hi s idea wa s perfect. Befor e th e era o f cable , i t woul d have bee n impossible . In Octobe r 1988 , he wen t t o se e Stev e Ross , th e hea d o f Time Warner, fo r financial backing . " I said , 'Listen , I'v e got a n ide a fo r a cable channe l an d it' s a combinatio n o f C-SPA N an d soa p operas. ' He said , 'Oh ! You mea n camera s i n the court s durin g trials . You'v e got it. ' " Thi s wa s the secon d tim e Bril l raise d mone y fo r a busines s idea. Thi s meetin g too k twelv e minutes . Warne r an d Cour t T V wer e "a natura l fit," Bril l discovered : on e had the cable systems , the othe r the programming . Warne r soo n bough t ou t Associate d Newspapers , Brill's American Lawyer partner . Putting togethe r th e business networ k too k a little longer , bu t Brill pushed ahead . " I sai d t o Steve , i f we'r e goin g t o d o this , w e need , (a) th e infrastructur e fo r ou r publication s an d th e credibilit y t o find these trial s al l ove r th e country, an d (b ) I'm no t goin g t o wal k awa y from m y publications t o d o thi s anyway . I don' t wan t t o wal k awa y from m y partners t o star t thi s ne w venture, becaus e the y ar e heavil y invested i n thi s curren t venture . S o you an d I , meanin g Warne r an d me, hav e t o buy out Associated an d me. We will hav e t o replace tha t partnership wit h thi s one . And I got Associated t o d o that , althoug h they staye d i n for 1 0 percent. The y ar e a partne r i n America Lawye r Media." Brill an d hi s clos e advisor s i n th e partnershi p (hi s wife , Cynthi a Brill, i s general counse l t o America n Lawye r Media , whic h manage s

The Crucible • 129 the network ; Bo b Pittman wa s presiden t o f Time-Warner Enterprises ) began workin g o n budget s an d brainstorme d abou t possibl e risks . I t looked t o the m lik e i t woul d work . Onc e th e projec t started , Brill' s persistence overcam e potentia l obstacles . Brill' s approac h t o th e lim its o f T V resemble d th e fable d chil d lookin g a t th e emperor' s clothes . I was tol d yo u coul d neve r hav e a studi o i n thi s building , becaus e the ceiling s aren' t hig h enough ; yo u can' t d o televisio n unles s yo u have high ceilings for the lighting. And your beams are not far enoug h apart—so wha t d o th e beam s hav e t o d o wit h it?—yo u don' t hav e the maneuverability o f the cameras. . .. I have a video camera, I take pictures i n m y house o f m y kids, I don't kno w ho w hig h my ceilings are an d . . . i f th e beam s ar e alright . B u t . . . I was actuall y close r t o reality than the y were, because . . . the television technical experts are people who grew up in the networks . . . i n a time when camera technology wa s suc h tha t yo u reall y di d hav e t o hav e ver y hig h ceiling s and beams . An d I came fro m th e curren t perspective . Listen , I don' t care wha t yo u tel l m e abou t studio , becaus e th e peopl e yo u wil l b e seeing o n televisio n ar e fro m a courtroom , an d I know I don' t hav e control ove r th e widt h o f th e beams o r th e heigh t o f th e ceiling , and I kno w I' m goin g t o pu t a camera i n there, an d I know I' m goin g to put i t o n television . S o your jo b i s to figure ou t ho w we'r e goin g t o do it . S o don' t tel l m e tha t w e can' t d o i t i n th e studio . Becaus e I don't nee d th e studi o t o loo k al l tha t muc h bette r tha n I nee d th e courtroom t o look , an d I know I' m goin g to d o the courtroom. An d it turns out, lo and behold , that you don't nee d the ceilings to be that high an d yo u don' t nee d th e beam s tha t ar e tha t wide . Yo u don' t need it anymore because lighting technology has changed, and camera technology ha s changed , an d audi o technolog y ha s changed . Bu t i f you're usin g experts , thi s channe l woul d hav e taken—w e probabl y spent $800,00 0 a t th e beginnin g o n al l ou r equipment—an d . . . the other tw o channel s launche d befor e us , namely cable channels, probably spen t $ 8 million . S o not knowin g tha t stuf f actuall y helps . Brill pushe d an d probed , refusin g t o pla y b y prevailin g rules . " I would as k al l kin d o f questions . Wh y d o yo u nee d that ? Wh o say s you nee d t o sen d thre e people ? . . . CBS new s woul d com e an d in terview me , an d they' d hav e thre e peopl e standin g around . The y would hav e a rea l smar t gu y wit h a clipboar d writin g al l th e ques -

130 • The Crucible tions to ask , an d the n the y would hav e a real dum b guy who looke d good t o as k al l th e questions . An d th e first thin g yo u se e i s tha t i f you ca n onl y hir e a smar t perso n tha t look s good , yo u ca n cu t ou t one o f thos e peopl e righ t there . An d yo u kno w what , i f h e doesn' t look s o good, wh o give s a . .. I' d rathe r hav e th e smar t person. " As his idea bega n to develop , Brill sought expertise to complemen t his administrative flair. The first person Brill turned to when his planning move d fro m th e busines s en d t o productio n wa s Fred Graham , a forme r New York Times an d CB S legal correspondent . Again , serendipity foun d Brill . A few year s earlier , Graha m ha d lef t CB S an d returned t o hi s origina l home , Nashville , Tennessee , a s a loca l tele vision anchor . Graha m didn' t enjo y tha t wor k and , no t knowin g what Bril l was hatching, he wrote to Brill inquiring whether he could write a colum n fo r distributio n i n Brill' s prin t network . Graham ha d bee n developin g a n ide a o f hi s ow n t o hos t a one hour sho w abou t th e lega l system using as its centerpiece excerpt s of televised trial s aroun d th e countr y tha t raise d interestin g issue s o f wide publi c appeal . It was goin g nowhere . " I was tryin g to get bac k into lega l journalism , an d I calle d Steve— I probabl y hadn' t talke d to hi m i n tw o o r thre e years . . .. I was goin g t o sugges t tha t I write a column fo r th e American Lawyer magazine , and I was going to put that togethe r wit h mayb e som e othe r freelanc e thing s I' d b e doing . . . . And h e sai d t o me , 'Fred , I'v e bee n thinkin g abou t callin g you . . . . I'm talkin g wit h Stev e Ros s a t Time-Warne r abou t thi s ide a I have . . . you kno w ther e ar e camera s i n s o man y court s now , tha t you coul d . . . create a n entir e televisio n networ k an d jus t us e th e reality o f wha t reall y happen s i n court. ' I said , c Yes, Steve , I'v e thought that , too . But, ' I said, 'yo u misspok e there , You mean t net work televisio n program , no t network. ' H e said , 'No , I mea n net work.' I said, 'This is really something! I had thought abou t the same thing a few year s before , bu t i n terms o f a n hou r program , base d o n real television. ' " Graham ha d bee n thinkin g abou t th e sam e ide a a s Brill—usin g televised trial s to enlighte n th e general public about th e legal system. But Graha m wa s thinkin g small . "M y ide a wa s wha t i s no w Cour t TV, b u t . . . t o d o i t fo r PBS . I didn't hav e th e visio n t o se e that th e

The Crucible • 131 new technolog y wa s goin g t o mak e i t possibl e fo r the m t o mak e s o many channel s availabl e tha t yo u coul d d o i t twenty-fou r hours . I was thinkin g i n term s o f a one-hou r program , mayb e onc e a week . Obviously, h e ha d though t throug h somethin g tha t wa s muc h mor e visionary." About si x week s later , Bril l tol d Graha m t o forge t th e column , "this thin g i s goin g t o fly. " Bril l kne w al l abou t lega l journalis m i n print, an d Time-Warne r wa s i n th e medi a business . The y neede d someone wh o ha d don e lega l reportin g o n television , an d tha t some one wa s Graham . "S o I wa s th e first employe e o f Cour t TV. " Graham bega n commutin g t o Ne w Yor k Cit y fro m Nashvill e a s a consultant t o Brill , jus t a fe w day s a week ; soo n h e wa s workin g fo r Brill full-time . Whil e bot h o f the m sa w th e potentia l i n a cabl e chan nel devote d t o court s an d trials , the y als o anticipate d th e potentia l problems. On e syndicate d half-hou r sho w base d o n tape d trial s ha d failed. I t ha d a 2. 5 Nielse n rating ; th e prevailin g wisdo m wa s tha t a rating o f 3. 5 wa s require d fo r success . Tha t pu t i t abou t a millio n households short . An d C-Span , th e closes t comparabl e channe l de voted entirel y t o politica l news , ha d a ratin g o f abou t 1.0 . They bega n t o tinke r wit h ho w t o mak e th e concep t work . A t first , Graham operate d ou t o f a smal l studi o o n hi s Nashvill e property . He ha d see n th e intensiv e coverag e o f certai n trials , suc h a s the Clau s von Bulo w murde r cas e i n Rhod e Island , an d th e Pulitze r divorc e case i n Florida . Bu t Graha m kne w tha t ther e wa s a vas t differenc e between coverin g a n ongoin g tria l an d justifyin g televisio n statio n programming twenty-fou r hour s a day . Graha m recalls , "Ther e wa s a lo t mor e inventin g o f a ne w for m tha n peopl e no w realize . . . . W e didn't hav e an y ide a abou t tapin g thing s a t tha t time , an d nobod y knew ho w man y trial s ther e ar e a t an y give n tim e aroun d th e countr y in court s tha t ar e ope n t o television , ho w man y ar e ther e tha t yo u want t o pu t o n television. " Graham kep t a lo g o f th e hypothetica l tria l coverag e the y wer e hoping t o presen t an d learne d tha t continuin g coverag e o f many case s being trie d simultaneousl y wa s extremel y complicated . Then , Gra ham remembere d ho w CB S ha d handle d a comparabl e productio n problem whe n h e worke d wit h Walte r Cronkit e coverin g nationa l

132 • The Crucible political conventions . Cronkit e woul d convers e wit h hi s reporters i n remote location s s o tha t h e wa s no t jus t a talkin g head . Instea d o f talking righ t int o the camera, " I concocted th e idea o f always having a lawye r wh o handle s th e sam e kin d o f case s jus t sittin g there . . . . That ha s not substantiall y changed , . . . there are a lot of really smart people wh o practic e la w an d thi s i s a wa y o f usin g th e talent s of thos e people . . . . We ende d u p wit h a forma t tha t wa s base d pretty muc h o n what I had experience d a t CB S and conventio n cov erage." As they experimente d wit h idea s fo r makin g tria l coverag e consistently engaging , Graha m learne d tha t no t everythin g coul d b e transplanted fro m networ k televisio n t o thi s new , highly focuse d concep t for cable . "W e ha d a thing calle d th e gol f whisper—yo u know , like at gol f tournament s wher e a person i s lining u p hi s sho t an d they'r e whispering ove r it . . . . Nothing i s duller than a guy looking at a golf ball. And we thought ther e would b e times like that i n trials. I asked a technicia n t o devis e a devic e tha t I coul d us e t o tur n dow n th e sound i n the courtroom, s o I could explai n what wa s happening i f it got too obscure. And that was the golf whisper." But in this instance, Graham ha d guesse d wrong . "W e hav e a call-i n line . Immediatel y we were deluge d wit h call s fro m peopl e wh o said , 'W e ar e a s smar t as you are ; I can hea r what' s goin g on . Shu t up! ' " Th e golf whispe r is lon g gone , becaus e th e thin g tha t Graha m an d hi s colleague s learned (an d a marke t researc h repor t confirmed ) wa s tha t peopl e can get it . "W e jus t waite d unti l th e judg e finally gaveiled th e thin g to a close an d the n w e tried t o sor t i t out. We would no t attemp t t o do i t no w whil e peopl e ar e talking. " Using Brill' s extensiv e networ k o f lega l newspaper s an d hi s an d Graham's persona l contact s wit h reporter s aroun d th e country, the y called aroun d t o find ou t wha t interestin g trial s wer e i n process. To test thei r idea , o n a certai n da y the y hire d reporter s an d picke d si x or seve n trial s aroun d th e country . Graha m recalled , "Wha t w e wanted t o d o wa s t o hav e a tes t o f wha t i s goin g o n a t an y give n moment. W e though t i t woul d b e lik e th e NFL , wher e the y pic k games from aroun d th e country, o r like a rain day in baseball, where you ge t raine d o n i n New Yor k an d yo u pu t th e St . Louis game on .

The Crucible • 133 So I sen t reporter s t o b e th e camera , t o si t fo r a day . . . . What w e would d o i s pic k th e on e tha t wa s th e lea d trial . . . and whe n th e trial would start , the reporter woul d cal l me, and repor t briefl y wha t happened. I kep t a lo g o f this , an d i n m y min d a ne w Cour t T V camera jus t wen t o n i n tha t courtroom . An d then , a s soo n a s ther e was a mid-morning brea k an d I was hearing from th e others, I would say we woul d no w b e goin g t o anothe r trial . I t wa s a n effor t t o ge t an ide a ho w man y case s there are. " Graham an d Bril l decide d the y neede d inpu t fro m someon e wit h television productio n experience . Lat e i n 1989 , a forme r CB S col league o f Graham' s recommende d Jo e Russin , a vetera n freelanc e producer, an d Bril l brough t hi m int o th e plannin g a s a consultant . Russin remember s tha t Bril l insiste d o n on e fundamenta l point : Coverage mus t b e live. The integrit y o f the process required thi s fea ture. Russi n describe d Roon e Arledge' s succes s wit h Monday Night Football an d suggeste d adoptin g wha t h e considered th e central idea of that success . "Arledge's concep t was not to take the football gam e to th e televisio n viewe r a t hom e a s i f h e wa s o n th e fifty-yard line . The ide a wa s t o mak e i t bette r tha n bein g there. My thought wa s t o adapt Arledge' s lesso n an d no t striv e simpl y t o put th e viewer i n the courtroom, bu t t o sho w th e trial , an d t o mak e i t bette r tha n bein g there b y adding exper t commentarie s an d analysis. " The planner s ha d question s an d concern s abou t ho w i t woul d work. Actua l trial s ha d unpredictabl e stop s an d starts , muc h dea d time, an d differen t tim e zones . Ho w woul d producer s b e abl e t o maintain smoot h programmin g i f they relied o n liv e trials? Thei r experiment followed tw o murder trials, one involving a socialite in New York City , an d th e othe r a Tennesse e cras h tha t kille d schoo l bu s passengers. Brill got acces s to th e se t for Inside the NFL a t the HB O studios. Graha m anchore d th e coverage. Experts were used fo r com mentaries. The y simulate d thre e hour s a da y coverage , wit h a re porter supplyin g on-the-scen e comments . Afte r severa l tests , th e group agreed : I t worked . Budget discussion s followed . Th e classi c battl e ensue d amon g th e planners, artists, and financiers. Brill thought that $1 3 to $15 million a yea r would b e a reasonable goal . Russin though t th e proper equip-

134 • The Crucible ment, linkups , an d reporter s t o d o a variet y o f show s alon g wit h covering trial s would cos t more . Time-Warner's advisor s pushed fo r economies. The futur e wa s no t clear . THE MOTHE R

What Bril l di d no t realiz e a t th e tim e wa s tha t h e alread y ha d a competitor. Cablevisio n System s Corporatio n wa s alread y i n the cable business and had successfull y launche d thirteen networks, including American Movi e Classics , Brav o an d Sport s Channe l America . Unbeknownst t o Brill, one of its subsidiaries, Rainbow Programmin g Holdings, wa s plannin g it s fourteent h network—I n Court—t o pro vide liv e coverag e o f trial s aroun d th e country . NB C wa s helpin g develop th e planne d networ k an d woul d b e a partner . It s pla n wa s to cove r al l varieties o f case s an d featur e lega l expert commentator s to provid e analysis . Th e acto r E . G . Marshal l (know n t o man y fo r his rol e i n The Defenders) wa s t o b e th e anchor , an d Harvar d la w professor Arthu r Miller was on board a s the on-air instructor. A legal advice call-i n show , a n end-of-wee k reca p o f bes t trials , coverage of bar associatio n meetings , an d courtroo m movie s an d televisio n classics for fillers were planned . In Cour t woul d attemp t t o ge t th e jum p o n it s competitio n b y offering cabl e operator s a nominal charg e fo r takin g othe r Rainbo w offerings. I t had tw o year s o f experienc e successfull y airin g live coverage o f loca l trial s i n Lon g Islan d o n a citywide , twenty-four-hou r news station , New s 12 , an d a substantia l numbe r o f viewer s ha d tuned i n t o watc h loca l tria l coverage . It s pla n wa s t o begi n wit h fourteen hour s o f programmin g a day , startin g a t 5:0 0 A.M. , and t o become a twenty-four-hour operatio n i n a year . Sharon Patrick , th e CE O o f Rainbow , ha s als o ha d a fast-pace d career. A graduate o f Stanford an d Harvard Busines s School, at fort y she ha d experienc e wit h governmen t servic e a t th e Departmen t o f Health, Education , an d Welfar e an d internationa l managemen t con sulting at McKinsey and Company and had been in the cable industry for five years . Sh e bega n I n Cour t wit h a $30 0 millio n budget , a thousand-member workforce , an d a diverse audience that was watching program s a s varied a s elections , hockey, an d film classics.

The Crucible • 135 Patrick ha d a hug e hea d star t o n Brill . Sh e kne w abou t puttin g networks o n satellite s an d wooin g th e the n fou r thousan d cabl e operators wh o i n 199 0 wer e alread y servicin g 6 0 percen t o f America n homes. She ran on e o f abou t fifty programming service s in the country, al l o f whic h vie d fo r thirty-fiv e slot s o n cabl e casts . Patrick pre dicted tha t I n Cour t woul d b e "designe d t o mee t th e industry' s current needs , whic h ar e t o improv e daytim e service , withou t pres suring prime-time channel constraints." She retained Videoware Cor poration, a direc t marketin g company , t o hel p develo p th e project . Cable operators were conservative abou t launchin g new networks. As the National Association of Female Executives noted in November 1990, "I f th e industry i s not completely sol d on the idea that viewers need on e channe l devote d t o cour t proceedings , there' s littl e hop e i t will suppor t two." 4 Patrick viewe d I n Cour t a s "fundamentall y a new s service. " Sh e recognized that , a s a pioneer , "th e networ k ha s t o handl e th e tria l coverage i n a highly responsibl e fashion. " Sh e knew abou t wha t th e industry calle d "realit y programming"—show s suc h a s COPS tha t had a reputatio n fo r sensationalism . I n Court' s program s woul d b e controversial "i n a good sense, " Patrick promised, bu t not sensation alistic. The y woul d no t cover , fo r example , th e Centra l Par k jogge r murder b y a roving gan g of "wilding " youngsters becaus e o f the age of th e defendant s an d th e gor y natur e o f th e attack . T o avoi d th e inevitable tediu m o f al l trials , Patrick' s pla n wa s t o switc h t o othe r trials o r t o commentar y b y specialists . He r expecte d advertiser s would b e the same marketers who advertise daytime soap operas, she predicted, becaus e th e peopl e watchin g woul d b e the same . But, she insisted, howeve r targete d he r subjec t ma y hav e been , the sho w wa s to b e news . Th e plannin g researc h showe d he r tha t " a noticeabl e segment o f cabl e subscribers " would watc h I n Court . THE MARRIAG E

At the start, Patrick ha d th e advantage o f her experiences with cable, while Bril l had hi s contacts i n the lega l system . Bu t Brill possessed a singular passio n abou t hi s mission , alon g wit h a focuse d driv e t o come fro m behin d t o develo p th e first cabl e networ k dedicate d t o

136 • The Crucible trials. I n Cour t ha d take n ou t ad s i n cabl e trad e magazines . Cour t TV wa s solicitin g cabl e operator s wit h th e dem o tap e Brill' s tea m had prepared, an d introducing it s program to ad agencies they hoped would bu y time on the channel. In August 1990 , Brill wrote in American Lawyer tha t "televisio n airwave s already filled with fictional law . . . are increasingl y goin g t o ge t a whol e lo t o f th e rea l thing. " T o those wh o feare d th e effect s o f televisio n o n th e tria l system , Bril l replied tha t i f "th e tub e ca n d o mor e damag e tha n mos t in k . . . i t can als o d o mor e good. " While th e tw o planne d channel s wer e competin g i n 199 0 t o sig n up loca l cabl e systems , th e Los Angeles Times reporte d tha t cabl e system operators , concerne d tha t th e marke t coul d no t sustai n tw o all-day channels , wer e urgin g th e competitor s t o merge. 5 Th e pres s watched th e rivalr y build . The Chicago Tribune wondere d "whethe r the publi c i s read y fo r cable' s new , heav y doubl e dos e o f th e livin g law."6 The Wall Street Journal warned in a headline, "Two TV Court Channels Planned a s Critics Ask If One's Too Many" 7 and wondered whether cabl e operator s woul d "bum p eve n moderatel y successfu l entertainment far e fo r a n unteste d informatio n channel. " Th e ABA Journal intoned , "th e rea l jur y t o watc h ma y b e th e viewers." 8 Something—or someone—ha d t o give . By May 1990 , tal k o f a merge r wa s reported. 9 I n Octobe r 1990 , the trad e pres s speculate d tha t th e tw o planne d network s woul d merge, a s ha d tw o comed y services , on e owne d b y MT V an d th e other b y Time-Warner , befor e on e wa s perceive d a s havin g gaine d the foothold . I t wa s clea r tha t th e lac k o f channe l capacit y woul d doom both ventures if they launched their networks at the same time. Brill went t o se e Tom Rogers , In Court' s NB C connection , an d per suaded hi m that Cour t TV was the more serious news channel. Since the marketplac e woul d no t sustai n bot h competitors , Bril l was abl e to persuad e Roger s an d hi s colleague s t o fol d thei r operatio n int o Court TV . On e ke y t o Brill' s succes s was lockin g i n broa d distribu tion. Tele-Communications, Incorporated (TCI) , was the key because it controlled a quarter o f the country's cable subscribers. TCI brought enough MSO s (multi-syste m owners ) t o the venture to make attract ing a sufficient numbe r o f cable buyers possible. When Brill was able

The Crucible • 137 to brin g i n TCI a s a partner, alon g wit h Time-Warne r an d NBC , he had th e final piec e t o hi s puzzle . Th e dea l wa s announce d b y th e CEOs of Time-Warner (J . Richard Munro ) an d Cablevisio n (Charle s Dolan).10 After a serie s o f meeting s between th e ke y player s i n Brill' s an d Patrick's organizations , th e competitor s agree d t o joi n forces , com bine thei r advertisin g an d subscribers , an d le t Bril l run th e joint op eration. On Novembe r 21 , 1990 , th e Associate d Pres s announce d tha t Time-Warner an d Cablevisio n would for m a partnership. Brill would be th e chie f executiv e o f th e join t cabl e ventur e whic h woul d b e launched th e followin g July . Cablevisio n an d it s programming part ner NB C woul d eac h ow n 1 0 percen t o f th e ne w Courtroo m Tele vision Network . (Eventually , NB C bough t ou t Cablevision' s interes t in the ne w venture.) A Time-Warner an d American Lawyer partner ship owned 8 0 percent, but Liberty Media, which bought the carriage agreement wit h TC I that complete d th e package would shar e i n tha t 80 percent . Time-Warne r cabl e operator s ha d abou t 6. 4 millio n household subscribers ; Cablevisio n ha d abou t 1. 6 million ; an d TC I had 8. 5 million. 11 O f th e univers e o f abou t 5 4 million , expert s sai d it woul d tak e 7 t o 1 0 millio n subscriber s t o star t a ne w network . Another repor t state d that 3 0 million subscriber s was the benchmar k for nationa l advertising. 12 By July 1991 , Court T V wa s abl e t o launc h it s ne w ventur e wit h 4 millio n cabl e subscribers . Subscriber s pa y 4 0 percen t o f cabl e net work revenue ; wit h 6 0 percen t comin g fro m advertising. 13 Th e for mer competitor s wer e no w partners , an d the y presente d a unite d front. Bril l told on e interviewer, "Thi s allow s us to get there quicke r and wit h mor e confidence. " Patric k said , "I t make s al l th e sens e i n the world . I thin k thi s i s reall y goin g t o b e a playe r o n th e cabl e landscape." On e industr y exper t predicted , "It' s America' s ultimat e ongoing theatre." 14 Now, Bril l an d hi s organizatio n shifte d int o hig h gear . Fo r ke y staff appointments , Bril l wen t t o reporter s he' d worke d wit h an d trusted. Stev e Johnson, wh o ha d bee n edito r o f th e Fulton County Daily Report i n Atlanta , on e o f th e lega l newspaper s i n Brill' s pres s

138 • The Crucible conglomerate, becam e Brill' s top aid e an d th e executiv e produce r o f Court TV' s first five hundred trial s and fifteen hundred hearing s (pa role and sentencing proceedings, for example) . How much interesting material woul d the y find in ordinary cases , Brill asked? H e had bee n fascinated b y a Ne w Yor k Cit y tria l goin g o n a t th e tim e involvin g a ma n wh o had abuse d hi s wife an d kille d thei r young daughter. But that case , along wit h anothe r on e the y considere d a s their launch — the rape o f the Centra l Par k jogge r b y roaming violent youngsters — was sensationalize d an d gor y an d migh t confir m skeptics ' fear s tha t television woul d gravitat e t o an d exclusivel y cove r th e proverbia l "sex, drugs , an d roc k an d roll. " Johnson's persona l experience s an d field researc h amon g col leagues wh o covere d th e lega l scen e suggeste d tha t a n abundanc e o f ordinary case s raised intriguin g issue s that woul d interes t the public. While th e channe l woul d b e aime d a t "people , no t lawyers, " Fre d Graham told inquirers, there would b e a "legal ghetto" on weekends, with show s "basicall y b y lawyers fo r lawyers. " They would star t b y concentrating o n th e thirtee n state s tha t wer e libera l abou t lettin g in cameras—and especiall y Ne w York , California , Massachusetts , Nevada, an d Florida . Brill was sure o f his venture an d continue d developin g his strategy and a busines s plan . H e woul d appropriat e som e o f hi s bette r em ployees fro m th e lega l pres s h e controlled . The y woul d fee d storie s to Graham , wh o ha d signe d o n t o wor k a s th e network' s chie f an chor. Cynthi a McFadden , the n a t PBS , now a t ABC , wa s recruite d as anothe r experience d anchor . Brill face d a skeptica l lega l hierarch y tha t ha d live d wit h a tota l ban o f camera s i n court s fo r decades , a blas e publi c tha t though t Court T V woul d b e a bore , an d other s wh o though t i t woul d b e a blasphemous commercializatio n o f a seriou s proces s tha t shoul d b e kept ou t o f th e world o f entertainment . Industr y doubter s wondere d whether middlebro w viewers , intereste d primaril y i n celebritie s i n trouble an d luri d trials , woul d spen d evening s watchin g " a lawsui t challenging th e nutritiona l claim s o f oatmeal." 15 Bril l enliste d hi s own publication s an d too k advantag e o f ever y publi c invitatio n t o proselytize, lobby , an d cheerlea d fo r hi s idea . "Vide o cameras, " h e

The Crucible • 139 wrote i n American Lawyer, "ar e abou t t o mak e th e lega l proces s a s accessible an d visibl e i n the 1980' s a s it was i n the 1890' s whe n th e courthouse wa s ou r favorit e tow n theatre." 16 Admitting tha t man y viewer s woul d b e draw n exclusivel y t o sen sational an d prurien t cases , Bril l aspire d nonetheles s t o mak e th e courtroom camer a th e mediu m o f record . H e publicl y deplore d th e vagaries o f existin g courtroo m information , whic h derive d "fro m tabloid headlines , Hollywoo d docudramas , an d th e spin s o f lawyer s and blow-drie d eleve n o'cloc k anchors." 17 Brill conceded tha t Cour t TV would b e competing wit h soa p operas , sitcoms , cop shows , docudramas, an d tabloi d reenactments . Bu t h e wa s adaman t tha t th e programming no t b e "tabloid. " H e wa s optimisti c tha t "th e rea l thing i s better, " mor e dramatic , rewarding , an d entertaining . "Ou r hope i s to becom e th e authoritativ e sourc e fo r lega l new s an d com mentary i n thi s country an d aroun d th e world." 18 The les s glamorous , bu t organizationall y necessary , wor k o f cre ating administrativ e groun d rule s followed . Th e organizatio n ha d t o have a n extensive , explici t handboo k o f regulation s prescribin g ap propriate conduc t fo r it s employees. The handbook include s obviou s and ordinar y regulation s concernin g administrativ e subject s suc h a s vacations, sic k leave , performance ratings , an d insurance . It also details th e ethica l standard s Bril l expecte d o f al l employees , suc h a s how t o dea l wit h source s (tel l abou t a source' s weakness) , an d th e independence betwee n editoria l an d advertisin g personnel (d o not let advertising consideration s influenc e coverag e o f an y story) . It i s impressively rigorou s i n it s requirement s fo r fairnes s (whe n someone' s reputation i s impugned, tr y to ge t their commen t i n response), openness (b e candid abou t corrections) , propriety (bloc k ou t profanities) , and professionalis m (neve r bu y informatio n fro m sources) . Choice o f coverage , obviously , i s a critica l elemen t o f th e com pany's work. On e producer tol d me that a n application fo r televisio n coverage sometime s encourage s settlements . Th e selectio n an d cov erage o f trial s follo w a calculated , hierarcha l gam e plan . Th e exec utive produce r o f Cour t T V run s th e meetings , bu t Bril l rule s th e roost. Discussio n i s free-form an d informal . Al l staffer s know , how ever, tha t Bril l ha s vet o powe r an d th e clea r singl e han d o n al l de-

140 • The Crucible cision-making. I n practice , however , h e rarel y ha s t o disagre e wit h his staf f becaus e th e governin g policie s o n th e selectio n o f case s ar e generally accepted . The editoria l an d productio n staf f a t Cour t T V headquarter s chooses case s t o cove r base d o n variou s criteria : th e publi c interes t in th e case , th e newsworthines s o f th e issu e an d parties , th e qualit y of th e story , it s educationa l value , an d it s probabl e duration . Wit h more tha n a millio n trial s i n th e Unite d State s eac h yea r t o choos e from, th e materia l fo r Cour t T V i s plentiful. 19 Recommendations ar e receive d fro m a networ k o f hundred s o f trackers i n the field (mostly American Lawyer editor s an d reporters ) who ar e linked b y computer t o Cour t TV' s New York headquarters . There, staff member s write up an analysis for the producers and management identifyin g potentia l case s t o cover . Th e analysis , usuall y running a fe w pages , i s circulated t o to p compan y decision-makers , who mee t ever y Wednesda y t o discus s projects . Th e summarie s o f potential cases—abou t a dozen a week—are succinc t and matter-of fact: "Th e highest court i n Massachusetts wil l decide whether a rape counselor mus t tur n he r record s ove r t o th e lawye r representin g th e man accuse d o f rapin g he r client. " "Woma n wh o allegedl y kille d husband claimin g battere d wif e syndrom e a s defense." The y includ e the nam e o f th e case , th e predicte d lengt h o f th e trial , th e place , judge, lawyers , contac t phon e numbers , an d a several-pag e cas e de scription notin g th e significan t facts , th e ke y question s raised , th e lawyers' views of the issues, the judge's view on cameras in the court (i.e., "Judg e X denie d u s camer a acces s th e las t tim e w e applie d t o his court . However , thi s i s no t a hig h profil e trial , an d h e ma y le t us in.") , an d o n occasio n th e tracker' s opinio n abou t tw o question s always o n th e producers ' mind s ("Thi s cas e wil l no t becom e a battle o f th e medica l experts . No r wil l i t b e overl y graphi c an d gory."). The trackers ' report s usuall y d o no t editorializ e o r mak e recom mendations. The y includ e practica l insight s tha t onl y on-the-scen e observers would know ("S o far, the city has been unreceptive to talks of settlement , an d th e plaintiff' s lawye r indicate s tha t i t i s 'unlikely ' that th e case will settle; due to its length [fiv e weeks] and the number

The Crucible • 141 of underag e witnesses , i t doesn' t see m lik e somethin g w e woul d do."). The y includ e detail s tha t ar e o f critica l interes t t o televisio n producers ("Al l th e partie s involve d ar e Haitia n immigrants , bu t d o not have heavy accents."). The trackers sometimes can provide inside information the y hav e secure d fro m thei r contact s (" a rumo r ha s surfaced tha t on e o f the m wil l testify.") . Sometimes recommendation s ar e mad e b y source s outsid e Cour t TV, including peopl e involve d i n upcoming trials . Jeff Ballabon , senior vic e president fo r corporat e affairs , recall s that a n Ohi o Suprem e Court cas e was not o n Cour t TV' s agend a bu t was adde d afte r loca l officials calle d t o sugges t tha t th e issue—th e constitutionalit y o f state-financed education—wa s important . "W e sa w tha t exception ally importan t issue s were a t stake . We sen t a camera cre w t o cove r it. W e als o mad e tape s o f th e progra m availabl e t o school s an d in stitutions acros s th e state. " Th e judg e i n th e Dow-Cornin g breas t implant cas e asked Cour t T V to ai r hi s explanation o f the settlemen t so that wome n i n th e clas s o f potentia l beneficiarie s woul d kno w of it. "W e though t i t woul d b e a publi c servic e t o conve y thi s infor mation i n a passiv e wa y s o w e wer e no t perceive d a s takin g a sid e that thi s wa s a goo d settlement, " Ballabo n stated . Th e judg e wa s televised explainin g th e settlement . Lawyer s wh o oppose d th e settlement wer e give n th e opportunit y t o argu e agains t it . Wome n wh o called i n wer e provide d wit h tape s o f th e show . Were thos e cynic s wh o doub t th e educationa l valu e o f televise d trials t o sca n th e lis t o f case s covere d b y Cour t TV , the y migh t re consider thei r position . A perusal o f th e approximatel y si x hundre d cases aire d b y Cour t T V durin g it s first si x years disclose s a divers e fare, filled with inherent drama, some complexity of issues, and much of th e violenc e an d contentiousnes s o f life . Th e larg e majorit y wer e criminal trials, but a significant minorit y of the cases were civil. There is a samplin g o f celebrit y trial s (th e Wood y Allen-Mi a Farro w di vorce; th e Jerr y Garci a estat e dispute ; Bernar d Goetz' s libe l sui t against Willia m Kunstle r an d th e publisher o f his biography; Marti n Luther Kin g Jr.'s heirs ' disput e wit h Bosto n Universit y ove r owner ship o f th e lat e civi l right s leader' s papers ; severa l prosecution s o f Dr. Jack Kevorkia n fo r allegedl y assistin g patients ' suicides ; the sen-

142 • The Crucible tencing of Joseph Buttafuoco fo r statutor y rape of his wife's attacker ; the parol e hearing s o f Charle s Manson , Sirha n Sirhan , an d Jame s Earl Ray; Art Buchwald's sui t agains t Paramoun t Picture s for appro priating hi s movi e idea ; Rando m House' s unsuccessfu l sui t agains t Joan Collin s fo r no t producin g a publishabl e book) , cases involvin g charges agains t professiona l athletes , an d claim s agains t actor s an d actresses; however, these high-visibility cases involving notorious parties compos e a tin y fractio n o f th e case s aired . Cases were reporte d fro m al l over the United States , though large r numbers aros e i n state s hospitabl e t o courtroo m cameras : Florida , Georgia, California , Massachusetts , Michigan , an d Ne w York . Whether crimina l o r civi l cases , th e issue s presente d ofte n wer e o f broad genera l interest : a hospital' s dut y t o it s patients ; th e applica bility o f capita l punishment ; workplac e discriminatio n o f variou s forms (race , sex , age) ; th e Bosnia n wa r crime s trials ; trad e secrets ; religious training o f a child of divorced parents; the savings-and-loa n security frau d tria l o f Charle s Keating ; smokers ' suit s agains t ciga rette companies ; spousa l murders ; affirmativ e actio n i n awardin g municipal contracts ; a schoo l condom-dispersa l program ; strike breaking; child custody; vehicular homicide ; a trademark disput e between Hert z an d Avis ; a surrogat e motherin g contrac t dispute ; International Cour t o f Justic e litigatio n fro m th e Hague ; claim s o f copyright infringement s o f songs , movi e ideas , an d celebrit y photo graphs; price-fixing b y Ivy League universities; a settlement o f a class action agains t Genera l Motors ; a challenge t o a government ba n o n selling "adult " material s (Penthouse magazine) a t militar y bases . Among th e televise d case s wer e severa l whos e coverag e mad e th e parties notorious : Bernar d Goetz , Jeffre y Dahmer , Loren a Bobbitt , Jesse Timmendequas, William Kennedy Smith, Rodney King, and the Menendez brothers . I n addition , ther e wer e case s whos e oddit y n o doubt contribute d t o thei r genera l interest : schoolgirl s who sue d fo r the right to play fast-pitch rathe r than slow-pitch softball; two surfer s who attacked a spectator a t a surfing championship ; an animal rights advocate's sui t to prevent dee r hunting, which harmed th e bald eagle population; a T V reporte r wh o conducte d pi t bul l fights; a man slaughter tria l fo r shootin g a man mistake n fo r a deer; an economic s

The Crucible • 143 teacher wh o extorte d mone y fro m student s fo r enhance d grades ; a boxer wh o offere d hi s opponen t a bribe to los e their fight; a woman charged wit h killin g he r fetu s b y getting drunk . Court T V als o covere d generi c proceedings : a crim e victi m right s constitutional amendmen t hearing ; th e operation s o f a municipa l court; attorne y disciplinar y proceedings ; menta l statu s hearings ; clemency hearings ; police brutalit y cases ; parole an d sentencin g proceedings. These interestin g an d edifyin g trial s wil l continu e a s long a s ther e is life, law , an d a trial system . Alexi s d e Tocqueville note d lon g ag o that "scarcel y an y politica l questio n arise s i n th e Unite d State s tha t is not resolved , soone r o r later , int o a judicia l question. " Whil e tel evised trial s ar e edifyin g an d revealin g o f th e tria l system , the y d o accent th e violen t an d bizarre . But , i n doin g so , ho w differen t ar e they fro m standar d networ k fare , man y movies , o r th e new s o f th e day? Predictions tha t Cour t T V woul d b e a combinatio n o f C-SPA N and soa p opera s prove d correct . A s one observe r wrote , "Cour t T V offers a mixture o f shockin g back-pag e blood-and-gut s trial s and sober opinion-pag e exploration s o f liability , rights , an d lega l princi ples."20 O n an y give n day , on e ca n watc h Senat e confirmatio n hearings o f a proposed Suprem e Cour t justice ; excerpts an d analysi s of pas t (Nuremberg ) an d presen t (Yugoslavia ) wa r crim e trials ; th e soap opera-like , tearfu l testimon y o f Loren a Bobbit t explainin g why she emasculate d he r sleepin g husband ; o r th e profoun d dram a o f a death-row convic t pleadin g tha t h e ha s foun d Go d an d shoul d b e spared th e ultimat e punishment . For al l hi s brashnes s an d toughness , Bril l i s a s passionat e abou t the integrit y o f Cour t T V a s h e i s interested i n it s win-los e busines s side. This i s evident i n al l his proselytizing i n media an d befor e pro fessional, political , an d judicia l organizations , an d i n th e hands-o n way h e run s hi s organization . I n hi s mind , th e definin g momen t i n Court TV' s histor y s o fa r ha s bee n whe n th e camer a i n th e O . J . Simpson case accidentally showe d a fleeting glimps e of a juror. Brill's staff notifie d th e judge , an d Bril l went o n camer a t o apologize . Brill has insiste d o n thi s kin d o f candor : indeed , eac h yea r th e compan y

144 • The Crucible commemorates "integrit y day, " i n whic h on e employe e i s give n a n award fo r exemplar y act s o f corporat e honor . Within si x years, b y January 1997 , Court T V had televise d abou t six hundre d trials , and , accordin g t o Brill , wa s firmly i n th e blac k financially,21 a yea r earlie r tha n h e ha d predicted . Becaus e cabl e li censing fee s g o u p eac h year , Bril l say s h e expect s profit s t o kee p rising. As of mid-1996, of the approximately 10 0 million homes with television, 6 7 millio n wer e wire d fo r cable , an d Cour t T V ha d 2 6 million subscribers . How Cour t T V balance s it s goal s o f commerc e an d journalisti c integrity i s a key consideration. Cour t TV receives its Nielsen rating s regularly, bu t selec t fe w staf f member s kno w wha t the y disclose . As Ballabon reports , "W e ar e a business . W e d o advertisin g sale s an d advertisers nee d to know who is watching. The cable operators wan t to kno w ho w many people tune in , and the demographics. . . . There are people at the network wh o know, b u t . .. i t is an extremely small group." Bril l i s emphatic tha t th e subjec t o f rating s no t b e discusse d by th e editoria l staf f a t it s plannin g meetings . Ballabo n attests , "You'll neve r hea r anybod y rais e the question an d issue of ratings at that meetin g becaus e that's not th e criterion o n which we will decide whether o r no t that' s a good case. " Not everyon e agrees with Cour t TV's inside report card. Carl Stern is a n attorne y an d journalis m professo r wh o fo r ove r thre e decade s was NBC' s nationa l lega l correspondent , coverin g countles s majo r trials, the Suprem e Court , an d th e Justice Department. Ster n has reservations abou t th e public-servic e aspec t o f Cour t TV' s program ming. Long an advocat e fo r televise d trials , Stern now is offended b y the frequen t replay s o f sensationa l moment s i n notoriou s trials — such a s the testimon y o f th e allege d rap e victi m i n the William Ken nedy Smit h cas e i n Florida—i n orde r t o rais e rating s an d sel l prod ucts. "My hear t jus t sinks sometimes when I see Court TV," says Stern. "I labore d throug h man y a ba r meetin g i n th e 1970s , trying t o per suade judge s an d lawyer s tha t televise d trial s woul d no t b e jus t an other mediu m fo r sellin g bee r an d deodorants . I was wrong . Trial s have turne d ou t t o b e a commodity , a produc t sol d an d exploite d

The Crucible • 145 for commercia l value, and one in which most of the performers don' t have to b e paid. Cour t TV even seems to b e marketing re-sale rights, selling trial videos to othe r shows , and t o viewers who wish to orde r by phone usin g thei r VIS A cards!" 22 Stern fault s Cour t T V fo r misappropriatin g sensationa l case s tha t have only prurient aspects . "How man y time s does Court TV intend to pla y th e tap e o f th e Ne w Englan d schoolteache r wh o wa s con victed o f rapin g he r fifteen-year-old student ? Whe n I saw it recently, for th e umpteent h time , it ended wit h a 'bumper' teas e to sta y tune d for th e nex t cas e which , i f I hear d correctly , involve d a prostitut e who sue d he r 'John. ' I did no t sta y tuned . "I realiz e ther e ar e som e cases, like the Nuremberg trials , that deserve to b e repeated o n television until the end of time. But shouldn' t human kindnes s an d regar d fo r lettin g partie s an d witnesse s regai n a modicum of privacy induce the Court TV to drop the sex stuff afte r the sixt h o r sevent h airing? " Ster n asks . As a resul t o f Cour t TV , Ster n argues , citizen s ar e neve r abl e t o conclude th e invasio n o f privac y tha t occur s i n al l trials, but a t leas t used t o en d there . Now , h e believes , Cour t T V show s th e tria l an d resells packaged excerpt s fo r money , not fo r publi c edification. Ster n wonders whethe r hi s faith i n courtroom camera s was misplaced. Hi s rough judgmen t make s to o sweepin g a condemnatio n o f th e net work's overal l record , thoug h i t doe s rais e a reasonabl e criticis m o f one o f it s excesses. While Court TV's primary focus i s trial coverage, the company has developed relate d spin-offs . A s th e archive s o f tape d trial s grew , along with th e company's reputation , auxiliar y revenu e als o accrue d from spin-of f programming , particularl y th e high-price d service s fo r lawyers. Liv e courtroo m coverag e o f actua l trial s ar e th e hear t an d soul o f Cour t TV' s agenda . Monda y t o Friday , fro m 9 A.M . unti l 7:30 P.M. , the progra m schedul e i s devote d t o tria l coverage . Fro m 7:30 P.M . continuously unti l 9 A.M. the next weekday, Cour t TV has provided a variety o f relate d programs , eac h with it s ow n producer , anchor, an d focus : Supreme Court Watch, Trial Story, Justice Factory, On Appeal, Justice Today, Miller's Law, Washington Watch, and it s flagship dail y program , Prime Time Justice, whic h wrap s u p

146 • The Crucible the day' s highlight s eac h evening . Supreme Court Watch, hoste d b y Fred Graham , is broadcast fro m a studio in Washington, D.C., when the Suprem e Cour t i s i n session . A half-hour weekl y show , On Appeal, complement s Supreme Court Watch b y discussin g importan t appeals aroun d th e countr y tha t hav e a majo r impac t o n th e law . Trial Story produce s documentarie s (abou t a hundre d s o far ) abou t important case s covere d b y Cour t TV , includin g excerpts , analysis , background an d color . Issue s suc h a s custody , sexua l harassment , hospital practices , an d crimina l procedure s hav e bee n covere d an d are sol d o n videocassettes . A continuin g lega l educatio n for-credi t program i s available . Weekends featur e program s fo r teenager s an d a variet y o f program s fro m th e network' s selections . Fo r a typica l schedule, se e Figure 1 . Court T V produces a variety o f educationa l program s i n additio n to its gavel-to-gavel trial coverage. In Practice is a series of continuing legal educatio n seminar s fo r practitioner s tha t run s o n weekends . Class Action i s a weekly one-hou r analysi s of important issue s raised in a particular trial , edited fro m case s in Cour t TV' s archives. Cour t TV participates i n annual moc k trial s held b y competing high school students. I t produce s CD-RO M program s base d o n revealin g trials . It televise s monthl y communit y forum s o n provocativ e subjects : domestic violenc e i n Browar d County , Florida ; illega l immigratio n i n Van Nuys , California ; juvenil e justic e i n Bato n Rouge , Louisiana ; parole refor m i n Hampto n Beach , Virginia; an d gang s i n Albuquer que, New Mexico . In Apri l 1996 , Cour t T V launche d Teen Court TV , a weeken d morning program tha t explores the justice system from th e teenager's (12-18-year-olds) perspective . Teen Court T V includes three formats: a tow n hall , issue-focused , audienc e participatio n progra m o n sub jects suc h a s drug s an d competency ; analysi s b y a host an d gues t of a tria l tha t youn g peopl e wil l find engaging; an d a n on-site , behind the-scenes visi t t o actua l location s suc h a s a la w schoo l o r a distric t attorney's office , presente d i n a magazin e forma t tha t include s pro files, quizzes, and computerize d variations . The Cour t T V networ k als o provide s tangentia l programmin g through numerou s interactiv e applications .

Figure 1. Court TV Programming Schedule, April 1997 [HOURS 11 MQ N 1 1 TUES | [ WE D THUR 9:00 A 9:30 A

S FR

I l i SA T 1 1 SU N1 1 HOURS 1

M

Washington Watc h

9:00 A

M

M

Supreme Court Watch/ On Appeal

9:30 A

M

10:00 A M 10:30 A M

Live Courtroom Trial Coverage

11:00 A M

Morning Sessio n

What's the Verdict?

Your Turn

10:00 A M

10:30 A

M

11:00 A M 11:30 A M

11:30 A M 12:00 P M

Justice Factor y

12:00 P M

12:30 P M

Miller's La w

12:30 P M

1:00 P M

Justice Today

Trial Story

1:30 P M

2:00 P M 2:30 PM 3:00 P M 3:30 P M

Live Courtroom Trial Coverage Newsbreaks, Open Line, Daily Docket

4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 P M 5:30 PM 6:00 P M 6:30 P M

8:00 P M 8:30 P M 9:00 P M 9:30 P M

Live Courtroom Trial Coverage Evening Session

Supreme Court I Justice Factory Watch/On Appeal |

Justice Factory

Miller's Law

I Washingto n I | Watc hJ

Prime Time Justice

Cochran & Company

Prime Time Justice

Trial Story

Cochran & Company

Cochran & Company

Cochran & Company

Trial Story

Prime Time Justice

Prime Time Cochran & Company Justice

Cochran & Company

Cochran & Company

Prime Time Justice

Trial Story

Trial Story

Trial Story

Prime Time Justice

Prime Time I Justic e I

10:00 P M 10:30 P M 11:00 P M

Prime Time Cochran & Company Justice

Prime Time Prime Time Justice Justice

7:00 P M 7:30 P M

Prime Time Justice

2:00 P M 2:30 P M 3:00 P M 3:30 P M 4:00 P M 4:30 PM 5:00 P M

5:30 P M 6:00 P M 6:30 P M 7:00 P M 7:30 P M 8:00 P M 8:30 P M 9:00 P M 9:30 P M 10:00 P M 10:30 P M

Trial Story

Segments may be preempted when necessar y for live courtroom coverag e Prime Time Justic e ' Complete hilight s of the day's coverag e

In Practic e Continuing Lega l Education (CLE) program for lawyer s 6-9 A M Sa t & Sun

Teen Cour t T V Programming for kid s

Daily Docke t The day's schedule o f I trials

Newsbreak Breaking lega l new s

Open Line

Reprinted by permission o f Court TV.

1:00 P M 1:30 P M

Live call-in segmen t

11:00 P M

148 • The Crucible Back Channel i s a n onlin e networ k tha t provide s a wide rang e of information t o subscriber s about whatever tria l is currently on Cour t TV. Fo r additiona l information , viewer s ca n acces s "Casefiles, " which delive r quick , concis e dat a o n th e cas e an d explai n th e ke y issues an d possibl e socia l repercussion s resultin g fro m it ; "People, " which offer s brie f bio s o n th e major witnesses ; and "Words, " which offers subscriber s an on-screen law dictionary for al l legal terms used. Another feature , th e "Armchai r Lawyer, " call s fo r subscribe r inpu t on th e trial—anythin g fro m guessin g th e content s o f a closin g ar gument t o predictin g th e verdict . In th e Case Simulation Game, user s lear n th e fact s o f a rea l cas e and the n prepar e an d argu e a simulate d trial . Player s compet e ove r the interne t an d awai t th e computer' s writte n decisio n declarin g th e winner an d includin g a critique o f bot h sides . The Court TV Law Center i s a websit e tha t enable s surfer s t o obtain a wid e rang e o f lega l informatio n abou t commonl y aske d questions, acces s t o a librar y o f lega l documents , an d th e abilit y t o meet an d cha t wit h othe r user s o n lega l issue s an d curren t events . Other application s includ e a lawyer check , where online users e-mail names o f lawyer s the y ar e thinkin g o f hirin g an d the y chec k thei r references. Anothe r feature , "CyberCourt, " offer s a n onlin e disput e resolution forum . Multimedia Casemaker use s video fro m trial s fo r educationa l use . This CD-RO M progra m wa s develope d t o educat e student s o f th e judicial syste m b y givin g the m acces s t o rea l cases . Th e Casemaker includes vide o footage , transcripts , an d pres s article s fro m th e case , as well a s related informatio n necessar y fo r a student t o understand , dissect, an d analyz e a case. Video-on-Demand make s available one- to two-hour videocassett e summaries o f th e network' s mos t importan t trials . Eac h summar y includes footag e a s well a s interviews wit h participant s i n th e case . Cable in the Classroom provide s in-dept h coverag e o f importan t legal issue s for classroo m teachin g purposes . A versatile an d potentiall y profitabl e spin-of f projec t a t Cour t T V is Counsel Connect. Fo r a modest fe e ($12 0 per year), this computer software servic e for attorneys , law librarians, and paralegals provides unlimited e-mai l an d interne t acces s for user s to shar e memos, brief s

The Crucible • 149 documents, news, advice, and recruitment, to plug into seminars, and conduct privat e conferences . I n mid-1997, it had fifty thousand sub scribers. All o f thes e program s excep t Supreme Court Watch art planne d and broadcas t fro m th e company's office s o n four floors of the plainlooking Manhatta n buildin g tha t house s Cour t TV' s studios , ar chives, and productio n an d busines s offices .

After a half-decade, Cour t T V has carve d a uniqu e niche . As one of its self-congratulator y ad s claimed : "Fo r worl d news , there' s CNN . For Sports , there' s ESPN . MT V i s musi c televisio n an d C-SPA N i s our eye on Congres s . . . since 1991 , legal journalism has had its own brand name: Court TV." More impressive is the judgment of its peers in th e press . Afte r th e O . J . Simpso n trial , th e Los Angeles Times's media critic , David Shaw , reported: "Th e most comprehensive Simpson coverag e o f al l came , o f course , o n th e station s tha t broadcas t every wor d o f tria l testimony , an d reporter s an d attorney s . . . expressed grea t admiratio n fo r tha t coverag e and , i n particular, fo r th e gavel-to-gavel coverag e o f Cour t T V and CNN. " "Th e mos t impressive peopl e t o me , probably , i n televisio n ar e th e Cour t T V . .. re porters," New York Times reporte r Davi d Margolis said . "Court TV is wonderful , an d th e Cour t T V reporter s ar e incredibl y smar t an d energetic. They'v e don e . . . terrific an d ver y responsibl e work . . . . Every day they break stories . I think they've set a standard fo r every body,"23 Sha w observed . Champions o f Cour t T V clai m tha t i t "ha s brough t th e Sixt h Amendment int o th e Twentiet h Centur y wit h it s extensio n o f th e public tria l t o th e electroni c nation . Th e C-SPA N o f th e judicia l branch, i t i s providing a uniqu e servic e that ma y b e more abou t cit izenship tha n commerce." 24 Arizon a la w professo r Davi d Harri s be lieves tha t Cour t T V "doe s a bette r jo b o f showin g viewer s wha t a trial reall y is . . . . Flash an d excitemen t seldo m sho w u p o n cour t TV." Mor e tha n th e derivativ e an d incomplet e versio n o f trial s tha t the print press presents, Harris argues, Court TV provides an "almos t immediate versio n o f th e proceedings." 25 Yale la w professo r Joh n Langbein , a skepti c o f th e tria l system ,

150 • The Crucible takes thi s argumen t a ste p further . Th e publi c ha s bee n educate d t o think tha t crimina l trial s were what the y sa w o n LA Law an d Perry Mason. Courtroo m camera s sho w a more realistic picture o f the justice system , h e argues , an d provid e "ordinar y citizen s a vie w o f th e truth-disregarding an d truth-defeating potentia l of late twentieth century American adversar y procedure." 26 I t is important fo r th e publi c to kno w tha t "Mone y i s the definin g elemen t o f ou r moder n Amer ican crimina l justic e system, " on e which i s less an investigatio n int o truth tha n " a stage d battl e o f partisan s committe d t o distortion." 27 What i t i s showin g peopl e i s th e wa y th e syste m reall y works . Th e courtroom camer a i s mor e dignified , mor e tasteful , an d mor e accu rate tha n th e unruly , tabloid-driven , out-of-cour t medi a coverag e of trials. Court TV' s Jeff Ballabo n base s hi s case o n th e differenc e betwee n news and information . Mos t medi a repor t new s that ma y be inform ative, bu t ma y als o distor t ho w th e legal syste m operates , he argues, whereas Court TV "will choose cases for their information valu e over their new s value. " Journalis m ha s bee n calle d th e "firs t draft " o f history, so speed and excitement ar e criteria fo r coverage , along with accuracy. I t i s left t o historian s t o reflec t abou t th e trut h an d realit y of pas t actions . Woul d no t th e televise d tria l b e a bette r recor d o f history tha n evanescen t new s reportage ? When th e difference betwee n news and information i s blurred, distortion results . Becaus e o f th e bizarr e verdic t tha t awarde d a hug e sum to a woman wh o spille d ho t coffe e o n her lap , Ballabon argues , the publi c believe s the trial syste m i s a bonanza fo r imaginativ e lawyers an d litigiou s plaintiffs . Bu t Cour t T V als o presente d case s brought agains t swimmin g poo l an d inlin e skat e manufacturer s b y sympathetic injure d partie s wh o go t n o mone y becaus e the y coul d not prove that their injuries wer e caused by anything more than their own negligence . "N o on e covere d that , s o fa r a s I know , excep t Court TV, " say s Ballabon . Mos t reporter s don' t cove r civi l cases , particularly whe n ther e ar e defendan t verdicts , h e notes , an d the y contradict th e ho t coffe e verdic t tha t ha s prompte d call s fo r la w reform. Hi s point : "W e ar e ther e fo r bot h new s an d informatio n i n a way tha t mos t network s ar e not. "

The Crucible • 151 The long-for m approac h t o issue s o f mor e tha n loca l o r tempora l interest provide s a truer pictur e o f th e syste m and , Ballabo n argues , presents " a highe r journalistic ethic. " The network need s viewers, so notoriety i s a facto r i n decidin g whic h case s ge t broadcast . Thus , a copyright infringemen t cas e involvin g claim s agains t th e celebrate d film Jurassic Park dre w a n audienc e becaus e o f th e famou s movie , director, an d author ; bu t th e Cour t T V audienc e wa s provide d a n analysis o f bot h th e "substantia l similarity " lega l tes t tha t govern s claims of copying, and the way courts protec t ideas . "Our missio n is to tel l abou t th e lega l syste m . . . with accurac y an d dignity, " say s Ballabon. Jeffrey Toobin , a former prosecuto r who covered the Simpson trial for th e New Yorker an d later wrote a book about the case,28 expressed th e sam e viewpoint : "Journalis m i n th e rea l worl d i s a s much abou t what' s interestin g a s i t i s abou t what' s important." 29 Perhaps th e highes t complimen t come s fro m th e brillian t T V pro ducer o f lega l dram a (Hill Street Blues an d L.A. Law, fo r example) , Stephen Bochco. "I'm a real Court TV junkie," he says, "it's the best show o n TV." 30 Reporters continu e traditiona l coverag e o f lega l cases , providin g synopses an d analysi s i n prin t an d o n camera . Th e televisio n net works an d CN N sho w segments o f high-profile trials . CNN als o has broadcast extensive , i f no t gavel-to-gavel , coverag e o f severa l cele brated cases—Caro l Burnett' s libe l clai m agains t National Enquirer (1981), the Clau s vo n Bulo w murde r tria l (1982) , the Ne w Bedfor d gang rap e cas e (1984) , a libe l cas e agains t 60 Minutes, Zs a Zs a Ga bor's assault of a policeman, actor William Hurt's palimony case, the McMartin nurser y schoo l child-abus e cas e charges , an d others . PBS has provided gavel-to-gave l coverag e o f les s notorious cases , as have individual court s i n man y states. 31 In orde r t o fee d a curiou s public , "docudramas " o f trial s offe r a bridge between dramatizatio n an d reporting . Another cabl e channel, E! Entertainmen t Television , covere d th e Simpso n crimina l cas e a s Court T V did, gavel to gavel. When th e cameras were banned i n the civil case , E ! switched t o "infotainment. " E ! reenacted highlight s of the Simpso n civi l trial dail y i n one-hou r dramatization s usin g actor s on a set . The actor s use d excerpt s fro m th e transcript s an d note s of

152 • The Crucible reporters o n th e scen e describin g th e actua l witnesses ' an d partici pants' gesture s an d inflections . Thi s re-creatio n wa s followe d b y expert analysi s an d interview s wit h commentators . E!' s progra m di rector explaine d tha t viewers wanted it : "When there are no cameras allowed i n th e courtroo m an d the y wan t t o b e inside , we thin k thi s is a fai r an d accurat e wa y t o tak e the m inside. " In response , on e criti c replie d succinctly , "Eithe r it' s rea l o r it' s not." Ballabon adds, "Re-enactment is worse than just having reports in th e newspaper s . . . because peopl e thin k the y ar e seein g reality. " What the y ar e seeing , h e argues , i s a n "illusio n o f som e sor t o f re ality," withou t th e actua l demeanor , inflections , tone , an d passio n that goe s o n i n court . Th e camer a let s peopl e se e al l thi s fo r them selves. Some alternatives t o Cour t TV' s approach hav e bee n suggested . A non-profit network , lik e th e on e i n Washingto n State , o r C-SPA N could broadcas t al l judicial proceedings, without al l the commentar y and spin-off s tha t Cour t T V uses . Harvard la w professo r Ala n Der showitz ha s propose d suc h a network—"J-Span, " h e calle d it—t o be operate d unde r th e supervisio n o f ba r association s an d la w schools.32 Offende d b y what h e see s a s th e commercialis m an d sen sationalism o f Cour t TV , which intersperse s it s coverage with adver tisements t o "sel l cereal , sou p an d do g food, " a s well a s a perceive d focus o n salaciou s a s opposed t o educationa l cases , Dershowitz proposes tha t J-Spa n b e guided b y lawyers , judges, an d la y peopl e wh o would choos e educationa l cases , not simpl y entertaining ones . David Harris has noted th e administrative, economic, and ideological problems surroundin g suc h a n idea , an d ha s suggeste d a n alternative , Community Cour t TV , whic h woul d ta p int o Cour t T V bu t wide n its scope , localiz e it s coverage , an d presen t a mor e realisti c pictur e of th e syste m t o th e public. 33 For the moment, however , Cour t TV offers th e closest thing to the medium o f record . Ho w wel l an d ho w lon g tha t i s the cas e remain s to b e seen . Earl y i n 1997 , new s report s disclose d tha t Bril l ha d of fered t o bu y ou t th e networ k fo r $30 0 million . When Time-Warne r refused, Bril l opte d t o sel l hi s interest , reportedl y fo r between $2 0 and $4 0 million. The cable network wa s reportedly worth $45 0 mil-

The Crucible • 153 lion, with 3 0 million subscribers, and a profit o f $3.5 million in 199 6 and on e o f $1 2 millio n predicte d fo r 1997 . Insiders predicte d tha t Time-Warner wil l spen d mor e mone y o n th e networ k t o boos t it s ratings an d profits , a chang e fro m Brill' s emphasi s o n programmin g standards.34 A vetera n Cour t T V inside r report s tha t thing s ar e changin g fas t in the post-Brill era. All television networks, including niche channels like Cour t TV , ar e sufferin g declinin g audiences . Thi s mean s Cour t TV wil l b e showin g mor e se x an d celebrit y cases , h e predicts , an d paying mor e attentio n t o ratings . Advertiser s prefe r changin g audi ences, so niche channels whose followings remai n relatively static are a les s desirabl e foru m fo r commercia l sponsors . Unde r Brill , fe w Court T V personne l wer e awar e o f rating s (th e executiv e vic e president had to find smuggled reports). Now, serious programming, such as th e Yugoslavia n wa r crim e trial s whic h ha d lo w rating s bu t hig h cerebral value , have les s o f a chanc e o f coverage . How muc h Cour t T V ma y chang e unde r differen t leadershi p an d whether a ne w channe l wil l emerg e ar e question s tha t wil l b e an swered a s th e centur y ends .

Chapter 6

CONCLUSION TV O R NO T T V

T

he recurring fre e press-fai r tria l debat e di d no t involv e televisio n until late in the twentieth century . In the first half o f the century, there was no television; later, in the early years of television, the new medium was forbidden i n courts. Thus, the experiment with televised trials ha s bee n a short-live d one . Durin g th e tim e between th e Su preme Court' s opinio n i n th e Chandler cas e i n 198 1 an d th e O . J . Simpson crimina l tria l i n 1995 , th e actua l us e o f camera s i n court s changed dramatically , a s di d publi c opinio n o n th e subject . Fo r a decade afte r Chandler, state s experimente d actively , widely , an d i n most case s successfully wit h televised trials. The federal cour t system also experimented , thoug h muc h les s extensivel y an d mor e cau tiously. B y the 1990s , wit h a cabl e networ k offerin g gavel-to-gave l coverage an d othe r network s broadcastin g excerpt s o f trials , th e practice ha s becom e commonplace . Then, th e overdos e o f coverag e o f th e Simpso n cas e left man y ob servers wit h a n angr y cas e o f T V indigestion , cynica l abou t th e medium's value s an d legitimac y i n a cour t o f law . W e ar e currentl y i n the mids t o f anothe r cycl e o f questionin g th e merit s o f publicize d trials an d th e prope r balanc e betwee n ou r nation' s commitmen t t o a free pres s an d t o fai r trials . As chapter 1 demonstrated, ou r nation' s 154

Conclusion • 155 history i s fille d wit h case s wher e saturate d publicit y abou t variou s "trials o f th e century " ar e followe d b y morning-afte r handwringin g in which the press and the bar scrutinize their own perceived excesses and resolve to act with more restraint in the future. Does the Simpson case—the lates t an d possibl y mos t extrem e exampl e o f thi s phenomenon—warrant reconsideratio n o f our present practices with courts an d television ? Reconsideration, perhaps ; bu t no t a change o f direction . First , the problem mus t b e viewed i n its proper perspective . The pervasivenes s of th e fre e press-fai r tria l dilemma , whic h involve s competin g con stitutional rights , i s exaggerated, accordin g t o on e venerate d federa l judge. News medi a interfer e wit h fai r trial s "i n onl y a preciou s fe w cases," th e lat e Judg e J . Skell y Wrigh t tol d a federa l ba r grou p i n 1965.1 Less than 1 percent o f th e hundred s o f thousands o f crimina l cases eac h yea r ge t eve n a lin e o f pres s notice . I n the federa l syste m in whic h Wrigh t presided , th e larg e majorit y o f defendant s plea d guilty; onl y abou t 8 percen t hav e jur y trials . Voi r dire , challenges , postponements, an d removal s cur e mos t o f th e problem s cause d b y pretrial pres s coverage . In Judg e Wright' s opinion , th e extrem e remed y o f dismissin g a relatively fe w case s "woul d b e a smal l pric e t o pa y fo r th e grea t benefits w e al l receive—th e publi c generall y an d person s accuse d of crime i n particular—from th e disclosure s mad e i n the press with respect t o th e going s o n i n polic e stations , distric t attorneys ' offices , and courthouse s throughou t th e country. " Thes e governmen t agen cies perform sensitiv e functions an d th e public has the right to kno w how the y ar e bein g performed . Wrigh t quote d Lor d Acton' s aphorism—"Everything secre t degenerates , eve n th e administratio n of justice"—an d coine d on e o f hi s own : " A health y democrac y re quires fres h ai r an d light . Publi c official s . . . function bes t in a goldfish bowl." Wright, a former prosecutor , aske d with some sense of irony, Why is it that Cano n 20 of the Code of Professional Ethics , which is "supposed t o cur b comment s b y lawyer s abou t pendin g case s (includin g district attorneys), " i s ignored , whil e Cano n 3 5 o f th e Cod e o f Ju dicial Ethic s bannin g camera s i n court s i s rigidl y enforced ? I s thi s

156 • Conclusion another exampl e o f th e cynica l observatio n tha t th e onl y standar d i s the doubl e standard ? Chief Justic e To m Moye r o f Ohio , a recen t presiden t o f th e U.S . Conference o f Chie f Justices , als o see s courtroo m coverag e a s a wa y to buil d publi c confidenc e i n th e justic e process . I t i s an opportunity , Moyer ha s said , "t o educat e th e publi c abou t th e natur e o f ou r work . Given th e technologica l advance s o f vide o equipmen t an d satellit e communications, w e no w hav e th e emergenc e o f Cour t TV . I t i s a fact o f ou r time . An d i t i s a n appropriat e tim e t o rene w th e debat e about camera s i n th e courtroom. " Moye r urge s tha t th e historica l principle o f ope n courtroom s i n th e ful l vie w o f th e publi c ha s fol lowed a logica l progressio n throug h t o camera s i n th e courts . Tele vising trials , h e argues , i s "anothe r opportunity , no t a n intrusion." 2 Indeed, th e trend—appropriately , I would argue—i s towar d mor e open government . Fo r example , i n recen t year s man y state s an d th e federal governmen t hav e enacte d "sunshine " law s requirin g ope n meetings o f quasi-judicia l administrativ e proceeding s o n th e theor y that importan t publi c decision s shoul d b e mad e openly . Th e ide a behind thes e laws , whic h applie s wit h equa l forc e t o th e valu e o f televised judicia l proceedings , i s that th e peopl e shoul d hav e th e full est possible knowledg e o f the government's decision-makin g process. 3 Deliberations o f judge s an d jurie s requir e privacy , o f course , bu t no t trials an d appellat e proceedings . When th e subjec t o f televisin g th e proceeding s o f th e Hous e o f Representatives wa s debate d i n congressiona l hearing s i n 1975 , on e legislator remarked : I do not believe , that th e public confidence i n our Governmen t will ever b e restored unti l th e publi c ha s a clear ide a o f jus t what w e ar e doing an d ho w w e are doin g it . Trust mus t b e based o n understand ing, and understandin g mus t sprin g from a clear public perception of our intention s an d ou r actions . The televisio n camera , I believe , i s a too l fo r providin g tha t per ception. I am familia r wit h th e argument . . . that th e camer a ca n b e used a s much to distor t a s to reveal, but I would no t reject broadcas t coverage o n tha t basi s becaus e ultimatel y I believ e tha t th e ability , honesty, integrity , an d professionalis m o f th e America n medi a wil l

Conclusion •

157

prevail. Suc h a trus t i s necessary i f ou r conceptio n o f a fre e pres s is to survive . Tha t i s no t t o sa y tha t ther e wil l no t b e mistakes , tha t there wil l no t b e error s an d injudiciou s editin g which coul d resul t in a les s than accurat e portraya l o f what transpires . . . . But I believe on balance thi s i s a smal l pric e t o pa y an d a smal l ris k t o b e take n fo r the benefi t whic h ca n b e derived. 4 Of course , no w Congress' s wor k i s televise d regularly , fro m th e mundane filibuster s befor e empt y chamber s t o th e sensationa l specia l hearings suc h a s Watergat e an d th e Anit a Hill-Clarenc e Thoma s hearings. T o thos e wh o thin k thes e broadcast s d o mor e t o embarras s Congress tha n t o reflec t positivel y o n it , on e membe r commented : "I t just seem s t o m e tha t i n th e people' s Hous e o f th e Federa l Legislatur e which w e represen t th e tim e ha s com e whe n th e America n peopl e ar e entitled t o al l th e informatio n the y ca n get." 5 The lat e Suprem e Cour t Justic e Loui s Brandei s remarke d tha t "Sunlight i s th e bes t disinfectant. " Forme r Californi a Chie f Justic e Rose E . Bir d expresse d a simila r sentiment : "Th e pres s i s th e ligh t that shine s o n th e interstice s o f ou r governmen t an d it s bureaucrac y . . . w e mus t hav e a free pres s t o infor m u s o f an y corruptio n o r tyranny. Anythin g les s i s a threa t t o ou r mos t deepl y hel d democrati c principles." W e are , lega l schola r Lawrenc e Friedma n ha s stated , " a public opinio n society, " on e i n whic h th e lega l cultur e i s shape d b y what peopl e kno w an d thin k abou t th e law. 6 Peopl e ca n monito r an d shape thei r governmen t onl y i f the y ar e informe d abou t it s function ing, th e famou s juris t Jerom e Fran k wrote. 7 Even critic s o f courtroo m televisio n hav e see n th e valu e o f thi s medium. La w professo r an d columnis t Susa n Estrich , wh o ha s bee n concerned abou t th e mischievou s potentia l o f televise d trials , calle d the notoriou s tria l o f Timoth y McVeig h fo r th e Oklahom a Cit y bombing " a textboo k exampl e o f a case o f substantia l publi c interest . . . . I t woul d b e fa r bette r t o restor e publi c fait h i n th e justic e syste m by lettin g peopl e se e mor e o f it , no t less , an d t o se e i t directly , no t filtered b y the press." 8 The New York Times editorialize d tha t i n suc h terrorism trials , wha t i s goo d fo r th e victim s an d survivor s migh t b e good a s wel l fo r th e wide r publi c audience . Cour t T V wa s ap proached b y group s tha t wante d i t t o broadcas t th e tria l s o tha t

158 • Conclusion others coul d no t charg e th e governmen t wit h controllin g an d dis torting the portrayal o f the justice system in those cases. Self-restrain t by lawyer s an d individua l responsibilit y b y journalist s t o ac t i n th e public interes t rathe r tha n i n their immediat e parochia l interests , Estrich concluded , a s di d Wright , woul d d o mor e t o dignif y th e tria l process tha n woul d bannin g cameras . In additio n t o exaggeratin g th e frequenc y o f th e problem , th e debate abou t th e propriet y o f televise d cour t proceeding s i s misguided on anothe r fundamenta l level . O n th e lega l o r constitutiona l level , the dilemma is not due to a conflict betwee n competing constitutional rights a s much a s to th e nee d t o accommodat e betwee n complemen tary rights . A t it s best , th e fre e pres s assure s fai r trials . An d i n im portant instances , th e assuranc e o f a fai r tria l syste m ha s benefite d the pres s a s muc h a s i t ha s othe r individual s an d institutions . Th e Supreme Cour t ha s ruled consistently that the First Amendment may not b e shackled no r th e pres s prevente d fro m assurin g th e wides t dissemination o f informatio n fro m divers e an d antagonisti c sources , even b y the governmen t itself. 9 If th e excesse s o f th e pres s occasionall y intrud e o n th e fairnes s o f a trial—eithe r befor e th e trial , a s i n Shepherd v. Florida, or durin g a trial , a s i n Sheppard v. Maxwell —the resultin g convictio n ca n b e overturned. I n th e Florid a case , i t wa s decide d tha t "prejudicia l in fluences outsid e th e courtroom , becomin g al l to o typica l o f a highl y publicized trial , wer e brough t t o bea r o n thi s jur y wit h suc h forc e that th e conclusio n i s inescapabl e tha t thes e defendant s wer e pre judged a s guilt y an d th e tria l wa s bu t a lega l gestur e t o registe r a verdict alread y dictate d b y the press and th e public opinio n whic h it generated."10 Th e lat e Justice Rober t Jackson wrot e i n the Shepherd opinion tha t whe n newspaper s i n the exercis e o f thei r constitutiona l rights d o depriv e defendant s o f a fai r trial , th e resultin g convictio n does not meet our standard fo r th e "civilized conception of due process of law." 11 In th e Sheppard case , th e Suprem e Cour t reverse d a murde r con viction becaus e th e carnival-lik e atmospher e create d b y th e pres s i n the trial courtroom itsel f warranted judicia l monitoring. When a trial is no t fre e fro m prejudice , passion , an d excitement , th e lat e Justic e

Conclusion • 159 Tom Clar k ruled , an d th e press causes a miscarriage o f justice rathe r than actin g a s a "handmaide n o f effectiv e judicia l administration, " the appellat e court s mus t interven e an d revers e th e convictio n because i t doe s no t confor m wit h th e du e process o f la w requirement s of th e Fourteent h Amendment. 12 Thi s is not a question o f lega l gimmickry, bu t o f justice . Recen t disclosure s suggestin g tha t Dr . Shep pard di d no t commi t th e crim e demonstrat e tha t th e reversa l o f hi s conviction wa s not merel y a case of judicial insistence o n procedura l formality. Is th e occasiona l reversa l o f a convictio n to o hig h a pric e t o pa y for a vigorous press? Reversa l or inhibition o f prosecution i s the cure of choic e i n othe r situations—fo r example , whe n th e publicit y sur rounding a congressiona l investigatio n migh t preclud e a subsequen t criminal trial—withou t th e suggestio n tha t ther e shoul d b e n o con gressional investigations. Such a result is the accepted price for main taining th e necessar y power s o f importan t institutions. 13 Court s reached thi s conclusio n i n th e Watergat e an d Iran-Contr a investiga tions, t o nam e tw o notoriou s examples . Furthermore, a s the televising o f trial s ha s becom e mor e refine d i n th e year s sinc e Estes, fewe r reversals o f conviction s based o n intrusiv e an d prejudicia l coverag e have bee n necessary . Courts nee d no t g o so far a s reversing cases to protect the fairnes s of trials . A s th e lat e Justic e To m Clar k reminde d i n th e Estes case , judges hav e th e powe r t o contro l muc h o f th e mischie f tha t ma y interfere wit h th e fairnes s o f trials , shor t o f barrin g cameras . Fo r example, Judge It o could hav e manage d th e Simpso n case much bet ter and avoide d som e of the problems later blame d o n television. But it seems not all judges will exercise these available powers rather than placing th e responsibilit y o n television . I n a murder cas e in Decatur , Georgia, i n 1997 , the tria l judg e declare d a mistria l whe n a witnes s admitted sh e had watche d Cour t T V when anothe r witnes s testified . Despite th e fac t tha t h e ha d ordere d al l witnesse s no t t o watc h o r read an y trial reports, the judge reportedly state d tha t he understoo d why the witness could not resist the temptation to watch the televised trial. Th e judg e too k n o actio n agains t th e witnes s wh o ha d diso beyed th e cour t order . A s one columnis t stated :

160 • Conclusion Punishing television fo r bein g too popular, too easy to switch on, too hard t o resis t i s a pervers e sor t o f logic ; i t rest s o n th e assumptio n that publi c trial s ar e al l righ t a s lon g a s they ar e no t undul y public . The burden i s on the court to see to it that jurors and witnesses abide by the rules , which ar e admittedly might y hard t o enforce. Nevertheless i n thi s instance , i t was Mrs . Rhame , no t Cour t TV , who, a s the defense lawye r pu t it , committed a "willful , intentiona l violation " of the rules. 14 Television di d no t creat e th e proble m o f tria l publicity. Historicall y and recently , i n trial s wher e ther e wa s n o televisio n coverage—th e Mike Tyso n rap e case , the Charle s Manson murders , the Patty Hears t kidnapping, an d man y others—extensiv e pres s coverag e di d no t re sult i n an y know n prejudic e a t th e trials . Mor e importantly , n o de cisive evidenc e exist s tha t heav y publicit y befor e o r durin g a tria l necessarily lead s to th e oppressiv e an d prejudicia l resul t that occurre d in th e tw o governin g (Sbeppard an d Shepherd) cases . Indeed, i n som e well-known recen t examples , th e exac t opposit e wa s true . Th e ac quittal i n th e firs t Rodne y Kin g cas e cam e afte r incriminatin g vide otapes o f hi s beatin g wer e widel y an d repeatedl y broadcas t an d mos t of th e worl d presume d th e policeme n wer e guilty . An d th e O . J . Simpson acquitta l wa s viewe d b y a vast , worldwid e publi c a s a nul lification o f th e evidenc e broadcas t befor e an d durin g hi s trial . I n numerous recen t celebrate d trials—th e Willia m Kenned y Smit h rap e trial, th e Loren a Bobbit t case , an d th e McMarti n nurser y schoo l child-abuse cases , t o nam e a few—acquittal s followe d extraordinar y publicity an d widesprea d publi c presumption s o f guil t tha t th e jurie s did no t share . Crusading medi a expos e hav e le d t o th e undoin g o f injustice s i n cases wher e a persisten t pres s cause d th e judicia l syste m t o correc t miscarriages o f justice . And , i f defendant s ca n receiv e fai r trial s (translation: wi n acquittals ) i n highl y publicize d cases , s o to o ca n prosecutors (i n thei r view , gai n convictions ) a s w e sa w recentl y i n the secon d Menende z brother s murde r cas e an d th e secon d (federal ) prosecution o f th e policeme n i n th e Rodne y Kin g case . Thos e case s raise wha t on e journalis t aptl y calle d a naggin g issu e "abou t th e dis tance betwee n lega l evidenc e an d real-lif e truth." 1 5 However , thi s

Conclusion • 161 issue is created no t b y cameras in courts, but by the rules of evidence that kee p fro m jurie s informatio n availabl e t o th e public . Th e civi l trial o f O . J. Simpson , no t televised , include d evidenc e tha t th e jur y in the criminal case did not know abou t (thoug h the audience of that televised tria l did) , an d th e civi l jur y hel d Simpso n financially re sponsible fo r th e act s h e ha d bee n acquitte d o f committin g i n th e criminal case . Critics conten d tha t i t i s troublesom e whe n televisio n portray s a different versio n o f th e fact s o f a cas e tha n th e on e th e jur y see s a t trial. However, there i s another perspective . The Simpson case, ofte n cited b y thes e critics , als o provide s a n exampl e o f th e revers e possi bility. If th e jur y verdic t i n th e Simpso n crimina l tria l i s at wa r wit h the widesprea d publi c perceptio n o f hi s guilt , a tota l miscarriag e o f justice ma y b e avoide d a s a resul t o f th e widel y see n televisio n cov erage o f th e trial . While , unde r th e specia l rule s tha t gover n trials , Simpson's guil t wa s no t prove d beyon d a reasonabl e doub t (o r wa s proven, bu t wa s nullifie d b y th e jury) , h e wil l no t avoi d th e verdic t of th e publi c an d wil l fac e a mor e expansive , i f informal , for m o f sanction i n th e community . Wh y shoul d h e not? Withou t television , it coul d b e argued , a villai n woul d hav e escape d al l retribution ; be cause of television, he will pay a price in the world outsid e the courtroom. T o th e argumen t tha t suc h a n ide a condone s a perniciou s evasion o f du e proces s o f law , th e respons e i s tha t th e adversar y process and the marketplace provid e differen t avenue s to truth. Each is appropriate i n it s ow n arena . Histor y provide s man y example s of cases where it could be said that community sanctions prevented perversions o f justice . The Rodne y Kin g case , countless civi l rights civil disobedience cases, the Medgar Ever s retrial, and the Scottsboro rape case each wer e salutar y example s o f case s where th e public's media created perceptio n o f justic e arguabl y assuage d courtroo m miscar riages o f justice . The First Amendment, i t must b e remembered, protects good journalism an d bad , publicity that aid s the trial process as much a s some that interfere s wit h it . Whethe r i t i s pretrial publicit y tha t threaten s to prejudic e a late r jury , o r televise d tria l coverag e tha t ma y ad d pressures bu t als o ma y lea d t o ne w evidenc e i n the searc h fo r truth ,

162 • Conclusion the Constitutio n applie s withou t valu e judgment s abou t th e conten t of pres s coverage . A s on e forme r judg e ha s written : It i s al l to o eas y t o sugges t tha t i n crimina l case s th e pres s o r radi o is simply pandering to a low public taste for scandal for its own profit . In a democrac y i t i s inappropriate fo r governmen t official s t o decid e what i s wort h readin g an d hearing . Moreover , i t canno t b e deter mined i n advanc e o f th e trial whether ther e i s a public interest i n the particular crim e o f whic h th e accuse d i s charged. The public concern frequently become s manifes t late r i f aler t reportin g indicate s a lin k between crim e an d governmen t administration . Therefore , a classifi cation b y subjec t matte r o f case s i n whic h pres s coverag e ma y b e restricted woul d b e unwis e eve n i f possible. 16 Skeptics hav e shifte d thei r criticis m o f camera s i n court s throug h the years . Severa l decade s ago , th e mos t commo n objectio n raise d against televisio n i n court s wa s tha t th e camera s wer e obtrusive , noisy, an d disruptive . N o w tha t th e technolog y i s suc h tha t camer a coverage o f cour t proceeding s i s invisible an d decorous , the argumen t against televisio n ha s changed . Toda y th e chie f criticism—unprova ble, thoug h logica l an d widel y held—i s tha t th e presenc e o f camera s inevitably change s th e behavio r o f th e tria l participant s i n negativ e ways. Ar e thes e subjectiv e presumption s correct ? The legitimat e concer n tha t th e participant s a t trial s wil l b e ad versely effecte d canno t b e proven; indeed , th e bes t anecdotal evidenc e suggests otherwise . Experiment s t o dat e hav e generall y satisfie d eve n the skeptics . Cour t T V ha s broadcas t hundred s o f trial s wit h n o known prejudicia l ramifications . Cour t TV' s Jeff Ballabo n point s out , " N o on e wh o ha s watche d us—th e judges , th e lawyers , th e participants—has eve r argue d tha t w e don' t giv e an accurat e descrip tion o f th e system . . . . We ge t th e revers e . . . many o f the m sa y it' s the mos t accurat e portraya l o f wha t goe s o n i n th e courtroo m tha t they hav e eve r seen. " Al l th e survey s o f th e impac t o f televisio n o n jurors, witnesses , lawyers , an d judge s describe d i n chapte r 4 con cluded tha t thes e fear s ar e exaggerate d i f not misplace d an d tha t mos t trial participant s ar e no t adversel y effecte d b y th e presenc e o f cam eras.

Conclusion • 163 The notio n tha t televisio n camera s i n courtroom s wil l undul y in fluence judges i s at wa r wit h a fundamental precep t o f tria l lor e an d evidentiary law . Th e rule s o f evidenc e ar e base d upo n th e ide a tha t judges ar e not influence d b y outsid e pressures , a s jurie s ar e though t to be—or, if influenced, the y are able to disassociate themselves fro m such nonjudicial contamination s in making their rulings. Historically, judges were assumed not to be "sensitive to the winds of public opinion," i n th e word s o f th e lat e Justic e Willia m O . Douglas , an d "t o be men o f fortitude , abl e to thriv e i n a heady climate." 17 Aside fro m this evidentiary consideration is a psychological one: Will judges alter their behavio r fo r egotistica l reason s (t o b e celebrities ) o r politica l ones (t o curr y favo r o r ge t reelected) ? Thi s unprovabl e possibilit y exists, but i t is to be weighed alon g with the equally likely possibility that judge s are less apt to misbehave o r ac t idiosyncratically o n camera. How d o w e measur e television' s impac t o n jurors—th e ke y con cern supportin g demand s fo r limitations , i f no t a ban ? A s note d i n chapter 4 , on e analys t calculate s tha t press-induce d bia s i s likel y t o occur i n onl y on e o f ever y te n thousan d cases. 18 A recen t stud y o f the jur y syste m add s furthe r perspective. 19 Dat a gathere d i n 199 0 disclosed tha t 1 percent o f al l civi l case s i n stat e court s ar e decide d by juries ; i n th e federa l courts , th e figure i s 2 percent . Les s tha n 5 percent of state criminal cases are tried by juries. Two-thirds of criminal cases in the state courts and 8 6 percent a t the federal leve l result in guilt y pleas . Likewise , ther e ar e conviction s i n two-third s o f th e state jur y trial s an d i n 8 0 percen t o f th e federa l trials . An d jurie s convict a t a highe r rat e (8 4 percen t compare d t o 6 2 percent ) tha n judges (i n cases where th e righ t t o a jury i s waived). Indeed, a mor e appropriate questio n i s whethe r televise d trial s presen t th e publi c with a realisti c pictur e o f th e crimina l justic e system , i n vie w o f th e fact tha t the overwhelming majority o f the action is handled of f cam era i n negotiate d pleas , privat e settlements , an d off-the-recor d dis positions i n judges ' chambers. 20 Running som e uncertain , an d possibl y curable , risk s i n s o fe w cases, th e lat e Judg e Wrigh t suggested , i s a smal l pric e t o pa y fo r having the press acting as a watchdog to the goings on in the criminal

164 • Conclusion justice system. 21 The press provides th e public with importan t infor mation abou t wha t transpire s o n th e street s o r i n th e precincts , a t "the gatehouse s o f justice," rather tha n a t the trial itself, "the manor house,"22 t o borro w th e metaphors o f la w professor Yal e Kamisar . Actually, th e courtroom camer a picture s bot h "houses" : it portray s the evidenc e o f la w enforcement' s efficiencie s an d deficiencie s tha t comes ou t a t trials , an d th e judiciousnes s o f th e trial s themselves , usually th e more forma l an d mannered phas e o f the criminal justic e system. If thi s i s so, why is the camera blame d fo r th e scenes it portrays ? In the Simpson case , public and professional disgus t with the behavior o f the lawyers, th e case managemen t o f th e judge, th e action of the jurors, and the exploitation o f the witnesses, as well as revulsion toward th e excesses of all the media, resulted i n the widespread con demnation o f television. I t was as if the public wishe d t o smas h the mirror becaus e i t did not like what i t saw reflected there . Just a s the eighteenth-century Germa n physicis t an d satiris t Christop h Lichten berg compared book s t o mirrors—"if a n ass peers int o it , you can't expect a n apostl e t o loo k out"—s o to o i s televisio n a mediu m o f communication characterize d b y both the observer and the observed. "The nineteent h centur y dislik e o f Realis m i s th e rag e o f Caliba n seeing his own face i n a glass," Oscar Wilde wrote i n The Picture of Dorian Gray, W e migh t as k a simila r questio n abou t twentieth century skepticis m o f televise d trials . Muc h o f th e current criticis m of televised trials amounts to killing the messenger while ignoring the message. In th e aftermat h o f th e Simpso n case , ther e wa s a perceptibl e retreat fro m televisio n b y som e judges , an d call s fo r curb s b y som e politicians an d commentators . On e medi a observer , comparin g th e televised crimina l tria l with th e untelevised civi l trial, concluded tha t "without the all-seeing television cameras, the courtroom's emotional temperature ha s subsided to a near-normal tone , very unlike the selfimportant, melodramati c tensio n o f the first time." 23 Although cam eras wer e banne d fro m th e courtroom , th e medi a frenz y persiste d outside. One report noted that "grea t white mushrooms of televisiontruck satellite dishes have sprouted and the lawn interviews drag on,"

Conclusion • 165 and tha t th e publi c fascinatio n "jus t wil l no t die." 24 The New York Times reporte d tha t " a surreal , festiv e air " persiste d o n th e palm lined stree t outsid e the courthouse. 25 A cable channel presented dail y docudramas abou t th e trial, while the conventional medi a continue d to O.D . o n O.J . With regar d t o the behavio r o f the legal profession, som e personal self-censuring an d ba r monitorin g i s called for . Befor e th e er a o f televised trials , th e lat e Fre d Rodel l o f Yal e La w Schoo l wrot e percep tively an d pungentl y abou t th e lega l profession' s propensit y fo r pomposity an d mystification . Rodel l argue d tha t lawyer s use jargon, mumbo-jumbo, paternalisti c patter , an d sill y ritua l t o creat e a mystique o f pseudo-seriousness . No t unlik e th e church , th e lega l profession—especially i n it s courts—incline s towar d archai c cos tume (robes) , grand room s i n imposin g buildings , an d torture d lan guage. Judges enjo y th e trapping s o f authoritarianism , Universit y of Texas la w professor Davi d Anderso n ha s commented mor e recently , "surrounding themselve s wit h a leve l o f decoru m tha t a parent , preacher, mayo r o r universit y presiden t ca n onl y envy." 26 Anothe r law professor, Davi d A . Harris, has written perceptivel y abou t wha t he call s "th e cul t o f th e robe, " which , alon g wit h "esoteri c judicia l vocabulary," create s "th e illusio n o f th e infallibilit y o f court s an d judges."27 I n orde r fo r th e popula r cultur e t o operat e properl y i n a democratic society , h e suggested , th e cour t syste m mus t b e legiti mized b y bein g more ope n an d availabl e t o th e public . Antagonism towar d th e pres s ma y deriv e fro m th e fac t tha t i t i s the principal agen t of defrocking previousl y venerated institutions. In Anderson's words , "th e principa l agen t o f demystificatio n i s televi sion." H e adds , "Th e demystificatio n o f court s coul d tur n ou t t o b e the greates t politica l chang e o f ou r time . . . . Never i n the histor y of the worl d . . . have th e court s hel d a s muc h powe r a s the y hol d i n the Unite d State s today . . . . What i s occurrin g i n th e las t decad e o f the twentiet h centur y i s no t a temporar y crisi s i n th e courts ' man agement o f publicity , bu t a fundamenta l shif t i n th e public' s rela tionship to the courts. People are no longer willing to let lawyers and judges spi n ou t th e mysterie s o f la w i n arcan e obscurity . Havin g learned no t t o trus t priests , Presidents , o r generals , the y ar e ill -

166 • Conclusion inclined t o trus t judges." 28 A similar suggestio n wa s mad e b y a fed eral judge wh o favor s publi c informatio n abou t th e judicial process: the aur a o f traditio n an d myster y surroundin g judicia l decision making i s attributable , h e stated , t o th e myt h o f th e judg e a s bein g detached an d neutral , "whic h ca n onl y surviv e fro m afa r wher e judges are not vulnerable to criticism an d censure." The judicial code of silence , h e claimed , i s base d o n " a strang e combinatio n o f arro gance an d fear." 29 The objection o f some members of the legal profession t o televised trials might well be based o n their subconscious commitment to mystification. Mos t group s prefer t o operat e in the dark. Remember tha t the judge s an d lawyer s who ar e resistan t t o televise d trial s are members o f th e ver y group s tha t woul d b e exposed t o mor e publi c scru tiny b y these cameras, and thus would b e more accountable fo r thei r own contribution s t o th e vagarie s o f ou r justic e system . Courts ar e public institution s an d d o not belon g exclusively to the judges an d lawyer s wh o ru n them . A s on e respecte d federa l judg e advocated, "W e shoul d ope n ourselve s an d ou r court s t o the public, for i t i s such opennes s . . . that wil l ultimatel y mak e u s better judge s and tha t wil l assur e th e legitimac y o f th e judicia l syste m i n the eye s of th e American people." 30 Nonetheless, despit e experience s tha t suppor t televise d trial s an d recommendations t o allo w it , th e federa l judiciar y refuse s t o follo w the trend . An d th e Suprem e Cour t i s the mos t adaman t i n it s oppo sition. Th e tw o recen t Chie f Justices , Warre n Burge r an d Willia m Rehnquist, both have spoken against the practice, and in 1996 Justice David Soute r tol d a congressiona l committe e tha t ther e woul d b e television i n th e Suprem e Cour t "ove r m y dea d body, " a sentimen t shared b y Justic e Anthon y Kennedy . I t i s har d t o imagin e wh o o r what woul d b e hurt b y televised Suprem e Cour t proceedings , except the Justices ' notion s abou t thei r ow n sanctit y an d privacy . Th e ed ucative possibilitie s see m beyon d argument . The late Justice Burger stated that television was "the most destructive thin g i n th e world " an d vowe d ther e woul d b e "n o camera s i n the Suprem e Cour t o f th e Unite d State s whil e I si t there. " Allegin g that h e feare d sho w busines s distractions , Burge r denie d MBS' s re -

Conclusion • 167 quest t o provid e radi o coverag e o f ora l argument s i n th e cas e ques tioning th e constitutionalit y o f th e deficit-reductio n law , hardl y a n example o f yellow journalism, a n issue of prurient publi c interest, or the conversion o f serious discussion into frivolous entertainment . But shortly befor e retirin g afte r seventee n year s a s Chie f Justice , he tol d the American Societ y o f Newspape r Editor s tha t h e migh t relen t i n his adaman t oppositio n i f he could b e assured tha t selectiv e excerpt s of the ora l argument s coul d b e avoided. He feared distortion s b y the use o f sensationa l snippets , h e said . Th e suggestio n wa s tha t i f cov erage were live and complete, opposition fro m th e Court would ease. Yet tw o year s later , whe n C-SPA N offere d t o cove r al l Suprem e Court ora l arguments—th e sex y one s an d th e dul l ones—an d t o provide unedite d an d uninterrupte d coverage , th e Rehnquis t Cour t declined. Whe n Rehnquis t testifie d a t hi s televise d Senat e confirma tion hearings for th e chief justice post, he suggested that his Supreme Court woul d b e the first to entertai n sympatheticall y th e prospect of media coverage . Aske d hi s opinio n o f televisio n coverag e o f th e Su preme Court, candidate Rehnquist, then an Associate Justice, replied: "If I were convinced that coverage by television of the Supreme Court would no t distor t th e wa y th e Cour t work s a t present , I certainl y would giv e i t sympatheti c consideration . Bu t i f i t mean t a whole lo t of lights that woul d distur b the present relationship betwee n lawyer s and judge s an d arguin g cases , I don't thin k I would b e fo r it." 31 Once confirmed , Rehnquis t refuse d a reques t b y AB C Radi o t o provide liv e coverage o f a n importan t abortio n cas e argument, with out consultin g hi s colleagues . Th e sam e Chie f Justic e wh o ha s deplored th e failur e o f educationa l institution s t o teac h student s abou t the lega l syste m an d th e Suprem e Cour t threatene d t o su e a political science professo r wh o publishe d transcript s an d accompanyin g cas settes o f ora l argument s befor e th e Cour t i n twenty-three interestin g cases.32 Th e transcript s o f al l ora l argument s sinc e 199 5 ar e kep t a t the National Archives, just as the lawyers' written briefs are available at th e Suprem e Court . Whe n hi s initial complain t engendere d stron g responses, Rehnquis t backe d of f an d th e archive s ar e no w ope n fo r the public , a s the y shoul d be . Th e book , May It Please the Court (the salutatio n wit h whic h al l Suprem e Cour t advocate s begi n thei r

168 • Conclusion remarks), included excerpt s o f th e ora l argument s an d analysi s b y the autho r o f landmar k case s of specia l interest t o students , lawyers, and th e genera l public—includin g Roe v. Wade, th e Pentago n Pa pers, Loving v. Virginia (barrin g miscegenation) , Solicito r Genera l Robert Bor k arguin g the constitutionality o f capital punishment, and Thurgood Marshal l challengin g segregatio n i n Littl e Roc k publi c schools. Th e tape s included th e voice s o f revere d Justice s debatin g the issue s and parryin g with lawyers . Together the y provided " a fas cinating loo k a t cour t cultur e an d a practica l introductio n t o appel late advocacy." 33 Despit e th e fac t tha t thes e studie s portraye d th e seriousness of the Court, the talent of the lawyers, and the complexity of th e issues , the y di d no t "please " th e Court , whic h ha d restricte d the usag e o f thes e transcripts . Interestingly, despit e long-standin g hostilit y b y th e federa l judici ary, th e Judicia l Conference, an d member s o f th e Suprem e Cour t toward th e notio n o f televisio n i n courts , two journalist s who cove r the Suprem e Cour t tol d m e that the y hav e bee n tol d i n private con versations wit h a fe w justice s tha t the y favore d th e idea . Publicly , however, th e atmospher e ha s bee n cold an d negative , and none have spoken i n favo r o f televise d trials . There is , a s well , a bi t o f self-aggrandizemen t an d self-interes t among man y pres s representative s wh o ar e critica l o f th e nee d fo r television i n th e courts . Whe n I debate d thi s subjec t o n a nationa l radio show , I was challenge d b y the host : "Don' t yo u trus t journal ists?" O f cours e I do, I replied, bu t I do no t believ e them mor e tha n my ow n eyes , to paraphras e Chic o Marx' s memorabl e lin e i n Duck Soup. Ol d aphorism s lik e "seein g i s believing " an d " I wan t t o se e for myself " deriv e fro m a dee p belie f i n th e reliabilit y o f one' s ow n sensory perceptions . And thi s preferenc e i s compounded b y people's cynicism abou t pres s bia s an d thei r reluctanc e t o believ e wha t the y read i n the newspapers, viewing it as second-hand an d thus distorte d information. Tha t wis e an d worldl y novelist , the late Robertson Da vies, a forme r journalis t himself , wa s quote d a s sayin g tha t whil e newspapers "lik e t o represen t themselve s a s wonderfull y romanti c and hitche d i n to world events , they reall y ar e a n entertainmen t an d manufacturing business . The news is what yo u can squeeze in befor e you hav e t o g o t o press ; it's no t what' s happenin g i n th e world." 34

Conclusion •

169

Many prin t journalist s an d eve n som e televisio n commentator s be lieve, arrogantly , tha t th e publi c need s the m t o describ e o r explai n what transpire s a t trials . Whil e som e o f thes e commentator s un doubtedly hav e interestin g insight s t o offe r concernin g th e proceed ings the y observe , thos e commentarie s ar e mor e editorial s tha n reporting an d ar e differen t fro m th e valuabl e insight s member s o f th e public ca n gathe r fro m thei r ow n observations . Suc h commentaries , like thos e tha t follo w a Stat e o f th e Unio n addres s o r presidentia l debate, ar e ofte n superfluou s an d o f littl e value . Havin g see n th e rea l thing, w e d o no t nee d a pundi t t o tel l u s wha t w e jus t saw . Cour t TV's exper t analyzer s ca n provid e interestin g insights , bu t tha t i s different fro m th e actua l presentatio n o f th e tria l itself . A classi c exampl e o f prin t journalists ' reactionar y rejectio n o f broadcasting a s a lesse r for m o f reportin g wa s relate d b y autho r Richard Reeve s i n hi s Librar y o f Congres s Goldma n lecture , "Jour nalism New , Ol d o r Dead." 3 5 Reeve s tol d o f on e networ k televisio n correspondent wh o wa s interviewin g a senator , holdin g a micro phone befor e th e senator' s fac e a s h e spoke . A t on e point , whe n th e reporter though t th e senato r wa s sayin g somethin g remarkable , h e tucked th e mik e unde r on e arm , pulle d ou t hi s pe n an d pad , an d started takin g notes . Ther e i s a n iron y t o th e argumen t tha t savv y reporters se e mor e tha n th e camera . Becaus e seatin g fo r th e medi a i n the courtroo m wa s limited , mos t o f th e pres s coverag e o f th e O . J . Simpson tria l wa s base d o n wha t th e reporter s sa w o f th e cas e ove r television. Not ever y prin t journalis t demean s th e valu e o f televise d trials . One networ k lega l corresponden t tol d m e tha t th e adven t o f televise d trials ha s mean t tha t h e ha d mor e opportunitie s t o trea t importan t legal issue s o n th e air . Becaus e ther e wa s wid e exposur e t o th e case s and th e issues , h e wa s abl e t o deman d th e ai r tim e t o cove r the m that h e migh t no t hav e ha d otherwise . Th e lat e The o Wilson , th e New York Daily News's courtroo m reporte r fo r thre e decades , mad e the polic y argumen t fo r televise d trials : With judge s refusin g t o allo w th e publi c t o se e trial s o n camera , we have retrogressed. The camera i s the most honest tool of the criminal justic e system , i f i t i s allowe d t o sho w th e publi c a trial , una dorned fro m gave l t o gave l i n th e courtroom—withou t th e T V

170 • Conclusion celebrities, withou t th e brain-dea d interviews , withou t th e secon d guessing pundits . As citizens, we have a right t o se e our system , warts an d all , judge for ourselves . Nobod y shoul d hav e th e powe r t o den y us , th e tax payers, the right to watch what i s happening in the courts we pay fo r or shoul d b e allowed t o tel l us that b y watching a trial o n a camera, in ou r homes , we ar e jeopardizing an y othe r citizen' s rights. 36 Print reporter s an d critic s withi n th e lega l professio n faul t televi sion fo r presentin g "snippets " o f trial s tha t ar e likel y t o distor t an d sensationalize judicia l proceedings . Gavel-to-gave l tria l coverag e i s the antithesi s t o snippets . Moreover , a quot e i n a new s articl e i s comparable t o a soun d bit e o n television—i t ma y b e accurate , bu t i t is withou t context . Mor e fundamentally , al l pres s coverag e othe r than gavel-to-gave l televisio n o r ful l prin t transcript s i s no mor e tha n a snippet , th e reporters ' bes t tak e o n wha t transpired , presente d i n the limite d tim e an d spac e available . Leslie Maitland , a forme r lega l reporte r fo r th e New York Times, recalls th e agon y o f a conscientiou s prin t reporte r operatin g withi n the constraint s o f a dail y newspape r report. 37 Maitlan d covere d th e 1976 retria l o f Rubi n (Hurricane ) Carter , a boxin g sta r convicte d o f triple murder s te n year s earlie r o n questionabl e evidence . Indeed , i t was th e Times's stories , alon g wit h th e interes t o f celebrities—Bo b Dylan, Muhamma d Ali , an d Candic e Bergen—wh o though t Carte r had bee n railroade d b y a n overzealou s Ne w Jerse y distric t attorne y and judge , whic h le d t o th e retrial . Maitlan d relate d t o m e th e dif ficulties she , lik e al l reporter s coverin g al l trials , encountere d writin g her "snippets " (i n a newspape r know n fo r it s carefu l coverag e an d having a stak e i n thi s particula r case) : To cop e wit h th e situatio n an d mee t a deadlin e o f 7:0 0 P.M . fo r the firs t edition , m y editor s ha d m e file an earl y versio n o f th e day' s events at lunchtime so that we would have a piece that day regardless of ho w lat e th e judg e hel d court . A t nigh t whe n proceeding s ended , I would file an update d version , agai n racin g agains t th e clock to get the afternoo n highlight s int o th e paper . Whe n significan t testimon y came lat e i n th e day , I was ofte n sic k a t hear t t o realiz e tha t reader s

Conclusion •

171

of ou r first edition—availabl e tha t nigh t o n th e cit y newsstands — would mis s it . There i s also, of course , alway s a concern fo r spac e o r ai r tim e i n any medi a account . M y ple a fo r spac e t o recoun t th e day' s develop ments would , o f necessity , b e balance d agains t othe r newsworth y events an d th e numbe r o f page s tha t advertisin g revenue s allowed . When significan t ne w testimony cam e lat e i n the da y afte r othe r sto ries ha d alread y bee n "budgeted " fo r space , it wa s difficul t t o argu e for a greater share . Including compelling testimony that came at 5:0 0 P.M., for instance , could therefor e requir e cuttin g ou t somethin g else that ha d seeme d crucia l jus t tha t morning . On Decembe r 21 , fo r example , whe n bot h side s delivere d thei r summations, I was allotte d 1 4 paragraph s o r les s than 1,00 0 word s to encapsulat e si x weeks o f contradictor y an d comple x testimony — much o f whic h ha d differe d substantiall y fro m othe r swor n account s given b y many o f th e sam e witnesse s i n othe r venues . And eve n whe n reporter s writ e t o th e spac e allotted , they canno t be sur e ho w muc h o f wha t they file wil l actuall y win d u p i n print . Editors, juggling demands of other late-breakin g news events, may be making cut s in storie s that reporter s wil l only learn abou t whe n they read th e nex t day' s paper . When spac e i s a priority, moreover , on e o f th e first things to go is the sort o f subtl e observatio n o f tone o r mood o r body language tha t may signa l something important . I can stil l remember, 20 years later, how som e o f th e juror s hi d behin d sunglasse s an d shu t thei r eyes — sleeping, it seemed—whil e John Arti s was o n the witness stand, proclaiming hi s innocence. The judge , to cit e anothe r example , made n o effor t t o disguis e before th e jur y hi s disdai n fo r th e defendants ' lawyers , an d wit h th e prosecution an d defens e a t war, th e jury ofte n look s to th e judge fo r Solomonic wisdom . As a resul t o f he r experiences , Maitlan d ha s a melanchol y reflec tion o f th e powe r o f th e pres s i n assurin g fai r trials : When al l was sai d an d done , i t was , o f course , no t th e press , bu t the judge who wielded the conclusive power. All my stories outlinin g the conflicting, changin g testimony of the witnesses could not prevent Carter an d Arti s from bein g sent bac k t o prison. And while the press

172 • Conclusion could hel p win a second tria l for th e two men, it could not guarante e that tha t tria l woul d b e a fair one . It could onl y tell the world abou t the facts a s they unfolded tha t led so tragically to a second subversio n of justic e i n th e courtroom . Maitland als o note d th e subjectiv e natur e o f th e bes t reporter' s coverage, i n th e bes t o f situations . A reporte r coverin g a tria l perform s a valuabl e servic e i n siftin g through th e hour s o f ofte n tediou s testimon y t o pic k ou t th e mos t important informatio n presente d t o th e jury . Bu t th e decisio n a s t o which witness, testimony or evidence to focus on each day—and thu s which headlin e t o create—ca n sometime s b e a subjectiv e one , o n which reporter s coverin g a trial ma y differ . Maitland i s no t alon e i n he r judgmen t abou t th e subjectivit y o f newspaper account s o f trials . A perceptiv e edito r commente d t o m e about thi s phenomeno n i n th e contex t o f th e Simpso n case . Sh e hap pened t o se e th e televise d dramati c episod e i n th e crimina l tria l whe n the defendan t trie d o n th e glov e i n fron t o f th e jury . Th e nex t day , she rea d thre e differen t account s o f tha t episod e i n responsibl e news papers; eac h wa s differen t fro m th e others , an d al l varie d fro m he r own observation s o f th e televise d version . Judg e Wrigh t wondere d whether "th e publi c imag e o f justic e i s distorte d becaus e w e judge s have turne d ou r back s t o th e new s medi a an d hav e allowe d thei r writers t o dra w o n thei r imagination s instea d o f reality , an d t o repor t only a tin y part , instea d o f th e ric h whole , o f th e fac e o f justice. " In additio n t o th e inevitabl e ideologica l predisposition s o f prin t journalists an d th e built-i n limitation s describe d b y Maitland , th e possibility als o exist s tha t huma n reporter s ar e susceptibl e t o bein g corrupted b y outsid e interests . On e well-know n prosecuto r tol d m e about a n investigatio n int o a publi c scandal , wher e th e reporte r fro m a prestigiou s newspape r wa s influence d b y th e defens e tea m t o ske w his coverag e i n favo r o f it s side . On e ca n brib e a reporter , bu t no t a camera. Some critic s o f televise d trial s thin k tha t a t wors t observatio n breeds contempt , an d a t bes t i t lead s t o vulgarization . Som e judge s wince, fo r example , a t th e prospec t o f advertisement s interruptin g

Conclusion • 173 serious trials (thoug h no t a t newspaper accounts , which als o are surrounded b y advertisements) . Yet , we canno t deplor e th e vas t waste land o f televisio n far e an d th e declin e o f TV news, while prohibitin g one major optio n which , if not completely educational , at least combines educationa l feature s wit h entertainment . If television i n courts i s an entertainmen t a s much a s an educativ e vehicle, it is no more so than a State of the Union presidential speech to Congress , a political convention, C-SPA N coverage of a legislative hearing, or any other operatio n o f government that is broadcast publicly. I f participant s alte r thei r conduc t du e t o th e presenc e o f cam eras, tha t chang e ma y wel l b e a n improvement . An d i t ma y permi t holding officials accountable , as well as providing a platform fo r their performances. I f C-SPA N show s a representativ e actin g lik e a fool , the folk s bac k hom e ma y b e bette r abl e t o judg e whethe r t o reelec t him o r her . The critica l facts , i t seem s t o me , ar e tha t governmen t operate s best i n th e open , an d tha t televisio n ha s expande d th e concep t o f a public tria l i n ways tha t are , for bette r o r worse , consistent wit h th e modern technological stat e of public affairs. I t can be edifying i n new ways, a s i s th e cas e i n Washington , wher e al l th e state' s Suprem e Court argument s ar e broadcas t successfully . I t ca n als o b e awesom e to some trial participants in highly charged cases, where outside pressures threaten the sanctity of the court proceedings and thrust private citizens int o publi c attentio n a s celebrities . Some critic s hav e voice d concer n tha t th e ubiquit y o f televisio n expands th e benig n concep t o f a "public " tria l t o pervers e an d dan gerous proportions. Comparisons have been made to the mass, public show trial s o f dictatoria l regimes . I s th e televise d tria l th e natura l progression o f Justice Olive r Wendell Holmes' s instruction a century ago tha t trial s shoul d tak e plac e unde r th e publi c eye , an d "ever y citizen shoul d b e abl e t o satisf y himsel f wit h hi s ow n eye s a s to th e mode i n whic h a publi c dut y i s performed?" 38 O r i s it a perversio n of Justic e Holmes' s promis e tha t "Th e theor y o f ou r syste m i s tha t the conclusion s t o b e reached i n a cas e wil l b e induce d onl y b y evidence and argumen t i n open court, and no t b y any outside influence , whether o f privat e tal k o r publi c print." 39

174 • Conclusion Court TV' s champion , Steve n Brill , argue s tha t televisio n make s trials accessibl e t o a vas t publi c withou t intrusion , an d despit e th e entertainment aspec t o f th e medium , "th e audienc e wil l b e a t hom e and quie t an d abl e t o se e an d hea r everythin g withou t disruptin g o r otherwise affectin g th e proceedings." 40 It is ironic that television creates a circus atmosphere , no t i n th e courtroo m wher e it s presence is contested, bu t outsid e th e courtroo m wher e i t i s accepted . Th e ob noxious scene s o f reporter s an d camerame n runnin g afte r reluctan t interviewees, an d o f phalanxe s o f reporter s an d paparazz i stalkin g private home s an d courthous e environs , ar e wha t create s image s of intrusive television coverage of notorious cases. But those scenes have nothing t o d o wit h camera s in the courts . As one former newspape r editor noted , "N o camer a eve r let out a n involuntary exclamatio n of horror, disma y or amusemen t o n the utterance o f a witness. No camera eve r grimace d o r coughe d durin g testimony . N o galler y o f cam eras ever burs t int o applaus e an d ha d t o b e rapped int o order b y the court. N o camer a eve r wep t o r laughed." 41 As a practical matter, there really is no debate about whether there should be cameras in courts. Television is a fact o f life to be reckoned with, not a newfangled procedur e awaitin g general acceptance in the world o f publi c affairs . Fo r bette r o r worse, televised cour t proceed ings are realities of judicial life. The remaining questions concern the appropriate limitation s o n it s use—where , when , an d ho w camera s can contribut e t o publi c interest s withou t causin g problem s o f con stitutional import . The experiences i n most states , on Cour t TV, and even in the limited federal experiment s have been positive in the judgments o f mos t participant s an d detache d observers . In ou r increasingl y technologica l society , i t seem s unlikel y tha t evolving constitutional notion s abou t publi c trials and free pres s will be constraine d b y the underto w o f ol d habit s an d th e limitation s of obsolete techniques. As public interests becom e more global and media option s mor e sophisticated , televise d trial s ar e likel y t o becom e the rul e rathe r tha n th e exception . Forme r New York Times colum nist Anna Quindle n called this phenomenon "teledemocracy. " As one student o f th e subjec t concluded , "Onc e televisio n ha s infiltrate d a critical aren a o f America n sociopolitica l life , i t seem s t o find a per -

Conclusion • 175 manent home." 42 Fear s that b y allowing camera s int o courts we will have struck a Faustian bargai n an d compromised th e judicial process by succumbin g to o quickl y t o superficia l claim s fo r progres s ar e no t supported b y ou r experience s t o date . On e judg e speculate d t o a media an d th e la w symposiu m tha t judicia l acceptanc e o f televisio n may b e generational . "Judge s tha t ar e sixt y o r u p almos t hav e a visceral reaction agains t the idea o f having cameras in the courtroo m under an y circumstance s . . . younger judge s ar e somewha t mor e receptive."43 As lon g ag o a s 1980 , on e informe d commentato r suggeste d tha t we wer e beyon d th e poin t o f n o retur n o n th e questio n o f camera s in courts because , in his words, "Onc e televise d trial s attrac t a large national following , th e proces s wil l b e irresistible , cumulative , an d probably irreversible." 44 A respecte d federa l distric t cour t judge , Pierre N. Leval , speculate d i n 198 4 tha t "I t i s a saf e predictio n tha t the eventua l entr y o f th e camer a int o th e federa l courtroo m i s inevitable."45 Hi s speculatio n i s particularl y surprisin g becaus e thi s re mark wa s mad e i n a celebrate d cas e (th e Westmorelan d libe l clai m against Time magazine ) i n which he denied CNN' s request to televise judicial proceedings , despit e his personal opinio n tha t i t would b e in the publi c interes t t o permi t it . Judge Leva l though t a t th e time tha t he had n o powe r t o permi t televisio n i n his courtroom a s a result of the forbiddin g rule s o f th e Judicial Conference . The nontraditiona l feature s o f the courtroom o f the future ar e unobtrusive an d eas y t o use . The y ca n b e see n a t Willia m an d Mar y Law School's experimental prototype , Courtroom 21 , which was developed b y the la w schoo l an d th e Nationa l Cente r fo r Stat e Court s in Williamsburg , Virginia . A s on e exper t advised : "Technolog y i s changing litigation . An d technologica l developmen t ca n b e expecte d to accelerat e i n th e future." 46 A s Marshall McLuha n wrote , "Socie ties hav e alway s bee n shape d mor e b y th e natur e o f th e medi a b y which me n communicat e tha n b y th e conten t o f th e communica tion." 47 Participatio n vi a television , h e prophesied , woul d improv e democracy b y making the livin g room th e voting booth . Why woul d that no t also be true of the impact of television on the administratio n of justice ? I f th e electroni c revolutio n ha s mad e th e huma n environ -

176 • Conclusion ment " a teachin g machine, " a s McLuha n pu t it , on e whic h maxi mizes th e proces s o f discover y an d perception , wh y no t vie w television i n court s a s a n exampl e o f th e positiv e valu e o f ne w tech nology o n th e histori c concep t o f publi c trials ? I f n o messenge r ca n reflect realit y perfectly , wh y no t rel y o n th e recorde r o f event s tha t transmits th e on-the-scen e realit y t o th e farawa y listene r o r observe r as closel y an d full y a s possible ? Televisio n i s th e mos t influentia l purveyor o f informatio n an d th e mos t profoun d influenc e o n lega l and popula r culture. 48 A standar d manua l fo r architect s plannin g th e desig n o f futur e courts note s that courthouse s ar e "experiencin g dramati c change s in their us e of electroni c technology." 49 That prestigious and influentia l manual recommend s tha t "seriou s though t shoul d b e give n t o th e state o f technolog y an d th e area s o f technolog y tha t migh t becom e important" an d advise s planner s t o "provid e conduit s fo r televisio n and compute r cable s s o that automatio n ca n b e easily installed." 50 Television has been a versatile and common feature in recent courtroom design , no t onl y fo r th e purpos e o f broadcastin g trials . Fo r example, court s ar e usin g closed-circui t T V t o recor d testimon y i n child sexual abuse cases, and remote two-way television to broadcas t arraignments fro m remot e sites . Indeed , th e moder n courtroo m i s designed t o exploi t ne w technologica l feature s tha t g o beyon d tele vising proceedings—electroni c translators , recorders , compute r graphics an d animations , crime-scene simulators , video conferencin g equipment fo r deposition s an d arraignments , monitors permitting jurors t o revie w evidence , and electroni c machine s i n lobbies fo r filing motions an d lookin g u p cases. The ne w high-tec h courtroom s hav e multipl e camera s tha t ar e voice activate d an d aime d wit h controls . Computer-assiste d tran scripts ar e prepare d i n rea l tim e s o tha t second s afte r th e cour t re porter type s th e transcript , i t appear s o n monitor s tha t ar e availabl e to the judge, lawyers, and dea f jurors . A presiding judge can preview documents o n hi s compute r scree n befor e juror s se e them, o r acces s online researc h an d CD-ROMs . The lawyers ' high-tec h podiu m per mits them to display evidence and access records and research. Jurors may monitor documents , evidence, live or prerecorded real-time tran-

Conclusion •

177

scriptions, an d graphic s fro m th e jur y box , a s wel l a s bein g aide d b y language translatio n an d enhance d infrare d listenin g equipment . I n a future er a o f virtua l reality , interactiv e media , an d digita l an d fiberoptic technology , som e courtroo m actio n coul d b e replace d b y tele conferencing. Th e presenc e o f mer e T V monitor s t o broadcas t proceedings t o distan t audience s soo n wil l b e ol d stuff , an d someda y may b e viewe d a s quaint. 51 It i s feasible , i f no t likely , tha t i n th e nex t centur y hom e viewer s will b e abl e t o watc h trial s i n rea l tim e o r tape d o n thei r televisio n sets o r computers . A silent , invisibl e camer a i n th e courtroo m wil l transmit trial s liv e ove r cabl e t o televisio n set s o r sen d th e sam e sig nals vi a interne t fiber-optic telephon e line s to computers . Text a s well as image s ca n b e transmitte d vi a interactiv e medi a i n rea l time , o r packaged. A twenty-first-centur y viewe r a t hom e o r i n a n offic e wil l be abl e t o tun e i n t o a commercia l cabl e networ k lik e Cour t T V o r a statewid e C-SPAN-lik e networ k wit h ope n audi o acces s o n th e In ternet, lik e TV W i n Washingto n State , o r g o onlin e o n a compute r to watc h al l o r par t o f a distan t trial , pas t o r ongoing , i n tex t o r i n images, fo r edificatio n o r entertainment . These ar e th e facts . Th e question s remainin g are : H o w wel l wil l i t be don e an d ho w muc h i n th e publi c interest ? I t i s a dilator y digres sion t o fre t ove r speculativ e fear s an d unprovabl e argument s abou t what danger s inher e i n th e presenc e o f camera s i n courts . A s on e cultural commentato r note d abou t th e prope r ne w rol e o f th e tech nology: Television i s our most underappreciated medium , mostly portrayed in term s o f stupefyin g childre n an d incitin g violence , th e proverbia l vast wasteland . Bu t i t i s a phenomenal thing . A television se t i s easy to instal l an d last s fo r years . I t bring s th e whol e worl d int o you r house, usin g littl e power , i t turn s o n ever y tim e yo u wan t i t to , producing clea r colo r picture s an d good-qualit y sound . I t cost s one fourth th e pric e o f a goo d computer . I t ca n occup y an d amus e children, sho w th e Oklahom a Cit y Federa l Buildin g minute s afte r a bomb explodes, and go around th e world to wars, cultural events and volcanic eruptions . I t show s grea t ol d movies , history , dram a and , yes, lots of trash too. Far more popular, enduring and important tha n

178 • Conclusion most peopl e acknowledg e o r realize , it i s becomin g on e o f ou r mos t interactive form s o f communication . . . . There i s no reaso n t o mak e such simple-minde d an d divisiv e choices . Eac h cultur e complement s the other. 52 New technolog y ca n provid e salutar y answer s t o ol d problems. Fo r example, televisio n ha s provide d a positiv e solutio n t o on e recen t public polic y problem . Whe n th e notoriou s Oklahom a Cit y bombin g trials o f Timoth y McVeig h an d Terr y Nichol s wer e move d t o Colo rado, o n a chang e o f venu e motio n b y th e defendant s wh o feare d they couldn't ge t a fair tria l i n Oklahoma , th e local familie s o f victim s who coul d no t atten d complaine d tha t the y wer e prejudice d b y no t being abl e t o attend . I n response , Congres s passe d a la w permittin g federal tria l court s t o orde r closed-circui t televisin g o f proceeding s "for viewin g b y suc h person s th e cour t determine s hav e a compellin g interest i n doin g s o an d ar e otherwis e unabl e t o d o s o b y reason s o f the inconvenienc e an d expens e cause d b y th e chang e o f venue." 5 3 Wise a s thi s ste p was , i t ha s it s limitations . N o on e else , excep t court an d securit y personnel , wa s allowe d t o vie w thes e closed-cour t broadcasts. Objection s wer e mad e b y th e publi c an d th e press . Mor e than tw o thousan d peopl e claimin g t o b e victims , a s wel l a s a grou p of smal l medi a outlets , vie d fo r th e 13 0 availabl e seat s i n Oklahom a City t o observ e th e tria l o n closed-circui t TV . H o w ca n sensibl e pri orities b e set ? Wh y limi t th e observatio n o f a tria l tha t concern s a subject o f nationa l publi c interes t t o a finit e grou p o f immediat e vic tims? Though i t was no t wha t th e law' s author s ha d i n mind, migh t ther e be othe r audience s i n thes e case s an d i n othe r trial s wher e a genuin e public interes t woul d warran t publi c viewing ? Fo r example , ther e was a compellin g nationa l publi c interes t i n observin g th e Jack Rub y trial fo r murderin g presidentia l assassi n Le e Harve y Oswald . I n a trial concernin g a n oi l contaminatio n o f coasta l waters , migh t no t environmental group s an d commercia l fishermen hav e a "compellin g interest" i n seein g th e trial ? A s th e lawye r wh o devise d th e strateg y for th e Florid a rul e tha t le d t o th e Chandler case , Talbo t D'Alemberte, ha s pointe d out , broadcastin g case s involvin g contro versial issue s suc h a s polic e brutalit y allow s citizen s t o mak e thei r

Conclusion • 179 own judgment s an d provide s bette r communit y acceptanc e o f tria l results.54 A truly educationa l purpos e coul d b e serve d b y th e closed-circui t broadcast t o student s o f jus t abou t an y tria l o r appeal . Law school s would do well to teach courses in evidence, or any substantive course, by recourse to actual trials and appeals . A Georgetown law professo r told m e h e use s th e O . J . Simpso n broadcas t t o teac h a cours e o n trial procedure , an d Ne w Yor k Universit y professo r Bur t Neuborn e says h e view s hi s commentarie s o n Cour t T V "a s a chanc e t o teac h constitutional la w t o a mas s audience. " Anothe r la w professo r ha s called fo r increase d us e o f C-SPA N b y la w schools , t o mov e lega l education ou t o f it s "Gutenber g mentality." 55 Sinc e 1979 , C-SPA N has broadcast abou t twenty thousand hour s of programming, including briefings , conferences , symposia , an d weekl y lega l programs , i n addition t o it s gavel-to-gave l coverag e o f Congress , t o abou t fifty million households . And its archive at Purdue University is available, free, t o educator s fo r classroo m use . Televised governmen t proceed ings provide , televisio n commentato r Jef f Greenfiel d ha s said , " a blend of modern technology an d a Jeffersonian fait h in the people." 56 The Simpso n cas e is the latest exampl e o f the adage that ba d cases make ba d law, and thus should no t b e viewed a s precedents. No case before it , an d probabl y fo r lon g after , wil l matc h th e pervasiv e an d intense publi c interes t tha t accompanie d thi s 199 5 double-murde r prosecution i n California . Pretria l publicit y wa s pervasive , an d th e trial judg e considere d a press ba n o f th e tria l itself . When Cour t T V and associate d pres s organization s objected , th e tria l judg e relente d and allowe d a stationar y camer a tha t di d no t sho w th e jur y an d t o which pres s organization s ha d acces s o n a pooled basis . Though n o proo f eve r emerge d tha t th e televisin g o f thos e pro ceedings cause d an y demonstrabl e prejudic e t o anyon e o r an y insti tution, many commentators complaine d tha t it did, and many people attributed th e disquietin g vagarie s o f tha t cas e t o th e presence o f television. Columnis t Georg e Wil l complaine d tha t th e presenc e o f cameras i n th e courtroo m converte d th e crimina l justic e syste m int o a for m o f entertainment ; h e equate d th e publi c righ t t o kno w wit h "voyeurism tarte d u p in rights talk." Were the jurors fearful o f com-

180 • Conclusion munity attitudes ? Wer e th e lawyer s playin g t o th e unsee n audience ? Were witnesses distracte d b y their moment s o f notoriety? O r oppor tunistically cashin g i n o n thei r fifteen minutes o f fame ? Former Lo s Angele s Distric t Attorne y Ir a Reine r claim s tha t th e media excesse s of the Simpson case and other notorious (untelevised ) trials lik e i t deriv e no t fro m courtroo m television , bu t rathe r fro m courtrooms filled with reporters , camera crew s crushing lawyers an d witnesses, attorney s givin g regula r pres s conferences , an d saturatio n coverage. "[I] f yo u pulle d th e plu g o n liv e televisio n coverag e o f a high-profile trial , the courtroo m seat s stil l would b e filled with jour nalists, the news stil l would b e saturated wit h tria l coverage an d . . . the behavio r o f th e participant s stil l woul d b e responsiv e t o th e at tention." Wit h a courtroo m camer a on , h e believes , "all th e partici pants ar e usuall y o n thei r bes t behavior." 57 Indeed, televisio n coverag e o f th e Simpso n tria l provide d stron g evidence o f th e traditionall y claime d raiso n d'etr e o f th e "public " trial, a s well a s fueling th e fears promptin g cynicis m abou t th e process. On e histori c rational e fo r publi c trial s i s the ide a tha t unknow n witnesses may come forward an d perjury wil l be disclosed. That was exactly wha t happene d wit h th e notoriou s testimon y o f Lo s Angeles policeman Mar k Fuhrma n abou t hi s past racis t comments . A North Carolina researche r sa w an d hear d hi s testimon y o n televisio n an d disclosed he r devastatin g tape s o f hi s prio r inconsisten t statements . Many observer s conclude d tha t th e dramati c discreditin g o f Fuhr man's testimon y create d a fata l fla w i n th e prosecution' s cas e tha t might otherwis e hav e gon e undetected . Long after th e Simpson criminal trial, Fred Goldman, father o f one of th e murder victims , and on e with a genuine stak e in the justice of the tria l system , tol d critic s o f televise d trials : "w e wante d th e trut h to b e shown . . . . Our sufferin g wa s increase d b y longstandin g an d substantive inadequacie s i n th e crimina l justic e syste m and , yes , by the outsid e courtroo m medi a sensationalism . Th e cameras inside the courtroom, however , playe d a n importan t rol e i n revealing those inadequacies an d counterin g th e medi a hype." 58 Just a s a transcrip t provide s a writte n recor d o f a trial , th e vide o record o f thi s tria l i s o f bot h immediat e an d archiva l value . "T V

Conclusion • 181 exposure mad e u s smarte r abou t thi s trial an d it s possible socia l underpinnings," on e T V criti c concluded , i t "seate d yo u wit h th e jury."59 I n addition , th e vide o recor d wil l fin d futur e educationa l uses. Universit y researcher s hav e use d th e tria l record s fo r educa tional purpose s t o teac h crimina l la w an d procedure , an d t o dem onstrate socia l accommodation s t o ne w technology. Seriou s scholar s will b e abl e t o dissec t th e meanin g an d lesson s o f th e cas e i n way s that th e first flush o f biographie s b y partisans cannot . On th e othe r hand , thos e wh o feare d th e contaminatin g potentia l of television pointed t o various examples of the behavior of the judge and lawyer s a s proo f o f thei r concern . Indeed , a t on e poin t i n th e trial, Judge Lanc e It o tol d th e lawyer s h e thought the y were playin g to th e camera s (som e critics , i t migh t b e added , though t th e judg e was, too ) an d threatene d t o "pul l th e plug. " And , a s alread y noted , some critic s despaire d o f th e dange r tha t underlie s th e disparit y be tween the evidence the jury was permitted t o see and what the public knew fro m watchin g part s o f th e proceeding s tha t wer e kep t fro m the jur y (suc h a s Simpson' s infamou s an d incriminatin g Bronc o ride as a fugitive , whic h wa s no t par t o f th e prosecution' s case) . I n th e aftermath o f th e case , severa l concerne d judge s denie d request s t o televise othe r notoriou s cases , including Simpson' s civi l trial, fearin g they woul d b e overwhelme d b y the distraction s o f th e media . Those who thought that televised trials would make an undignifie d circus o f th e tria l proces s sa w thei r wors t fear s realized . Thos e wh o argued tha t televisio n provide s a n educativ e opportunit y t o demon strate t o th e publi c th e workings o f the justice system—fo r bette r o r worse—claimed thi s trial a s Exhibit A . The conundru m continues . One la w professo r suggeste d a compromise . I f televise d trial s ar e inevitable, h e recommende d delayin g transmissio n unti l thirt y day s after th e final decision. 60 Thi s woul d eliminat e th e hazar d o f juro r intimidation, focu s bot h juror s an d judge s o n th e merit s o f the case, reduce th e temptation t o judge s an d lawyer s o f playing to the public through th e camera, lessen the need to sequester jurors, reduce public misperceptions abou t th e evidence, and reduc e the size and salaciou s interest o f th e audience . His first three reason s ar e plausible, but th e latter thre e ar e neithe r logica l no r persuasive .

182 • Conclusion A legal journa l recommende d a "Rul e o f Invers e Publicity" unde r which, i n it s words , "th e greate r th e publi c interes t i n a particula r trial, th e les s compellin g th e cas e fo r camera s i n th e court." 61 I f th e case i s o f broa d publi c interest , thi s thinkin g goes , th e prin t medi a will pounc e o n th e case . Wher e a cas e involve s importan t o r nove l issues tha t migh t escap e notic e becaus e n o celebrit y defendant s o r flamboyant lawyer s ar e involved , televisio n i s needed. Thi s thinkin g is naiv e an d unhelpful . A cas e lik e th e Simpso n tria l ha d al l th e elements—issues, lawyers , an d a celebrit y defendant . Th e issue s point makes the case for televising appellate arguments and decisions, but doe s no t resolv e th e dilemm a wit h trials . In chapte r 4 , I explore d whethe r th e mer e invisibl e presenc e o f television doe s indee d promp t th e participant s t o modif y thei r ordi nary behavior , an d whether thi s is necessarily bad. Knowing they are being observed , migh t tria l lawyer s com e t o cour t bette r prepare d and b e better behaved ? Migh t judge s b e less autocratic, less idiosyncratic? Migh t witnesse s b e mor e carefu l abou t testimon y fo r fea r o f being caugh t i n lies ? Mos t peopl e i n mos t situation s behav e mor e properly whe n the y ar e bein g observed . Th e evidenc e i s not conclu sive, thoug h I believ e i t tilt s towar d bette r behavior , no t worse , i n widely observe d trials . Chapter 4 als o explored whethe r televisio n camera s would projec t "reality," o r a t leas t a les s mediated realit y tha n th e prin t medi a o r television narrators. How could it be otherwise? Postmodernist scholars argu e tha t ther e i s n o objectiv e reality , onl y competin g version s of what reality is. But if that is so, how can one mediate any question about a particula r reality ? Cour t TV' s Jef f Ballabo n argues , "Ther e is no perfect, all-seeing , omniscient universal point of view, and there will alway s b e a n editoria l poin t o f view, " bu t th e camer a i n th e Court "i s the most accurat e way to convey information . . . more accurate tha n an y othe r medium . . . . I don' t thin k it' s possibl e t o achieve anythin g tha t i s perfectl y accurat e . . . this i s a s goo d a s w e have i n ou r technology. " The questio n abou t wha t constitute s realit y a t trial s i s complex . Because of the way the adversary system works—contending lawyers advancing thei r position s o n th e theor y tha t "truth " wil l emerge —

Conclusion • 183 the realit y reporte d b y al l medi a i s suspec t fro m th e start . I n othe r words, all evidence is edited or mediated b y the lawyers, whose focu s in no t realit y bu t thei r versio n o f it . Recapturin g pas t event s i s a n imperfect proces s a t best , an d th e adversar y syste m add s t o th e dis tortions. TV producer Stephe n Bochc o ha s commente d o n the uniqu e qual ity o f televise d trials . "It' s th e camera. Th e camera tha t jus t watche s very dispassionatel y wha t goe s o n i n th e courtroom . An d reveal s s o much mor e tha n wha t we'v e eve r reveale d before . . . . It's educate d the publi c a s to wha t goe s on belo w th e waterline. And there' s a lot that goe s on . An d s o I thin k peopl e ar e mor e appreciativ e o f th e complex natur e o f th e lega l proceeding." 62 Indeed , on e reporte r ex pressed th e opinio n tha t "th e conscientiou s reporte r . . . sets asid e personal view s whe n reportin g events , an d trie s t o emulat e th e detachment o f a camera lens." 63 "I a m a camera wit h it s shutter open , quite passive , recording , no t thinking, " autho r Christophe r Isher wood wrote. 64 Janet Malcol m commente d i n anothe r contex t abou t the uniqu e perspectiv e provide d b y cameras: "photography' s specia l capacity fo r revealin g hidde n truths—truth s th e mind-ruled ey e prefers no t t o see , but tha t th e mindles s camer a i s forced t o record." 65 Film scholar Bil l Nichols's comparabl e vie w of cinema verite moviemaking i s persuasive o n thi s point. 66 H e compare d th e fixed presence o f th e camer a o n scene s filmed completel y (suc h a s Frederic k Wiseman's films) with th e mor e commo n expositor y mod e o f obser vational filmmaking. In the latter form, "th e techniques of exposition [that] turn the sounds and images of others into accomplices in someone else's argument," whil e the epiphanies o f cinema verite originat e "in th e historica l worl d rathe r tha n i n th e defamiliarizin g strategies of a n argument. " Hi s conclusio n i s tha t cinem a verit e provide s a more vita l for m o f learning , an d a less mediated, mor e idea l form o f observation. This i s not t o sa y that documentar y filmmaking present s pure fac t in compariso n wit h theatrica l films, whic h ar e fiction (substitut e gavel-to-gavel televise d trial s compared t o newspaper o r radio o r television summarie s o f trials) . Al l mas s medi a presen t artifact s an d interpretations. "Eve n th e mos t neutra l presentatio n o f a locked -

184 • Conclusion down securit y camer a interpret s a scen e throug h camer a heigh t an d direction, len s foca l length , imag e resolutio n an d size , an d s o on . That any presentatio n throug h medi a i s a n artifact , a n interpretin g construction, i s unavoidable. O n an y location , simpl y th e choice s of where t o plac e th e camera , wher e t o poin t th e camera , wha t lense s to use , an d wha t t o includ e i n th e frame—al l ca n b e arbitrar y an d meaningless, o r a serie s o f productio n decision s base d o n subject , theme an d treatment." 67 Carey Goldberg , th e New York Times reporte r wh o covere d th e Simpson civi l trial , wrot e tha t "th e ver y concep t o f realit y seem s frayed."68 A t th e earlie r crimina l trial , sh e noted , televisio n viewer s "could defin e realit y fo r themselves , watchin g ever y ti c o f a chee k and twis t o f a DNA stran d i n the courtroom." Bu t at the untelevise d sequel, th e publi c neve r witnesse d "th e strang e spectacle " an d ha d to rel y o n description s b y commentators . A t th e late r civi l trial, th e commentators fro m th e crimina l tria l ha d t o rel y o n third-part y ob servers' report s an d thu s coul d no t b e sur e exactl y wha t ha d hap pened. A t th e earlie r televise d trial , "w e sa t an d watche d i t an d formed ou r ow n opinions, " on e lawyer wa s quote d a s saying. Gold berg wondered whether this quandary was the quintessential example of the "post-modernis t ide a tha t ther e is no objectiv e reality . . . only words an d a subjectiv e poin t o f view. " Th e lac k o f camera s seeme d to her to turn thi s trial into eve n more o f a n exercise in postmodern ism, wit h it s tene t tha t ther e i s n o wa y t o ge t t o th e realit y behin d words, tha t human s ar e imprisone d i n language an d tha t ther e i s no way t o kno w wh o "th e rea l O . J." i s or wha t "reall y happened. " Because television expande d th e public view of the trial, observer s were abl e t o projec t thei r individua l meanings—thei r "spin s an d twirls," to use Goldberg's phrase—onto th e Simpson screen, obscuring th e lin e between interpretatio n an d simpl e fac t (and , sh e coul d have added , highlightin g th e line between traditiona l journalis m an d television coverage) . "Journalist s repor t o n event s tha t n o on e els e has see n an d struggl e t o conve y wha t happened . Bu t th e crimina l trial turne d tha t traditio n upside-dow n b y allowin g viewer s t o become direct witnesses, and millions of Americans got used to formin g their own impressions." Another reporter commented of the Simpson

Conclusion • 185 criminal trial , "w e wer e al l watching a different movi e in our heads . Just a s psychiatri c patient s interpre t Rorschac h inkblot s differently , we could se e a variet y o f stories." 69 Print journalists an d television anchors , by their physical presence, probably disrup t trial s mor e tha n inconspicuou s stationar y cameras , and b y thei r pursui t o f participants , the y ma y hav e a s much , i f no t more, impac t o n th e tria l participant s tha n th e cameras . "I t i s th e overwhelming medi a coverag e tha t i s lavishe d o n a smal l grou p o f cases—not th e live , unobtrusive camera—tha t ca n affec t th e behav ior of the participants, and consequently the course of a trial," forme r prosecutor Ir a Reine r argues . Al l th e "crime s o f th e century " described i n chapte r 1 and th e criticism s tha t followe d them , occurre d without televisio n cameras . Coul d i t b e tha t televisio n ha s helpe d resolve, rather tha n exacerbate , th e fre e press-fai r tria l problem ? Another point of comparison i s crucial. If the addition of television does chang e th e event s i t portrays, even when thi s portrayal i s troubling, the change may still be for th e better . When television went t o war, i n Vietnam, fo r example , it becam e impossibl e fo r th e public a t home t o ignor e th e implication s o f wha t i t sa w o n th e evening news broadcasts. When th e world witnesse d barbaris m i n Yugoslavia, carnage in Zaire, starvation i n Somalia, natural emergencie s in farawa y places, those problems coul d not b e ignored. The power o f televisio n to educate , expose , an d promp t refor m shoul d no t b e overlooked . Those pictures made positive responses unavoidable. The same could be sai d abou t reforming th e justic e system ; fo r tha t t o happen , th e general publi c mus t witnes s wha t transpires . An attorney o n the New York committee that considered the question o f televise d trial s i n 1993-9 4 conclude d tha t ther e shoul d b e " a legal presumptio n favorin g audio-visua l acces s o n a permanen t ba sis."70 Tetherin g th e pres s t o th e legislature , h e argued , i s "unsoun d public policy. " I t i s base d o n th e fals e premis e tha t televisio n inter feres wit h th e tria l process . Suc h a premise , h e wrote , i s "contemp tuous o f th e autonom y o f viewers, " an d i s base d o n a "misplace d paternalism" tha t "improperl y casts judge s i n th e rol e o f censors. " The debat e ove r televise d trial s wil l continu e onl y s o lon g a s th e question i s deemed t o b e an intramura l matte r fo r th e courts. Should

186 • Conclusion the question be decided on constitutional grounds—that is , that there is a constitutiona l righ t fo r camera s t o b e i n courts—neithe r legis lators no r judge s wil l b e th e sol e arbiter s o f th e questio n o n a n a d hoc basis . I n suc h a case , th e questio n addresse d (i t woul d b e ad dressed b y a court) woul d no t onl y be whether th e administration of justice i s served , bu t als o whethe r th e pres s an d publi c i s bein g a s fully serve d a s it might be . The institutional interest s o f the press are not identica l wit h thos e o f th e courts . Th e questio n is , Upon who m should th e responsibility fal l t o prove scientifically—i f i t is even possible t o d o so—tha t th e presenc e o f camera s i n court s ha s a seriou s negative impac t o n th e qualit y o f justic e dispense d b y those courts ? Federal Appeals Cour t Judge Stephe n Reinhardt ha s predicted tha t "some day , perhap s no t fa r i n th e future , thi s questio n wil l b e re solved o n first amendment grounds. " In his opinion, "Th e public has an overridin g interes t i n knowin g wha t i s happenin g i n it s court rooms an d we , a s judges , hav e n o righ t t o ba n th e mediu m whic h provides th e publi c wit h th e vas t majorit y o f it s information." 71 H e concludes: "Judicial openness , I believe, will provide a stronger foun dation fo r ou r legitimacy . Under a truly democrati c system , the public's confidence i n our decision s shoul d b e based upo n it s knowledge rather tha n upo n it s ignorance, upon openness , not mystery . We ar e in a position o f publi c trust ; ther e i s no justificatio n fo r hidin g fro m public scrutiny. " Years before Judge Reinhardt's pronouncement, th e same idea was propounded b y the venerabl e judg e an d lega l schola r Jerome Frank . In Courts on Trial, Judge Fran k mocke d wha t h e called "th e cul t of the robe, " th e accrua l o f powe r b y symbols , language , an d proce dures tha t shrou d court s i n mystery . Thes e device s il l serv e democ racy, Judge Fran k warned , b y maintaining th e illusion o f infallibilit y and hinderin g attempt s a t reform . "I t i s th e essenc e o f democrac y that th e citizen s ar e entitle d t o kno w wha t al l thei r publi c servants , judges included , ar e doing , an d ho w wel l they ar e doing it . The bes t way t o brin g abou t th e eliminatio n o f thos e shortcoming s . . . i s t o have al l ou r citizen s informe d a s to ho w tha t syste m functions . I t is a mistake . . . t o try to establish . . . through ignorance, public esteem for it s courts." 72

Conclusion • 187 The Florid a judge s wh o crafte d th e rul e tha t le d t o th e Chandler decision note d a t th e tim e tha t televisio n i n courts create d risks . But risks ar e th e pric e o f a democracy , the y reminded . " A democrati c system o f governmen t i s not th e safes t for m o f government, i t is just the bes t ma n ha s devise d t o date , and i t works bes t when it s citizens are informe d abou t it s workings." 73 On balance , i t i s preferable t o preserv e th e constitutiona l righ t of the televisio n mediu m t o broadcas t a tria l unles s tha t broadcas t clearly results in an infringement o f a recognized constitutional right . Given that, courtroom camera s should b e made available as a matter of course , no t a s a matte r o f judicia l o r legislativ e grace—thoug h any participan t i n th e tria l shoul d b e allowed t o clai m exception s in the interest o f justice in a unique situation , upon reasonable proof of a manifest danger . Extraordinary notoriety , as existed in the Simpson and Oklahom a Cit y bombin g cases , might b e a factor t o consider i n assessing the likelihood tha t televising a trial would creat e a manifes t danger. Whil e i n th e forme r cas e hindsigh t migh t sugges t tha t tele vision exacerbate d distraction s a t trial , i n th e latte r cas e a stron g argument coul d b e made tha t ther e wa s a national interes t i n seein g those judiciou s proceedings . Th e part y claimin g th e proble m shoul d have th e responsibilit y o f provin g it . W e woul d mov e fro m th e po sition that the due process of law clause of the U.S. Constitution does not pe r s e prohibi t electroni c medi a coverag e o f trials , t o a mor e positive position—tha t th e Firs t Amendmen t mandate s al l medi a equal acces s to courts . For television , finally, the Firs t Amendmen t woul d no t sto p a t th e courthouse door , t o us e one Suprem e Cour t justice' s phrase. 74 There have been suggestions in post-Estes opinions that television may have a presumptiv e Firs t Amendmen t righ t t o acces s to courts, 75 and tha t "there ca n n o longe r b e a meaningfu l distinctio n betwee n th e prin t press an d th e electroni c media." 76 Ther e i s no "principle d basis " t o discriminate betwee n differen t medi a whe n tw o decade s o f experi ence demonstrate s tha t ol d fear s abou t th e intrinsicall y negativ e im pact o f televisio n i n court s ar e misplaced , on e la w revie w articl e concluded.77 Televisio n i s commonl y use d i n mos t publi c building s and proceedings , an d i t i s mos t people' s primar y sourc e o f infor -

188 • Conclusion mation. It alone can provide the public with the immediacy and bot h the aura l an d visua l approximatio n o f th e actua l trial . Therefore , "there shoul d b e a presumptio n i n favo r o f allowin g suc h coverag e in th e absenc e o f a compellin g justificatio n fo r preventin g it. " Thi s thesis i s corroborate d b y th e fac t tha t sinc e 1981 , when Chandler opened the way for cameras in courts, no verdict has been overturned on th e basi s o f prejudic e cause d b y television . I expec t tha t al l th e courtroom s o f th e future—stat e an d federal , trial and appellate—wil l b e equipped wit h cameras. I suggest that all trials shoul d b e availabl e fo r broadcast—a s i s generall y th e cas e i n most states . A publicly run , noncommercia l channel , lik e the on e in Washington state , woul d presen t al l proceedings , pursuan t t o lega l rules. Future viewers , on their sophisticate d ne w home o r offic e "in struments" ( a new-bree d compute r scree n o r televisio n set) , coul d tune into any case anywhere, anytime. The archival record of all trials would b e availabl e t o th e public . The righ t t o oppos e th e broadcas t of an y tria l shoul d b e availabl e t o a defendant , witness , juror , o r participating lawyer . Th e circumstance s unde r whic h a judg e coul d grant such a request could be set by the legislature or the court system itself, bu t al l guideline s an d limitation s o n th e genera l presumptiv e constitutional righ t to publicize public proceedings would hav e to be determined ultimatel y b y th e Suprem e Court . Th e visibilit y o f th e judicial syste m i s in the public interes t an d i n the overal l interest s of justice.

APPENDIXA C A M E R A C O V E R A G

E I

N TH E STATE

S

T A B L E A - 1. T Y P E S O F C O U R T S T H A T P E R M I T COVERAGE States

Total

A l a b a m a , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California, C o l o r a d o , Connecticut , Florida, Georgia , H a w a i i , I d a h o , Iowa , Kansas, Kentucky , M a i n e , M a r y l a n d , 1 Massachusetts, Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri, M o n t a n a , N e b r a s k a , 2 N e v a d a , N e w H a m p s h i r e , N e w Jersey , N e w Mexico , N e w York , N o r t h Carolina, N o r t h D a k o t a , O h i o , O k l a h o m a , O r e g o n , R h o d e Island , South Carolina , Tennessee , Texas, 3 Utah, 4 V e r m o n t , Virginia , W a s h i n g t o n , West Virginia , Wisconsin , W y o m i n g

43

Coverage permitted Trial an d Appellat e Courts

Trial Court s Onl y

Pennsylvania

Appellate Court s Onl y Delaware

, Illinois , Louisian a

Total n u m b e r o f state s allowin g medi a coverag e

1 _3_

47

Source: Copyrigh t © 199 6 b y Radi o an d Televisio n New s Director s Association . Use d b y permission. 2 As approve d b y th e Cour t o f Appeals , Maryland' s experimen t originall y encompasse d coverage o f civi l an d crimina l case s i n tria l an d appellat e courts . Subsequently , however , an ac t barrin g coverag e o f crimina l trial s wa s passe d b y th e legislatur e an d approve d b y the governor . Th e rul e permittin g appellat e coverag e wa s mad e permanen t i n 1982 , an d the experimen t allowin g civi l tria l coverag e wa s continue d unti l 198 4 whe n th e cour t adopted permanen t rule s permittin g coverage . 2 Nebraska permit s extende d medi a coverag e o f appellat e proceeding s an d audi o coverag e only durin g th e sentencin g portio n o f crimina l tria l proceeding s an d ope n cour t non-jur y civil trial proceedings i n the district courts o f the thirteenth an d eighteenth judicial districts. 3 Texas permit s extende d coverag e i n al l civi l case s (tria l an d appellate) , bu t allow s audi o coverage onl y o f crimina l appellat e proceedings . 4 Utah's rule s permi t stil l photograph y o f al l courtroo m proceeding s an d broadcasting , televising, o r recordin g o f appellat e cour t proceedings . 189

190 • Appendix A

T A B L E A - 2 . P E R M A N E N T VERSU S E X P E R I M E N T A L COVERAGE Coverage permitted

States

Permanent

Alabama, Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California, Colorado , Connecticut , Florida, Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois, Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana, Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts, Michigan , Minnesota , (appellate), Missouri , Montana , Nebraska, Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , New Jersey , Ne w Mexico, Ne w Yor k (appellate), Nort h Carolina , Nort h Dakota, Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Rhode Island , Sout h Carolina , Tennessee, Texas, 1 Utah, 2 Vermont , Virginia, Washington , Wes t Virginia , Wisconsin, Wyomin g

Experimental

Delaware, Idah o (trial) , Minnesot a (trial), Nebrask a (certai n trial) , New York (trial) , Pennsylvani a

Total 45

6

Source: Copyrigh t © 1996 by Radio and Television News Directors Association. Used by permission. Note: Since Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, and New York fall into both categories, the total number o f state s wit h permanen t and/o r experimenta l rule s is really 4 7 rather tha n 51, the sum of the two categories. Forty states (Alaska , Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut , Florida , Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois [appellate] , Iowa, Kansas , Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesot a [appellate] , Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada , Ne w Jersey, Ne w Mexico, Ne w York [appellate] , Nort h Carolina , North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming [appellate]) have implemented permanent rules during or after a period of formal experimentation , ^ee Tabl e A-l, note 3. 2 See Table A-l, note 4.

TABLE A-3 . TYPE S O F P R O C E E D I N G FO R W H I C H COVERAGE I S PERMISSIBL E

Type of

Overall rule

proceeding coverable

Trial Coverage Only

Civil an d Crimina l Criminal Onl y Civil Onl y

None None Pennsylvania1

0 0 1

Appellate Coverage Only

Civil an d Crimina l Criminal Onl y Civil Onl y

Delaware, Illinois , Louisian a None None

3 0 0

Trial an d Appellate Coverage

Civil an d Crimina l

Alabama, Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas, California , Colorado, Connecticut , Florida, Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho, Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky, Maine , Marylan d (appellate),2 Massachusetts , Michigan, Minnesota , Missouri, Montana , Nebraska, 3 Nevada , Ne w Hampshire, Ne w Jersey , Ne w Mexico, Ne w York , Nort h Carolina, Nort h Dakota , Ohio, Oklahoma , Oregon , Rhode Island , Sout h Carolina , Tennessee, Texas , Utah, 4 Vermont, Virginia , Washington, Wes t Virginia , Wisconsin, Wyomin g

Criminal Onl y

None

0

Civil Onl y

Maryland (trials), 5 Texas (trials) 6

2

States

Total

43

Source: Copyrigh t © 199 6 by Radio and Television News Directors Association. Used by permission. Note: Marylan d and Texas appear twice under trial and appellate coverage (see Table A-l, notes 1 and 3) . Pennsylvania an d Nebrask a limit civil trial coverage to non-jur y proceedings. 2 See Table A-l, note 1 . 3 See not e 1 above. 4 See Table A-l, note 4. 5 See Table A-l, note 1 . 6 See Table A-l, note 3.

Arkansas, Florida , Georgi a (Supreme) , Hawaii (appellate) , Idaho, Nebraska , North Carolina , Orego n (appellate) , Rhode Island , Uta h (stil l photography) , Vermont, Virginia , Wyomin g (appel late) (1 3 states )

Alaska, Arizona , California , Colorado , Connecticut, Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho, Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Maine, Massachusetts , Michigan , Mis souri, Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , Ne w Jersey, New Mexico, Ne w York, Nort h Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oregon , Rhod e Island, Sout h Carolina , Tennessee, 25 Vermont, Virginia , Washington , Wes t Virginia, Wisconsin , Wyomin g (36 states )

Delaware, Illinois, 15 Kansas, Louisiana , Massachusetts, Minne sota (appellate) , Mon tana, Ne w Mexico, Utah (appellate), 16 Wisconsin (10 states )

Utah 17 ( 1 state)

Alabama, Alaska , Arizona , Californi a (written approval) , Colorad o (approva l noted i n record), Connecticut , Georgia , Hawaii (trial) , Idaho (trial) , Iowa, Ken tucky,8 Maine , Maryland, 9 Michigan , Minnesota (trial) , Missouri, Nevad a (written approval), 10 New Hampshire , New Jersey , Ne w York, Nort h Dakota , Ohio (writte n approval) , Oklahoma , Oregon (trial) , Pennsylvania, Sout h Carolina, Tennessee , Texas, 11 Washing ton, Wes t Virginia , Wyomin g (trial ) (31 states )

Alabama, Arkansas , Minnesota , Oklahoma, Tennessee 12 (5 states )

Defendant's Consent 3 (criminal trials )

States with no prior consent or notice required

Court's Consent 2 (all cases )

Entity

States with prior notice as absolute precondition1

T A S A PRECONDITIO N O R LIMITATIO N O N COVERAG E

States with prior consent as absolute precondition

TABLE A-4 . C O N S E N

Alabama, Arkansas , Minnesot a (3 states )

Party's Consent 5 Alabama , Arkansas , Marylan d (civi l 13 (civil case s an d cases), Minnesota (trials) , Texa s criminal appeals ) ( 5 states )

Prosecutor's Consent4 (criminal trials )

Oklahoma, 18 Pennsylva nia, (appellat e coverag e not permitted) , Utah 19 (3 states )

None

Alaska, Arizona , California , Colorado , Connecticut, Delaware , Florida , Geor gia, Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Iowa, 27 Kansas, Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Massachusetts, Michigan , Minnesot a (appellate), Missouri , Montana , Ne braska, Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , Ne w Jersey, Ne w Mexico , Ne w York, 28 North Carolina , Nort h Dakota , Ohio , Oregon, Rhod e Island , Sout h Carolina , Tennessee,29 Utah (appellate), 30 Ver mont, Virginia , Washington , Wes t Vir ginia, Wisconsin , Wyomin g (41 states )

Alaska, Arizona , California , Colorado , Connecticut, Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho, Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Maine, Massachusetts , Michigan , Mis souri, Montana , Nebraska , Nevada , New Hampshire , Ne w Jersey , Ne w Mexico, Ne w York , Nort h Carolina , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon, Rhod e Island , Sout h Carolina , Tennessee, Utah, 26 Vermont , Virginia , Washington, Wes t Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming (3 8 states )

Counsel's Consent 6 (civil trial s an d all appeals )

Entity

Alabama, Arkansas , Marylan d (civi l trials), Ne w York, 14 Texa s (5 states )

States with prior consent as absolute precondition

TABLE

None

States with prior notice as absolute precondition1

A - 4 (Continued)

Alaska, Arizona , California , Colorado , Connecticut, Delaware , Florida , Geor gia, Hawaii , Idaho , Illinois , Iowa , Kan sas, Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland (appellate) , Massachusetts , Michigan, Missouri , Minnesota , Mon tana, Nebraska , Nevada , Ne w Hamp shire, Ne w Jersey , Ne w Mexico , Ne w York, Nort h Carolina , Nort h Dakota , Ohio, Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylva nia, Rhod e Island , Sout h Carolina , Tennessee,31 Utah, 32 Vermont , Virginia , Washington, Wes t Virginia , Wisconsin , Wyoming (4 4 states )

States with no prior consent or notice required

None Alabama, Alask a (vic tims o f sexua l offenses) , Arkansas, Iow a (victim s in sexua l abus e case s only),20 Kansas, 21 Mary land (victim s only), 22 Minnesota, Missouri , New York, 23 Nort h Dakota (se x offens e vic tims only) , Ohio , Oklahoma, Oregon , Pennsylvania, Rhod e Is land, Texas (civil), Utah24 (17 states )

Arizona, California , Colorado , Con necticut, Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Idaho, Iowa, 33 Kentucky , Maine , Mary land (al l witnesse s excep t victims), 34 Massachusetts, Michigan, 35 Montana , Nebraska, Nevada , Ne w Hampshire , New Jersey , Ne w Mexico, 36 Nort h Carolina, Sout h Carolina , Tennessee , Vermont, Virginia , Washington , Wes t Virginia, Wisconsin, 37 Wyoming 38 (29 states )

Source: Copyrigh t © 1996 by Radio and Television News Directors Association. Used b y permission. Note: In this table, the term absolute precondition means that th e particular entity' s consent o r acquiescence must b e obtained for an y coverage to occur. Limited condition, unless otherwise stated, means that if consent is not obtained or objection is made, that particular entity (e.g., jurors) may not be covered but the remainder o f the proceeding may be. In states wher e consent i s not require d o r a limited condition i s not imposed, coverage of the proceeding or the entity is not contingent upon consent. States wit h prio r notic e a s a n absolut e preconditio n fo r coverag e requir e tha t th e cour t receiv e notic e o f a n inten t t o cove r a proceedin g prio r t o it s commencement. Explicit consent is not required. 2 Atotal of 47 states (all states allowing trial and/or appellate coverage) are classified unde r the three consent categories for this entity description. Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Oregon , Utah, and Wyoming appear twic e here, since their cour t consen t requirements fo r appellat e proceedings are differen t from thos e for trials . Although judges have ultimate control ove r their courtrooms an d will make the final determination a s to whether to allow coverage of a proceeding, some states, as shown here, have rules which require either the court's explicit permission or prior notice of intent to cover. 3 A total of 41 states (thos e allowing trial and appeal s coverage of criminal proceedings [4 1 states] and those allowing only trial coverage of criminal cases [0 states] ar e classified unde r th e three consent categorie s fo r thi s entit y description . Tennesse e appear s twice . Maryland an d Pennsylvani a d o not allo w coverage of criminal trial proceedings. Prior to passage of legislation forbidding coverage of criminal trials, Maryland permitted coverage only if the defendant consented. 4 A total of 41 states are classified unde r the three consent categories for thi s entity description. See note 3 above.

Witness's Consent 7 (civil an d crimina l trials)

A total o f 47 states (al l states allowin g trial and/or appellat e coverage ) ar e classified unde r th e three consent categorie s for thi s entity description. Minnesot a and Uta h fal l int o tw o o f th e thre e categories , a s noted . Specia l consen t rule s relatin g t o domesti c relation s an d othe r sensitiv e matter s ar e deal t wit h i n Table A-7 . 6 A total o f 4 7 state s (al l state s allowin g tria l and/o r appellat e coverage ) ar e classifie d unde r th e thre e consen t categorie s fo r thi s entit y description . A s used here, th e ter m counsel exclude s onl y prosecutor s i n crimina l trials . Prosecutor s ar e covere d i n a separat e category . Marylan d an d Ne w Yor k fal l int o tw o of th e thre e categories , a s noted . 7 A tota l o f 4 4 state s (thos e allowin g tria l and appeal s coverag e [4 3 states ] an d thos e allowin g tria l coverag e onl y [ 1 state] ) ar e classifie d unde r th e thre e consent categorie s fo r thi s entit y description . Iow a an d Maryland , a s noted , fal l int o tw o o f th e thre e categorie s describe d herein . 8 Under Kentucky' s rules , requests t o cove r a proceeding mus t b e made t o th e court . Whil e ther e ar e no specifi c provision s i n the rules governing th e court' s response, permissio n mus t b e obtaine d fo r coverag e t o occur . 9 Maryland's rule s requir e tha t a reques t fo r coverag e b e submitted . Althoug h th e court' s consen t i s no t specificall y required , th e judg e mus t approv e th e type an d locatio n o f th e equipmen t t o b e use d prio r t o th e commencemen t o f th e proceedin g t o b e covered . 10 Nevada's rule s d o no t stat e specificall y whe n approva l i s t o b e obtained . 11 See Table A-l , not e 3 . 12 In Tennesse e juvenil e cour t proceedings , consen t fo r coverag e mus t b e obtaine d fro m th e accuse d i n crimina l case s an d th e partie s i n civi l cases . 13 In Maryland , a part y ma y mov e fo r terminatio n o r limitatio n o f coverag e i n crimina l appellat e cases . Consent s o f governmenta l entitie s o r official s wh o are partie s ar e no t required . 14 Counsel's consen t i s require d i n jur y trial s i n progress . 15 Illinois's rule s als o refe r t o th e notic e a s a "request. " Th e judg e o r presidin g authority , upo n receivin g writte n notice , ma y decid e t o prohibi t coverag e prior t o th e commencemen t o f a proceeding . 16 See Tabl e A-l , not e 4 . 17 See Tabl e A-l , not e 4 . 18 It i s no t entirel y clea r wha t woul d occu r i n Oklahom a i f a crimina l defendan t object s t o coverag e o f hi s appeal . Take n literally , th e rule s o f thi s stat e would see m t o permi t coverag e o f th e proceeding s bu t preclud e coverag e o f th e defendan t i n thos e circumstances . Sinc e man y defendant s d o no t atten d their appea l proceedings , th e poin t ma y b e a relativel y mino r one . 19 See Tabl e A-l , not e 4 . 20 In Iowa , a victim/witness i n a sexua l abus e cas e must consen t t o coverag e o f hi s o r he r testimony . Th e objection s o f certai n type s o f witnesse s to coverag e of thei r testimon y enjo y a presumptio n o f validity . Thes e includ e victims/witnesse s i n othe r forcibl e felon y prosecutions , polic e informants , undercove r agents, an d relocate d witnesses . 21 In Kansas , a judg e ma y forbi d coverag e o f a witnes s i f h e o r sh e objects ; however , whe n a polic e informant , undercove r agent , relocate d witness , juvenile witness o r victim/witnes s object s t o bein g covered , th e judg e i s required t o forbi d coverag e o f tha t person . I n addition , whe n a participan t i n a proceedin g involving divorce , trade secrets , o r a motio n t o suppres s evidenc e object s t o coverage , coverag e o f tha t participan t i s forbidden .

5

23

See Tabl e A-l , not e 1 . In Ne w York , se x crim e victim s mus t reques t coverag e an d undercove r peac e an d polic e officer s mus t giv e writte n consen t fo r coverage . 24 See Tabl e A-l , not e 4 . 25 See not e 1 2 above . 26 See Tabl e A-l , not e 4 . 27 In Iowa , consent s o f partie s ar e no t require d excep t i n "juvenile, " dissolution , adoption , chil d custody , o r trad e secret s cases. " 28 In Ne w York , consent s o f partie s ar e no t require d excep t i n arraignmen t an d suppressio n hearings . 29 See not e 1 2 above . 30 See Table A-l , not e 4 . 31 See note 1 2 above . 32 See Table A-l , not e 4 . 33 See not e 2 2 above . 34 See Table A-l , not e 1 . 35 In Michiga n an d Ne w Mexico , th e judg e ha s sol e an d plenar y discretio n t o exclud e coverag e o f certai n witnesses , including , bu t no t limite d to , victim s of se x crime s an d thei r families , polic e informants , undercove r agents , relocate d witnesses , an d juveniles . 36 See not e 3 5 above . 37 In Wisconsi n an d Wyoming , th e objection s o f certai n type s o f witnesse s t o coverag e o f thei r testimon y enjo y a presumptio n o f validity . Thes e includ e victims o f crimes , confidential informant s an d undercove r agents . 38 See not e 3 7 above .

22

198 • Appendix A TABLE A-5 . C O V E R A G States where States coverage is coverage prohibited limited

E O F JUROR S

where States is coverage 1 limited

where is not by rule

Alaska, Arkansas , Alabama , Arizona , Florida , Kentucky , 4 California, Hawaii , Colorado , Maryland, Montana , Idaho, Maine , Connecticut , Georgia , Washington , Michigan, Minnesota , Iowa , Kansas , Wes t Virgini a Missouri, Ne w Mexico , Massachusetts , Nevada , ( 6 states ) New York , Nort h Ne w Hampshire, 2 Carolina, Nort h Dakota , Ne w Jersey , 3 Ohio, Oregon , Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah , Rhod e Island , Sout h Virginia Carolina , Vermont , (18 states ) Wisconsin , Wyomin g (17 states ) Source: Copyrigh t © 1996 by Radio and Television News Directors Association. Used by permission. Note: A total of 41 of 43 states (those allowing trial and appeals coverage (43 states) and those allowing trial coverage in jury cases (0 states) are classified unde r the three coverage categories for thi s entity description . Pennsylvania an d Nebrask a d o not permit any coverage of jury proceedings. Texas is excluded. Unless otherwis e indicated , state s i n thi s categor y prohibi t close-u p o r identifiabl e cov erage of the jury but allow coverage if the jury is part of the background o f another shot. 2 In Ne w Hampshire, prior approva l o f th e Presiding Justice is required t o cover the jury in criminal cases. 3 In Oklahoma, coverage of an objecting juror is not permitted . 4 See Table A-l, note 1.

Alabama, Arizona, * Delaware, Georgi a (trial), Hawaii * (trial) , Idaho (trial) , Kentucky , Maine, Massachusetts, * Montana, Ne w Hampshire, New Jersey,* Ne w Yor k (appellate), Ohio , Oregon (trial) , Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Sout h Carolina, Texas , Washington, Wes t Virginia (2 1 states)

States where no time is specified Alaska,f Arizon a (Supreme), Colorado, ! Minnesota,! New Mexico,! Ohi o (Supreme), Wyomin g (trial) ( 7 states)

California ( 5 days), Connecticut ( 3 days — trial), Georgi a (7 days—appellate) , Illinois ( 5 days), Kansas! ( 7 days), Maryland! ( 5 days), Michigan! ( 3 days), Missouri ( 5 days), Nevada! ( 3 days), New York ! ( 7 days — trial), Nort h Dakot a ( 3 days—appellate, 7 days—trial) , Tennessee! ( 2 days), Utah ( 2 days), Wisconsin! ( 3 days ) (14 states )

States notice/requiring between two and seven days in advance Connecticut (1 3 days appellate), Iowa ! (1 4 days), Louisian a (2 0 days) ( 3 states )

States requiring notice/request more than seven days in advance

Source: Copyrigh t © 1996 by Radio and Television News Directors Association. Used by permission. Note: Since Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and Wyoming fall into more than one category, the total number of states allowing extended media coverage is 47 rather than 56. * In these states, the requests or notice are to be made a "reasonable time" in advance of the proceedings. !In thes e states, the time requirement may be waived at the discretion of the judge.

Arkansas, Florida , Hawaii (appellate) , Idaho, Nebraska , Nort h Carolina, Orego n (appellate), Rhod e Island, Vermont , Virginia, Wyomin g (appellate) (1 1 states)

States where no advance notice or permission is required

States requiring notice/request one day in advance

TABLE A-6 . T I M E R E Q U I R E M E N T S FO R A D V A N C E N O T I C E O R R E Q U E S T S T O C O V E R COURTROOM PROCEEDING S

200 • Appendix A TABLE A-7 . C O V E R A G

E E X E M P T I O N S FO R SPECIFI C

T Y P E S O F C A S E S AN D C A T E G O R I E S O F W I T N E S S E S The rule s o f a numbe r o f state s (e.g. , Connecticut , Nevada , an d Oklahoma ) make clea r th e fac t tha t coverag e i s no t permitte d whe n acces s i s otherwis e restricted b y law . Moreover , althoug h th e court s i n al l state s tha t permi t coverage retai n th e authorit y t o preclud e coverag e o n a case-by-cas e basis , the following state s hav e rule s explicitl y prohibitin g o r limitin g coverag e i n particular type s of cases or prohibiting coverag e of certain witnesse s in a covered proceeding. Type of case/witness

States 1

Adoption

Alaska, Arizona , Arkansas, 2 Connecticut, 3 Idaho, Iowa, 4 Maine , Maryland, 5 Missouri , North Carolina , Oregon , Rhod e Island , Vir ginia (1 3 states )

Child Custod y

Alaska,6 Arkansa s (guardianship), 7 Connecti cut,8 Idaho , Iowa, 9 Maine , Maryland, 10 Min nesota, Missouri , Ne w Jersey,11 Nort h Carolina, Oregon , Rhod e Islan d (i f child i s a participant), 12 Pennsylvania , Virgini a (15 states )

Divorce

Alaska,13 Arkansas, 14 Connecticut, 15 Iowa, 16 Maine, Maryland, 17 Minnesota , Missouri , New Jersey, 18 Nort h Carolina, 19 Oregon , Pennsylvania, Virginia , Wisconsin 20 (14 states )

Juvenile Proceeding s

Alabama, Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas, 21 Geor gia, Idaho , Iowa, 22 Maine , Maryland, 23 Min nesota, Missouri , Ne w Jersey,24 Nort h Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,25 Tennessee,26 Virginia, Wisconsin 27 (1 8 states )

Motions t o Suppres s

Hawaii, 28 Maryland, 29 Massachusetts , Min nesota, Ne w York, 30 Nort h Carolina , Rhod e Island,31 Virginia , Wisconsin, 32 Wyoming 33 (10 states )

Appendix A • 201 Type of case/witness

States

Police Informant s

Arkansas, 34 Maryland, 35 Michigan, 36 Minne sota, Ne w Mexico, 37 Nort h Carolina , Vir ginia, Wisconsin, 38 Wyoming 39 ( 9 states )

Relocated Witnesse s

Maryland, 40 Michigan, 41 Minnesota , Ne w Mexico, 42 Nort h Carolina , Wisconsin 43 (6 states )

Sex Crime s

Arkansas (victims), 44 Connecticut, 45 Hawaii, 46 Maine, Michigan, 47 Minnesota , Ne w Jersey, 48 New Mexic o (victim s an d thei r families), 49 New York , Nort h Carolin a (victim s an d their families) , Nort h Dakot a (victims , wit nesses), Oregon , Virgini a (victim s an d thei r families), Wisconsin 50 (1 4 states )

Trade Secrets

Connecticut,51 Hawaii, 52 Iowa, 53 Maine , Maryland, 54 Minnesota , Ne w Jersey, 55 Nort h Carolina, Oregon , Virginia , Wisconsin 56 (11 states )

Undercover Agent s

Arkansas, 57 Hawaii,58 Maryland,59 Michigan, 60 Minnesota, Ne w Mexico, 61 Ne w York , North Carolina , Virginia , Wisconsin, 62 Wyo ming 63 (1 1 states )

Orphans' Cour t

Connecticut,64 Maryland, 65 Rhod e Islan d (if chil d i s participant) 66 ( 3 states )

In Camera Proceeding s

Arkansas, 67 Colorado , Hawaii , Nort h Caro lina, Virgini a ( 5 states )

Proceedings befor e Clerks o f Cour t

North Carolin a ( 1 state )

Proceedings befor e Magistrates

North Carolin a ( 1 state )

Probable Caus e Pro ceedings

Massachusetts, Nort h Carolin a ( 2 states )

Minor Witnesse s

Hawaii, 68 Maryland , Nort h Carolina , Vir ginia ( 4 states )

202 • Appendix A TABLE A-7 . C O N T I N U E Type of case/witness

D

States

Motions t o Dismis s

Massachusetts, Minnesota , Rhod e Island 69 (3 states )

Voir Dir e Hearing s

Colorado, Connecticut , Hawaii , Iowa , Mas sachusetts, Minnesota , Ne w Mexico, New York, Nort h Carolina , Oregon , Rhod e Islan d (11 states )

Motions fo r Judgmen t of Acquitta l o r Directe d Verdict

Minnesota, Rhod e Islan d ( 2 states )

Motions In Limine

Minnesota, Rhod e Islan d ( 2 states )

Witnesses i n Jeopard y

Hawaii 70 ( 1 state )

of Seriou s Bodil y Injur y Hearings o n Admissibi lity o f Evidenc e

Minnesota ( 1 state )

Domestic Dispute s

New Jerse y (Municipal), 71 Orego n ( 2 states )

Arraignments

New York 72 ( 1 state )

Grand Jur y Proceeding s

Idaho ( 1 state )

Source: Copyrigh t © 1996 by Radio an d Television New s Director s Association . Use d by permission. 1 "Family matter " proceeding s ma y be covered o n a case-by-case basi s with th e consent of all partie s i n Alaska. 2 Arkansas prohibit s coverag e o f minors withou t parenta l o r guardian consent . I t totall y prohibits coverag e o f juvenile, adoption , guardianship , o r domestic relation s proceedings . 3 Generally, the Connecticut Suprem e Cour t wil l not permit coverag e of these proceedings . The Connecticu t Superio r Cour t forbid s coverag e o f these proceeding s and , in addition , prohibits coverag e o f proceedings hel d i n the jury's absenc e an d sentencing hearing s in criminal case s i n which th e trial wa s not covered. 4 In thes e type s o f cases, Iow a permit s coverag e i f consents o f the parties (includin g the parent o r guardian o f a minor) ar e obtained. I n all othe r cases , Iowa require s no consents of th e parties. 5 Maryland provide s tha t th e objections o f participants ar e presumed t o have validit y in cases involvin g polic e informants , minors , undercove r agents , relocated witnesses , eviden tiary suppressio n hearings , trad e secrets , divorce , an d custody. Maryland' s rule s fo r coverage d o not apply t o its Orphans' Courts . Se e Table A-l , note 1. 6 See note 1 above. 7 See note 2 above . 8 See not e 3 above. 9 See note 4 above .

Appendix A • 203 10

See note 5 above . New Jersey absolutely preclude s coverage o f these proceedings and , additionally, in cases where coverage woul d caus e a substantia l increas e i n the threat o f harm t o any participan t or otherwis e interfer e wit h a fai r trial . 12 Rhode Islan d prohibit s coverag e i n an y matter s i n Famil y Cour t i n whic h juvenile s ar e significant participants . 13 See note 1 above . 14 See note 2 above . 15 See note 3 above . 16 See note 4 above . 17 See note 5 above . 18 New Jersey prohibit s coverag e o f case s involvin g divorc e o r "matrimonia l disputes. " See note 1 1 above . 19 North Carolin a forbid s coverag e o f temporar y an d permanen t alimon y proceeding s a s well a s divorc e proceedings . 20 Wisconsin require s tha t objection s o f participant s t o coverag e i n thes e case s shal l be presumed t o hav e validity . Wisconsin' s rul e extend s t o th e victim s o f crimes , includin g sexual crimes . 21 See note 2 above . 22 See note 4 above . 23 See note 5 above . 24 See note 1 1 above . 25 Rhode Islan d explicitl y forbid s coverag e i n thes e cases . Se e not e 1 2 above . 26 In Tennessee , consent s o f partie s ar e require d fo r coverag e t o occur . 27 See note 2 0 above . 28 Under Hawaii' s rules , a tria l judg e wil l gran t request s fo r coverag e unles s goo d caus e i s found t o prohibi t coverage . A presumptio n o f goo d caus e exist s i f th e proceedin g i s fo r the purpos e o f determinin g th e admissibilit y o f evidence , testimony regardin g trad e secret s or fro m undercove r agent s i s being received , childre n witnesse s ar e testifying , complainin g witnesses i n sexua l offens e case s ar e testifyin g i n a crimina l trial , o r a witnes s woul d b e put i n substantia l jeopard y o f seriou s bodil y injury . 29 See not e 5 above . B y statute , Maryland' s experimen t ha s bee n preclude d fro m encom passing coverag e o f crimina l tria l proceedings . 30 In Ne w York , consent s o f partie s ar e require d fo r coverag e t o occur . 31 Rhode Islan d als o forbid s coverag e o f hearing s t o determin e competenc e o r relevanc e o f evidence. 32 See note 2 0 above . 33 Wyoming require s tha t objection s o f participant s t o coverag e i n thes e case s shal l be presumed t o hav e validity . Th e rul e als o extend s t o th e victim s o f crimes . 34 See note 2 above . 35 See note 2 9 above . 36 See Tabl e A-4 , not e 35 . 37 See Tabl e A-4 , not e 35 . 38 See Table A-4 , not e 20 . 39 See note 3 3 above . 40 See note 2 9 above . 41 See Table A-4 , not e 35. 42 See Tabl e A-4 , not e 35 . 43 See Table A-4 , not e 20 . 44 See note 2 above . 45 See note 3 above . 46 See note 2 8 above . 11

204 • Appendix A 47

See Tabl e A-4 , not e 35 . See note 1 1 above . 49 See Table A-4 , not e 35 . 50 See Table A-4 , not e 20 . 51 See not e 3 above . 52 See note 2 8 above . 53 See not e 4 above . 54 See note 5 above . 55 See note 1 1 above . 56 See note 2 0 above . 57 See note 2 above . 58 See not e 2 8 above . 59 See note 5 above . 60 See Tabl e A-4 , not e 35 . 61 See Table A-4 , not e 35 . 62 See note 2 0 above . 63 See note 3 3 above . 64 See note 3 above . 65 See not e 5 above . 66 See note 1 2 above . 67 Coverage o f in camera proceeding s i n Arkansa s i s prohibited unles s th e cour t explicitl y consents. 68 See not e 2 8 above . 69 Coverage o f motion s t o dismis s fo r lega l inadequac y o f th e indictment , information , o r complaint (crimina l o r civil ) i s no t permitte d i n Rhod e Island . 70 See note 2 8 above . 71 See note 1 1 above . 72 See note 3 0 above . 48

APPENDIXB S U M M A R Y O F STAT E CAMER A C O V E R A G E RULE S B Y TH E R A D I O - T E L E V I S I O N NEW S DIRECTORS ASSOCIATIO N

The followin g i s a four-tie r listin g o f state s arrange d i n th e orde r o f th e estimated utilit y o f thei r rule s i n permittin g extende d medi a coverag e o f courtroom proceeding s revise d a s o f January 1 , 1996 . The first tier includes those states that appear to allow the most substantial coverage. These state s emplo y a variet y o f rul e formulation s an d th e scop e and amoun t o f coverag e varies . Florida ha s a unique "qualitativ e differenc e test" tha t a participan t mus t mee t i n orde r t o justif y camer a exclusion . Twelve othe r state s recognize a n especially broad discretio n i n the presiding judge t o permi t o r exclud e audiovisua l coverage . Othe r state s i n thi s tie r have rules that specificall y restric t coverage, such as by prohibiting coverage of o r requirin g consen t o f se x crim e victims, informants , o r undercove r agents o r b y providin g tha t objection s b y thes e an d severa l othe r type s o f witnesses t o coverag e o f thei r testimon y enjo y a presumptio n o f validity . This tier als o include s state s that den y coverage o f certain types of proceed ings no t deeme d essentia l fo r wid e coverage , suc h a s preliminar y hearings , family law , an d trad e secret s proceedings . The secon d tie r include s state s tha t hav e restrictions prohibiting coverage of especially important types of cases or of all or large categories of witnesses who objec t t o coverag e o f thei r testimony . The thir d tie r include s state s tha t allo w appellat e coverag e only , state s that have restrictive trial coverage rules (e.g., requiring consent of the parties 205

206 • Appendix B in al l cases or requirin g th e consent o f the defendan t i n criminal cases), and a stat e wit h judge s tha t routinel y den y coverag e unde r a rul e recognizin g their broa d discretio n s o that littl e o r n o tria l coverag e actuall y occurs . The fourt h tie r list s thos e jurisdiction s tha t prohibi t tria l an d appellat e coverage entirel y an d ar e no t counte d amon g th e forty-seve n state s tha t permit som e form o f camer a coverage . TIER I : STATE S THA T ALLO W M O S T COVERAG E

Alaska—requires se x offense victi m consen t Arizona—coverage o f juvenile/adoptio n proceeding s prohibite d California—broad discretio n i n presiding judg e Colorado—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e Connecticut—coverage o f trad e secre t an d "family " case s prohibite d Florida—"qualitative difference " tes t Georgia—broad discretio n i n presiding judg e Idaho—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e Iowa—need victim/witnes s consen t i n sexua l abus e case s Kentucky—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e Massachusetts—coverage o f certai n proceeding s prohibite d Michigan—judge ma y prohibi t coverag e o f certai n witnesse s Montana—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e Nevada—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e New Hampshire—broa d discretio n i n presiding judg e New Mexico—judg e may prohibi t coverag e o f certai n witnesse s North Carolina—coverag e o f certai n cases/witnesse s prohibite d North Dakota—broa d discretio n i n presiding judg e Rhode Island—coverag e o f certai n proceeding s prohibited/broa d discretio n in presidin g judg e South Carolina—broa d discretio n i n presidin g judg e Tennessee—broad discretio n i n presidin g judge/coverag e o f minor s i s re stricted Washington—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e West Virginia—broa d discretio n i n presidin g judg e Wisconsin—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e Wyoming—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e

Appendix B

T I E R II : S T A T E S T H A T H A V E R E S T R I C T I O N

• 207

S

PROHIBITING COVERAG E O F IMPORTAN T TYPE S O F CASES, O R O F AL L O R LARG E CATEGORIE S O F WITNESSES W H O OBJEC T T O COVERAG E O F THEIR TESTIMON Y

Hawaii—coverage o f certai n case s and witnesse s prohibite d Kansas—many types o f witnesse s ma y objec t Missouri—many type s o f witnesse s may objec t New Jersey—coverage o f sexua l penetratio n case s prohibite d New York—numerou s restriction s o n coverag e o f witnesse s Ohio—victim/witness ha s righ t t o objec t t o coverag e Oregon—witnesses' discretio n t o objec t t o coverag e o f certai n case s Texas—no rule s fo r crimina l tria l coverage , bu t suc h coverag e allowe d in creasingly o n a case-by-cas e basi s Virginia—coverage o f se x offens e case s prohibite d T I E R III : S T A T E S T H A T A L L O W A P P E L L A T E C O V E R A G E ONLY O R HAV E SUC H RESTRICTIV E TRIA L COVERAG E RULES A S T O ESSENTIALL Y PREVEN T COVERAG E

Alabama—consent o f al l parties/attorneys require d Arkansas—coverage cease s with objectio n b y party/attorne y Delaware—appellate coverag e onl y Illinois—appellate coverag e onl y Louisiana—appellate coverag e onl y Maine—appellate coverage , civil trials, arraignments, sentencings, and othe r non-testimonial proceeding s i n crimina l matter s Maryland—appellate coverage/civi l tria l onl y Minnesota—appellate coverage/trial—consen t o f al l parties require d Nebraska—appellate coverage/audi o tria l coverag e onl y Oklahoma—consent o f crimina l defendan t require d Pennsylvania—any witnes s who object s wil l not b e covered, civil trials only without a jur y Utah—appellate coverage/tria l coverage , still photography onl y Vermont—broad discretio n i n presidin g judg e

208 • Appendix B

T I E R IV : J U R I S D I C T I O N S T H A T P R O H I B I T T R I A L A N D APPELLATE COVERAG E ENTIREL Y

District o f Columbi a Mississippi South Dakot a

NOTES

NOTES T O TH E I N T R O D U C T I O N

1. William O . Douglas , The Public Trial and the Free Press, 46 A.B.A . J. 840, a t 840 , 84 2 (1960) . 2. Jerome Barron , Inside Story, PBS , February 1982 . 3. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, 37 0 Souther n 2 d 764, a t 77 6 (1979) . 4. Gerr y Spence , quote d i n "Simpso n Cas e Backlas h Keep s Camera s ou t of Othe r Courtrooms, " New York Times, Septembe r 17 , 1995 , 35. 5. J. Skell y Wright , A Judge's View: The News Media and Criminal justice, 50 A.B.A . J. 1125 , at 1126 , 112 7 (1964) . 6. Ibid. , 1127 , 1128 . 7. Cowley v. Pulsifer, 13 7 Massachusetts 392 , a t 39 4 (1884) . 8. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 478 U.S . 1 , at 1 8 (1986) . 9. Gomez v. U.S. and Chavez-Tesina v. U.S., 490 U.S. 858, at 87 5 (1989). 10. ,Stephen Gillers quoted in Paul Marcotte, Courts on Cable 76 A.B.A. J. 19 (April 1990). 11. Si r John MacDonnell , Historical Trials 234 (Rothman , 1983) . 12. Me g Greenfield , "I n Defens e o f Sensationalism : Th e Medi a an d th e O.J. Simpso n Case, " editorial, Washington Post an d Newsweek, Septembe r 19, 1994 . NOTES T O CHAPTE R1

1. The Associated Press and Los Angeles Herald Examiner, Hearst Corporation v. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 70 5 F.2 d 1143 (1983) , concurring opinio n o f Judge Poole . 209

210 • Notes to Chapter 1 2. Correspondenc e wit h author . 3. Irvin v. Dowd, 36 6 U.S . 717, at 73 0 (1961) . 4. Michae l Belknap , American Political Trials 2 2 (Greenwoo d Press , 1981). 5. James Alexander, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Feter Zenger (Stanle y Katz , ed. , Harvar d Universit y Press , 1972) ; Vincent Bura nelli, The Trial of Feter Zenger (Ne w York Universit y Press , 1957) . 6. Car l Calmer , For the Rights of Men, 7 (Book s fo r Librarie s Press , 1947); Livingsto n Rutherford , John Feter Zenger: His Press, His Trial and a Bibliography of Zenger Imprints (Dodd , Mead , 1904) . 7. Rutherford, John Peter Zenger 61 . 8. Samue l Engl e Burr , Jr. , Napoleon's Dossier on Aaron Burr (Naylo r Co., 1969); Walter F. McCaleb, New Light on Aaron Burr (Texas Quarterly, 1963); Phili p Vail , The Great American Rascal (Hawthor n Books , 1973) ; Milton Lomask , Aaron Burr: The Conspiracy and Years of Exile, 18051836 (Farrar , Strau s an d Giroux , 1982) . 9. Lomask , Aaron Burr 230. 10. Leonard Steinhorn , Man on Trial: The Unwritten Law and Victorian American Male Sexual Honor (1978) . 11. Quote d i n Baltimore Sun, Apri l 29, 1859 . 12. Milton Rugoff , The Beechers: An American Family in the Nineteenth Century (Harpe r an d Row , 1981) . 13. Rober t Shaplen , Free Love and Heavenly Sinners 216-21 7 (Knopf , 1954). 14. Ibid., 225 , 253. 15. Davi d Garrar d Lowe , Stanford White's New York 324-32 5 (Double day, 1992) . 16. Paul R . Baker , Stanney: The Gilded Life of Stanford White 38 7 (Free Press, 1989) . 17. Lowe , Stanford White's New York 324-325 . 18. Baker , Stanney, chaps . 21, 22, an d 24 . 19. Anothe r turn-of-the-centur y cas e tha t capture d th e extraordinar y at tention o f the press was described i n Martin L . Friedland, The Death of Old Man Rice, A True Story of Criminal Justice in America (Ne w York Univer sity Press , 1994) . Thi s tria l b y newspaper , a s i t wa s calle d b y th e author , concerned a controversia l wil l forger y an d murde r case , i n whic h Texa s multimillionaire Willia m Mars h Rice , founde r o f Ric e University , wa s th e victim an d on e o f hi s attorney s wa s th e allege d offender . 20. Irving Stone, Clarence Darrow for the Defense (Doubleday , Doran & Co., 1941) .

Notes to Chapter 2 • 211 21. Ibid. , 436 , 437. 22. Ludovi c Kennedy , The Airman and the Carpenter: The Lindbergh Kidnaping and the Framing of Richard Hauptmann (Viking , 1985) . 23. The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping: The Crime That Won't Go Away, the Histor y Channel , 1997 . 24. Kennedy , The Airman and the Carpenter 259. 25. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38 4 U.S . 333 (1966) . 26. U.S . Bureau o f th e Census , Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1995: The National Data Book, 115t h ed . a t 571. 27. Estes v. Texas, 38 1 U.S. 532 (1965) . 28. Th e Los Angeles Times wa s acknowledge d b y man y observer s t o b e the print mediu m o f record, publishing ove r fifteen hundre d Simpso n stories in sixtee n months . Its coverage, especially b y David Shaw , who commente d extensively an d perceptivel y abou t th e media , wa s noteworthy . Muc h o f Shaw's commentar y ha s informe d thi s author . 29. "Th e Simpso n Verdicts : Valuable Lesson s o f TV in Courtroom, " Los Angeles Times, Octobe r 5 , 1996 , A7. 30. Ir a Reiner , "Camera s Kee p Justice Syste m i n Focus, " National Law Journal, Octobe r 23 , 1995 , A23. 31. Abrams v. U.S., 25 0 U.S . 616 , a t 63 0 (1919) ; an d se e Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 33 8 U.S . 912, a t 92 0 n . 29 . 32. Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 33 8 U.S . 912 (1950) . 33. Bridges v. California and Times Mirror Co. v. Supreme Court of California, 31 4 U.S . 252 (1941) . 34. Tress Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 47 8 U.S . 1, at 7 (1986) .

NOTES T O CHAPTE R2

1. Gitlow v. U.S., 268 U.S . 652 (1925) . 2. Se e Fredric k Siebert , Theodor e Peterson , an d Wilbu r Schramm , Tour Theories of the Press, ch. 1 (University o f Illinoi s Press, 1956) . 3. Ibid. , ch . 2 . 4. Willia m Blackstone , 4 Commentaries 151-152 . 5. Lette r t o Eldridg e Gerry , Januar y 26 , 1799 , 7 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 32 8 (For d ed. , 1894) . 6. Se e generall y Siebert , Peterson , an d Schramm , Four Theories of the Press. 7. Se e Hugo Black , The Bill of Rights, 3 5 N.Y.U. L . Rev. 86 5 (1960) .

212 • Notes to Chapter 2 8. Zechariah Chafee , Government and Mass Communications 6 (Univer sity o f Chicag o Press , 1947) . 9. Ronald L . Goldfarb, The Contempt Power, ch . 2 (Columbi a Universit y Press, 1963 ; Anchor Books , 1971) . 10. Loi s Forer , A Free Press and a Pair Trial, 3 9 A.B.A . J. 800 , a t 84 3 (1953); Walter Nelle s an d Caro l Weis s King , Contempt by Publication, 2 8 Columbia L . Rev. 401 (1928) . 11. Ironically , th e actua l situatio n fo r defendant s i n Englan d i s no t s o different, despit e the stricter contempt rules, because until recently pretrial— as oppose d t o tria l coverage—publicit y wa s permitted . I n an y event , con victing a contemptuous pres s agenc y doe s nothin g fo r a defendant wh o ha s been hur t b y press misconduct . 12. ABA Committee o n Professional Ethic s and Grievances, Formal Opin ion 67 , March 1932 . 13. Specia l Committe e o f th e Ba r Associatio n o f th e Cit y o f Ne w York , Radio, Television, and the Administration of Justice (Columbi a Universit y Press, 1965) . See the selectiv e bibliograph y o n pp . 319-321 . 14. ABA Committee o n Professiona l Ethic s and Grievances , Opinion 21 2 (1941), 500-50 1 (1967) . 15. 77 AB A Repor t 60 7 (1952) . Se e als o Repor t o f Post-Newswee k Stations, Florida , Inc. , t o Suprem e Cour t o f Florida , Cas e #46,83 5 i n it s Petition t o adop t th e ne w Florid a Rul e fo r a good histor y o f th e prevailin g rules. 16. Informa l Opinio n No . 49 0 interpretin g Cano n 35 . Opinion s o f th e Committee o n Professional Ethics , 196 7 edition, published b y the American Bar Associatio n an d th e America n Ba r Foundation . 17. For full history of Canon 35, see Appendix to Justice Harlan's Opinion in Estes v. Texas, 38 1 U.S. 532, at 596-60 1 (1965) . 18. Se e Kavanaugh v. Courtroom Television Network, 9 1 Civ . 795 9 (RPP), Declaration o f Steve n Brill , March 3 , 1992 , at 15 , citing decisions in New Mexico , Pennsylvania, Georgia , an d Florida . 19. 2 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, 2 d ed. , 198 6 Supp. , commentary a t 8:30 . 20. Susann a Barber , News Cameras in the Courtroom: A Free Press-Fair Trial Debate (Ablex , 1987) . 21. Memorandu m date d Februar y 13 , 1997. 22. Correspondenc e wit h th e author . 23. Patterson v. Colorado, 20 5 U.S . 454, a t 46 2 (1907) . 24. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952) .

Notes to Chapter 2 • 213 25. Harold Sullivan , Contempt by Publication 17 8 (Yal e University Press, 1940). 26. Cockrell v. Dobbs, 38 1 S.W . 2 d 75 6 (S.C . Arkansas, 1964) . 27. State v. Thompson, 12 3 N.W. 2 d 37 8 (S.C . Minnesota, 1963) . 28. Irvin v. Dowd, 36 6 U.S . 717, a t 722 , 72 3 (1961) . 29. Community Hostility and the Right to an Impartial Jury, 60 Columbia L. R. 349 , 36 8 (1960) . In Delaney v. U.S., 19 9 F.2 d 10 7 (1s t Cir . 1952 ) a verdict wa s reverse d fo r failur e t o gran t a continuanc e unde r wha t wer e considered appropriat e circumstances . A prior legislativ e hearin g regardin g the sam e matte r ha d saturate d th e communit y wit h comment s abou t th e case. 30. Application of Roy M. Cohn, 33 2 F.2 d 976 (2 d Cir . 1964) . 31. U.S. v. Dennis, 18 3 F.2 d 20 1 (2 d Cir . 1950) . 32. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S . 145 (1898) . 33. Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show Inc., 33 8 U.S . 912 (1950) . 34. Dal e Broder , Voir Dire Examinations: An Empirical Study, 3 8 So . Calif. L. Rev. 50 3 (1965) . 35. Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 33 8 U.S . 912 (1950) . 36. U.S. v. Leviton, 19 3 F.2 d 848 , at 85 7 (2 d Cir . 1951) . 37. Editor and Publisher, August 14,1965 , quoting Federal Judge William J. Neelon . 38. Ronal d L . Goldfarb , Public Information, Criminal Trials, and the Cause Celebre, NYU L . Rev. 81 0 (1961) . 39. Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (1951) . 40. Rideau v. Louisiana, 37 3 U.S . 723 (1963) . 41. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 38 4 U.S . 333 (1966) . 42. State v. Van Duyne, 4 3 N.J . 369 , 204 A.2 d 84 1 (1964) . 43. A discussio n o f thi s subjec t appeare d i n Alfre d Friendl y an d Ronal d L. Goldfarb , Legal Restraints on Crime News 14-1 6 (Freedo m o f Infor mation Cente r Repor t No . 185 , August 1967) . 44. Palko v. Connecticut, 30 2 U.S . 31 9 (1937) ; Schneider v. State, 30 8 U.S. 14 7 (1939) . 45. Jeremy Bentham , 1 The Rationale of Judicial Evidence 58 5 (Garland , 1978). 46. Edwar d Jenks , The Book of English Law 9 1 (Ohi o Universit y Press , 1937). 47. Sir Frederick Pollock, The Expansion of the Common Law 42 (Stevens and Sons , 1904) . 48. In re Oliver, 33 3 U.S . 257, a t 26 6 (1948) .

214 • Notes to Chapter 2 49. Si r Thomas Smith , De Republica Anglorum, b k 2, ch. 15 , at 79 , 101, 111 (Alsto n ed. , Cambridg e Universit y Press , 1972) . 50. Sir Matthew Hale , The History of the Common Law of England 343345 (Runningto n ed. , Henr y Butterworth , 6t h ed. , 1820) . 51. Blackstone , 3 Commentaries 375 . 52. Ma x Radin , The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temple L.Q . 38 8 (1932) . 53. Ibid . 54. Francis X. Busch, 1 Law and Tactics injury Trials 2-15 (encyclopedi c ed., Bobbs-Merrill , 1959) ; Charle s T . Coleman , Historical Sketch of Trial by fury, 4 0 Can . L.T . 73 2 (1920) . 55. Se e generall y Willia m S . Hold s worth, 1 A History of English Law 312-327, 332-33 6 (7t h rev . ed. , 1956) ; Smith , De Republica Anglorum; 1 Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (For d ed. , 1904) . 56. Si r Joh n Vaugha n 135 , Bushell' s case , 12 4 Eng . Rep . 100 6 (C.P . 1677). 57. Trial of John Lilburne, 4 How. St . Tr. 1270 , 127 4 (1649) , cited in In re Oliver a t 266 . 58. Earl of Shaftesbury's Trial, 8 How. St . Tr. 759 , a t 771-77 4 (1681) , cited i n Phili p B . Kurland an d Ralp h Lerner , eds. , 5 The founder's Constitution 24 7 (Universit y o f Chicag o Press , 1987) . 59. Radin , The Right to a Public Trial 384. 60. The Suprem e Cour t ha s also stated: "In ligh t of this history, it is most doubtful tha t th e traditio n o f publicit y wa s eve r associate d wit h th e right s of the accused. The practice o f conducting the trial in public was established as a featur e o f Englis h justic e lon g befor e th e defendan t wa s afforde d eve n the mos t rudimentar y rights. " Gannett Co. Inc. v. DePasquale, 44 3 U.S . 442 (1979) . 61. Joe l Prentis s Bishop , 2 New Criminal Procedure, or New Commentaries on the Law of Pleadings and Evidence and the Practice in Criminal Cases 76S (T . H. Flood , 1913) . 62. Thoma s M . Cooley , A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations 31 2 (Little, Brown, 1972) . 63. 1 Journals of the Continental Congress at 69 . 64. In re Oliver, 33 3 U.S. 257, at 26 6 (1948) . 65. E.g. , State v. Copp, 1 5 N.H. 212 (1844) ; E.W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton, 100 Ohi o App . 157 , 12 5 N.E.2d 89 6 (1955) . 66. Herman Ames , The Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States during the First Century of Its History 18 3 (B. Franklin, 1970). 67. Durin g th e firs t sessio n o f th e Firs t Congress , on June 8 , 1789 , Mad-

Notes to Chapter 2 • 215 ison state d tha t h e ha d a se t o f amendment s tha t h e wante d t o introduce . He had "stron g hope s [tha t the Amendments] will meet with the unanimou s approbation o f thi s House , afte r th e fulles t discussio n an d mos t seriou s regard." Ibid , (citin g 1 Annals of Congress 424-450). 68. 1 Annals of Congress 756. 69. The House of Representatives adopted seventee n proposals; the Senate rejected tw o and consolidated th e number to twelve. These twelve were later accepted b y th e House ; te n wer e subsequentl y ratifie d b y th e states . Se e generally Ames , The Proposed Amendments a t 184-185 . 70. The Senat e debates were not reporte d a t that time . Bernard Schwartz , 5 The Roots of the Bill of Rights 98 4 (Chelse a House , 1980) . 71. Wesle y Fran k Craven , New Jersey and the English Colonization of North America 64-6 5 (Va n Nostrand , 1964) . 72. Willia m Pen n i s ofte n cite d a s th e autho r o f th e Concession s (se e Edwin P . Tanner , The Province of New Jersey 1664-1738 11 3 [Columbi a University Press , 1908] ; and Richar d L . Perry, ed., Sources of Our Liberties 182 [America n Ba r Foundation , 1978] , although othe r historian s hol d oth erwise ("Bu t ther e i s jus t a s goo d reaso n fo r attributin g th e authorshi p t o Edward Byllinge , . . . who seems to have made comparable proposals for the government o f England i n a pamphlet published a s far bac k as 1659. " [Craven, New Jersey and the English Colonization of North America 69-70]) . 73. Th e Pennsylvani a Declaratio n o f Right s o f 177 6 (cite d i n Schwartz , Roots of the Bill of Rights 265) . 74. In re Oliver, 33 3 U.S. 257, at 27 0 (1948) . 75. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 448 U.S. 566, a t 57 0 (1980) . 76. Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 44 3 U.S . 368 (1979) . 77. Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 448 U.S. 554 (1980) . 78. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S . 596 (1982) . 79. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S . 39 (1984) . 80. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 47 8 U.S . 1 (1986) . 81. Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 44 3 U.S . 368 , a t 382 , 383 , 40 5 (1979). 82. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 448 U.S. 554, a t 569, 571 , 572 (1980) . 83. Craig v. Harney, 33 1 U.S. 367, a t 37 4 (1947) .

216 • Notes to Chapter 3 84. Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S . 331 (1946) . 85. Branzburg v. Hayes, 40 8 U.S . 665, a t 68 1 (1972) . 86. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, at 45 , 46 (1984) . 87. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 47 8 U.S . 1 , at 27 , 28 (1986) . 88. The Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court, Oregon, 92 0 F.2d, 146 2 (1990) . 89. Caribbean International News Corp. v. Puerto Rico, 50 8 U.S . 14 7 (1993). 90. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 47 8 U.S . 1 , at 1 4 (1986) . 91. The Times Mirror Co. and The Copley Press and KCST-TV v. United States, 87 3 F.2 d 1210 , at 121 3 (9t h Cir. 1988) . 92. U.S. v. Hernandez, 60 8 F.2 d 74 1 (9t h Cir. 1979) ; U.S. v. Eisner, 533 F.2d 98 7 (6t h Cir . 1976) . 93. Latimore v. Sieloff, 56 1 F.2d 69 1 (7t h Cir . 1977) ; Geise v. U.S., 262 F.2d 15 1 (9t h Cir. 1958) ; U.S. v. Sherlock, 86 5 F.2d 106 9 (9t h Cir . 1988) . 94. U.S. v. Aker, 54 2 F.2 d 77 0 (9t h Cir. 1976) . 95. U.S. v. Northrop Corp., 74 6 F . Supp . 100 2 (Dist . Ct . Calif. , CD , 1990). 96. U.S. v. Broussard, 767 F . Supp. 154 5 (Dist . Ct . D . Oregon , 1991) . 97. Associated Press and Los Angeles Herald Examiner v. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 70 5 F.2 d 1143 , a t 114 5 (9t h Cir. , 1983); Seattle Times Co. and Hearst Corporation v. U.S. District Court, Western District, Washington, 84 5 F.2 d 151 3 (9t h Cir. 1988) . 98. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 42 7 U.S. 539, at 55 3 (1976) . 99. Loi s Forer , A Free Press and a Fair Trial, 3 9 A.B.A . J. 800 , a t 80 3 (1953). 100. In re Oliver, 33 3 U.S. 257 (1948) . NOTES T O CHAPTE R3

1. Estes v. State of Texas, 38 1 U.S. 532 (1965) . 2. Ibid. , 583. 3. Ibid. , 614 . 4. Correspondenc e wit h th e author , Ma y 5 , 1997 . 5. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, 34 7 Souther n 2d . 404 (1977) . Se e als o Report of Post-Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc., to Supreme Court of Florida, Cas e #46,83 5 i n it s Petitio n t o adop t th e ne w Florida Rul e fo r a good histor y o f th e prevailin g rules .

Notes to Chapter 3 • 217 6. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, 37 0 Souther n 2d . 764 (1979) . 7. Chandler v. State of Florida, 449 U.S . 560 (1981) . 8. Al l reference s t o thi s argumen t befor e th e Suprem e Cour t ar e take n from th e transcrip t o f proceeding s o n Novembe r 12 , 1980 , i n Chandler v. State of Florida #79-1260. Joe l Hirschhor n argue d fo r th e appellants , an d Attorney Genera l Jim Smit h an d Assistan t Attorne y Genera l Calvi n Fo x ar gued fo r th e Stat e o f Florida . The recor d i s available i n the U.S . Archives. 9. Cameras in the Courtroom —A Two-Year Review in the State of Washington, a Project of the Washington State Superior Court Judges' Association Committee on Courts and Community Octobe r 11 , 1978, pp. 3 , 4. 10. Radi o an d Televisio n New s Director s Associatio n (RTNDA) , News Media Coverage of judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A Survey of the States, January 1996 , at A-84 . 11. Judicial Planning Coordination Unit, A Sample Survey of the Attitudes of Individuals Associated with Trials Involving Media and Still Photography Coverage in Selected Florida Courts between July 5, 1977, and June 30, 1978, a t 16 . 12. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-23-A-24 . 13. Report of the Supreme Court Committee to Monitor and Evaluate the Use of Audio and Visual Equipment in the Courtroom, an Order of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Apri l 1 , 1979 , at 73 . 14. Report of the Supreme Court Committee on the Desirability of Modifying or Dropping Rule 14, August 18 , 1970 . 15. Craig v. Harney, 33 1 U.S . 367, at 37 4 (1947) . 16. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-86 . 17. The Advisory Committee to Oversee the Experimental Use of Cameras and Recording Equipment in the Courtrooms to the Supreme Judicial Court, State of Massachusetts, Jul y 16 , 1982 , at 7 . 18. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-44-A-45 . 19. Report of the Minnesota Advisory Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom to the Supreme Court, January 11 , 1982, at 18 . 20. Ro b Raker , Cameras and Recorders in Arizona's Trial Courts: An Evaluation of the Experiment, Ma y 1983 . 21. RTNDA , News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-8-A-9 . 22. Report on the Proposed Modification of the Maryland Canons of

218 • Notes to Chapter 3 Judicial Ethics to Permit Extended Media Coverage of Court Proceedings, submitted by the Public Awareness Committee of the Maryland Judicial Conference, April 29 , 1980 , at 20-21 , 23 . 23. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-42 . 24. Final Report of the Hawaii State Bar Association Committee on (< Cameras in the Courtroom" Hawai i Ba r Journal (1982) . 25. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-26 . 26. Advisor y Commission o n Camera s i n th e Courtroom , Nevada , Final Statistical Report: Cameras in the Courtroom in Nevada, Ma y 7 , 1981 , at 1 . 27. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-53 . 28. Alaska Judicial Council , News Cameras in the Alaska Courts: Assessing the Impact, Januar y 1988 . 29. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-6 . 30. Report of the Supreme Court of Virginia to the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia Concerning Electronic Media and Still Photography in the Courts, Decembe r 29 , 1989 . 31. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-82 . 32. Stat e o f Main e Suprem e Court , Report of the Special Advisory Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom to the Supreme Judicial Court regarding the Experimental Photographic and Electronic Coverage of Trial Courts in Portland and Bangor, Novembe r 30 , 1993 , at 13 , 38. 33. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones, A-41 . 34. Report of the Chief Administrative Judge to the New York Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Judge on the Effects of Audio-Visual Coverage on the Conduct of Judicial Proceedings, Honorable Albert M. Rosenblatt, March 1989 . 35. The Intrusion of Cameras in New York's Criminal Courts: A Report by the Public Defense Backup Center, May 12 , 1989 , at 23. 36. Paul a Wade , "Suprem e Cour t Rule s Camera s Ca n Rol l durin g Ten nessee Trials, " Commercial Appeal, Decembe r 15 , 1995 ; Rebecc a Ferrar , "Cameras Ge t Tria l Run, " News Sentinel, December 15 , 1995. 37. Tennessee Rule s of Court , Rule 10 , Code o f Judicial Conduct , Cano n 3A (7)(A) , and Medi a Guidelines .

Notes to Chapter 3 • 219 38. Scot t Olson , "Camera s i n the Courtroom, " Indiana Lawyer , Septem ber 18-Octobe r 1 , 1996 . 39. RTNDA, News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A Survey of the States, January 1 , 1995 . 40. Rhod e Island , Massachusetts , Nebraska , Minnesota , California , an d Hawaii provid e som e televise d coverag e o f governmen t proceedings , bu t only Californi a include s limited coverag e o f it s suprem e court . 41. Washingto n Publi c Affairs Network , Planning Report, 1993 , at 19 . 42. Moll y Treadwa y Johnso n an d Caro l Krafka , Federal Judicial Center, Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Appeals, No vember 4 , 1993 , at 13 , 30. 43. Moll y Treadwa y Johnson , Electronic Media Coverage of Courtroom Proceedings: Effects on Witnesses and Jurors: Supplemental Report of the Federal Judicial Center, January 18 , 1994 , a t Appendix , 1 , note 1 . 44. Ibid. , passim . 45. Linda Greenhouse, "U.S. Judges to Decide on Cameras in the Courts," New York Times, Septembe r 18 , 1994 , 2 6 46. Lind a Greenhouse , "Disdainin g a Soundbite , Federa l Judge s Banis h TV," New York Times, Septembe r 25 , 1994 , sec . 4, 4 . 47. Business Wire, Septembe r 21 , 1994. 48. Marisol v. Giuliani, 9 5 Civ . 10533 , 929 F.Sup p 660 , 66 2 (1996) . 49. Editorial , New York Times, Marc h 9 , 1996 . 50. Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, et al., In Re: Courtroom Television Network, Opinio n 9 6 Civ . 0003 (RWS) , April 29 , 1996 , at 23. 51. 2 8 U.S.C . 2071(a) 1988 . 52. Jonatha n Grener , "Wh o Rules , Whic h Rules? " Legal Times, Marc h 11, 1996 , 18. 53. Sigmon v. Parker, Chapin, Flattau and Klimpl, S.D.N.Y. , No . 93 Civ. 7123 (PKL) . 54. Hamilton v. ACCU-TEK, U.S . Dist . Ct . Easter n District , No . 95 , CV0049, Octobe r 18 , 1996 . 55. New s Release , Administrativ e Offic e o f th e U.S . Courts , Marc h 12 , 1996. 56. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jun e 18 , 1996 . 57. New s Release , American Judicature Societ y (n o date) , 129 . 58. Greenhouse , "Disdainin g a Soundbite, " 4. 59. "Camera s i n Internationa l Courtroom s Project, " unpublishe d Cour t TV memorandum .

220 • Notes to Chapter 4 NOTES T O CHAPTE R 4

1. Reported i n Petition of Post-New sweek Stations, Florida, 370 Southern Reporter 2 d 764 , at 76 9 (1979) . 2. Rosentha l Marke t Resources , Report of Court TV Questionnaire, Jul y 25, 1995 . 3. Georg e McCal l an d J . L . Simmons , Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader 4 2 (Addison-Wesley , 1969) . 4. Bufor d J . Junker , Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences (University o f Chicago Press , 1960) . 5. Alan E . Kadzin, "Observe r Effects : Reactivit y o f Direct Observations, " in D . P . Hartman , ed. , Using Observers to Study Behavior (Jossey-Bass , 1982), 5 . 6. Jeffrey Roth , The Disturbed Subject: Epistemological and Ethical Implications of Reactivity in Videotape Research (Pete r Lange , 1990) . 7. Derek Freeman , Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Harvar d Universit y Press , 1983) . 8. Kadzin, "Observe r Effects. " 9. Ala n E . Kadzin , "Direc t Observation s a s Unobtrusiv e Measure s i n Treatment Evaluations, " in Lee Sechrest, ed., Unobtrusive Measurement Today (Jossey-Bass , 1979) . 10. Rosemar y O . Nelson , Davi d P . Lipinsky , an d Joh n L . Black , The Effects of Expectancy on the Reactivity of Self-Recording, 3 Behavior Ther apy 33 7 (1975) . 11. Bettyan n Kevles , Naked to the Bone (Rutger s University Press, 1997). 12. S . L. Foster an d J . D . Cone , Current Issues in Direct Observation, 2 Behavioral Assessmen t 31 3 (1980) . 13. Roth , The Disturbed Subject 38 , 86. 14. McCall an d Simmons , Issues in Participant Observation 90-94 . 15. John Gribbon , In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality (Bantam , 1984) , p. 103 . 16. Banes h Hoffamen, The Strange Story of the Quantum (Dove , 1959) . 17. J. C . Polkinhorne, The Quantum World 4 4 (Longman , 1984) . 18. Fre d Ala n Wolf , Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists (Harpe r Sc Row, 1981) , 2. 19. Davi d Charle s Cassidy , Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg (W . H. Freeman , 1942) , 10 6 20. Correspondenc e wit h Professo r Danie l Kevles , Californi a Institut e of Technology.

Notes to Chapter 4 • 221 21. Gribbon , In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, 1-4 . 22. Danie l J. Kevles , The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America 159-16 8 (Harvar d Universit y Press , 1987) . 23. Polkinhorne , The Quantum World 29 . 24. Books on this experiment wer e written b y the original social scientists who conducte d th e studies . Se e Elto n Mayo , The Social Problems of an Industrialized Civilization (Arn o Press , 1977) ; William J. Dickso n an d F . J. Roethlisberger, Counseling in an Organization: A Sequel to the Hawthorne Researches (Howar d University , Divisio n o f Research , Graduat e Schoo l o f Business Administration, 1966) ; F. J. Roethlisberger an d William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Co,, Hawthorne Works, Chicago (Harvar d University Press , 1939 ; rev. ed. 1967) . 25. H . Mcllvain e Parsons , What Caused the Hawthorne Effect, 1 0 Ad ministration an d Societ y 25 9 (November 1978) . 26. H . Mcllvain e Parsons , "Wha t Happene d a t Hawthorne? " Science, March 8 , 1974 , 922. 27. G . D . Gottfredson , The Hawthorne Misunderstanding (unpublishe d manuscript, 1995) . 28. Free Speech vs. the Law of Fair Trial in the English and American Law of Contempt by Publication, 1 7 U. Chi . L. Rev. 540 , 55 2 (1950) . 29. Morri s Gillmor e Caldwell , Sensational News in the Modern Metropolitan Newspapers, 2 3 J. Crim. L., Criminology, an d Pol. Sci. 191, at 198 199, 20 2 (1932) . 30. Publicity Scandals Demand Exercise of Authority, 2 0 J . Am . Jud . Society 8 2 (1936) . 31. Pau l Lazarsfeld , Radio and the Printed Page 332 (Duell , Sloan , an d Pearce, 1940) . 32. Ibid. , 332 . 33. Se e Dorwi n Cartwright , Some Principles of Mass Persuasion, 2 Hu man Relation s 253 , at 25 7 (1949) ; Millspaugh, "Tria l b y Mass Media, " i n Daniel Katz , ed., Public Opinion and Propaganda 113-11 4 (1954) . 34. Darrel l Hun t study , reporte d i n th e Los Angeles Times, Octobe r 9 , 1995, p . S9. 35. Erwi n Hovland , "Effect s o f th e Mas s Medi a o f Communication, " i n Gardner Lindzey , ed. , 2 The Handbook of Social Psychology 1062 , 107 1 (Addison-Wesley, 1954) . 36. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S . 181 (1952) . 37. Ibid. , 201.

222 • Notes to Chapter 4 38. Joh n Monaha n an d Lauren s Walker , Judicial Use of Social Science Research, 1 5 La w an d Huma n Behavio r 57 1 (1991) , citing Edmon d Cahn , Jurisprudence, 3 0 N.Y.U . L . Rev . 15 0 (1955) ; Pau l Giannelli , The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States a Half-Century Later, 8 0 Columbi a L . Rev. 119 7 (1989) . 39. Kermit Netteburg , Does Research Support the Estes Ban on Cameras in the Courtroom? 6 3 Judicature 47 1 (1980) . 40. Kar l P . Warden, Canon 35: Is There Room for Objectivity? 4 Washburn L . J. 21 1 (1965) . 41. Ber t Prye r e t al. , The Florida Experiment: An Analysis of On-TheScene Responses to Cameras in the Courtroom, 4 5 Souther n Speec h Communication Journa l 12 , 21, 26 (1979) . 42. Janet Swi m and Eugene Borgida, Public Opinion on the Psychological and Legal Aspects of Televising Rape Trials, 17 J. Applie d Socia l Psych . 507, a t 51 5 (1987) . 43. Laraly n M . Sasaki , Electronic Media Access to Federal Courtrooms: A Judicial Response, 2 3 U . Mich . J . La w Refor m 769 , a t 769-770 , 793 , 794-796 (1990) . 44. William J. Bowers and Margaret Vandiver, Cameras in the Courtroom Make New Yorkers Reluctant to Testify, Colleg e of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University , Boston, Mass., April 23, 1991, 1. 45. Anto n Valukas , William A . Von Hoen e Jr., Liz a M . Murphy , "Cam eras in the Courtroom : An Overview," Communications Lawyer, Fal l 1995, 18. 46. Moll y Treadwa y Johnson an d Caro l Krafka , Federal Judicial Center, Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings 7 (1994) . 47. S . L. Alexander, "Mischievous Potentialities'': A Case Study of Courtroom Camera Guidelines, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Florida, 1989 31 3 (Ph.D. dissertation, University o f Florida , 1990) . 48. Susann a Barber , News Cameras in the Courtroom: A Free Press-Fair Trial Debate 8 7 (Ablex , 1987) . 49. Pau l Thaler , The Impact of the Television Camera on Courtroom Participants: A Case Study of the Joel Steinberg Murder Trial 34-35 (Ph.D . dissertation, New Yor k University , 1990) . 50. Barber , News Cameras in the Courtroom 87 . 51. Ibid. , 9 4 (quotin g Joe l Hirschhorn , Cameras in the Courtroom? No, 7 Barriste r 56). 52. Dan Slate r an d Valerie Hans, Methodological Issues in the Evaluation

Notes to Chapter 4 • 223 of "Experiments" with Cameras in the Courts, 3 0 Communicatio n Quar terly 4 (Fal l 1982 ) a t 378 . 53. Royc e A . Singleton , Bruc e Straits , an d Margare t Straits , Approaches to Social Research 18 1 (Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1993) . 54. Geral d R . Mille r an d Norma n E . Fontes, Videotape on Trial: A View from the fury Box 4 1 (Sag e Publications , 1979) , (quotin g E . F . Lindquist , Design Analysis of Experiments in Psychology and Education 6 [Houghto n Mifflin, 1953]) . 55. Susann a Barber , The Problem of Prejudice: A New Approach to Assessing the Impact of Courtroom Cameras, 66 Judicature 25 0 (1983) . 56. Ibid. , 249 . 57. Barber , News Cameras in the Courtroom, 90 . 58. S . J. Brakel , Videotape in Trial Proceedings: A Technological Obsession? 61 A.B.A.J. 95 8 (1975) . 59. Mille r an d Fontes , Videotape on Trial 45-46. 60. Ralph Frasca, Estimating the Occurrence of Trials Prejudiced by Press Coverage, 72 Judicature, a t 162 , 169 , 250-254 (1988) . 61. Ibid. , 254 . 62. James L . Hoyt, Courtroom Coverage: The Effects of Being Televised, 24 Journal o f Broadcastin g 487 , a t 490 , 494-49 5 (1977) . 63. Slate r an d Hans , Methodological Issues 378. 64. Barber , News Cameras in the Courtroom 248 . 65. Ernes t H . Shor t an d Associates , Inc. , Evaluation of California's Experiment with Extended Media Coverage of Courts, 1981 , 6, 114, 119,121 , 123. 66. Donald Lewi s Shores, Jr., The Effects of Courtroom Cameras on Verbal Behavior: An Analysis of Simulated Trial Witness Testimony in Courtrooms Using Television Cameras viii-ix, 84-85 , 92-9 3 (Ph.D . dissertation , University o f Florida , Augus t 1981) . 67. Stev e Rober t Pasternack , The Effects of Perceived Community Pressure on Simulated Juror Guilt Attributions: A Study iv , 48 (Ph.D . disserta tion, University o f Tennessee , Knoxville, December 1982) . 68. Sau l M . Kassin , TV Cameras, Public Self-Consciousness, and Mock Juror Performance, 2 0 Journa l o f Experimenta l Socia l Psycholog y 336 , a t 337-339, 347 (1984), (citing J. D. Harris, Habituatory Response Decrement in the Intact Organism, 4 0 Psychologica l Bulleti n 385 , citin g A . H . Buss , Self Consciousness and Social Anxiety [Freeman , 1980]) . 69. Ann a R . Paddon , Television Coverage of Criminal Trials with Cam-

224 • Notes to Chapter 5 eras and Microphones: A Laboratory Experiment of Audience Effects v i (Ph.D. dissertation, Universit y o f Tennessee , Knoxville, 1985) . 70. Eugene Borgida, Kenneth G . Debono, and Le e A. Buckman, Cameras in the Courtroom: The Effects of Media Coverage on Witness Testimony and Juror Perceptions, 1 4 La w an d Huma n Behavior , a t 505-50 7 (1990) . 71. Alan Punches, The Cognitive Effects of Camera Presence on the Recall of Testimony in a Simulated Courtroom Setting iv , 55, 56, (Ph.D . dissertation, Colorad o Stat e University, For t Collins , 1991) . 72. Valukas, Von Hoene, and Murphy, "Camera s in the Courtroom," 21. 73. Elizabet h M . Hodgkins , Throwing Open a Window on the Nation's Courts by Lifting the Ban on Federal Courtroom Television, Kansas Journal of La w an d Publi c Polic y 8 9 (Sprin g 1995) . NOTES T O CHAPTE R5

1. Kavanaugh v. Courtroom Television Network, 9 1 Civ . 7959 (RPP) , Declaration o f Steve n Brill , March 3 , 1992 , at 30 . 2. This chapter include s extensive quote s from Steve n Brill, Jeff Ballabon , Fred Graham , an d Jo e Russin . Al l ar e base d o n tape d conversation s wit h them i n thei r office s i n Ne w Yor k Cit y an d th e author' s offic e i n Washington, D.C . 3. Ji m Morrison , "La w o f th e Land, " Sprint Magazine, Southwest Airlines, March 1996 , p . 11 ; Jeff Goodwell , "Steve n Bril l an d Hi s Cour t TV , Delivering Justice i n th e Electroni c Frontier, " Wired, March 1995 , 116 . 4. 1 3 Executive Female , 50 (1990) . 5. John Lippman , "Tw o Cabl e Cour t Channel s ar e Expecte d t o Merge, " Los Angeles Times, Novembe r 21 , 1990, D2. 6. Ja y Sharbutt , "Tw o Cabl e Channel s Offe r a Rea l Liv e Loo k a t Ou r Legal System, " Chicago Tribune, Novembe r 22 , 1990 , 23D. 7. Arthu r S . Hayes, "Tw o Cour t T V Channel s Planne d a s Critic s As k If One's To o Many, " Wall Street Journal, January 30 , 1990 , Bl . 8. Paul Marcotte, Courts on Cable, 76 American Ba r Association Journal 19 (Apri l 1990) . 9. Stepha n McClellan , "I n Court, " Broadcasting and Cable, Ma y 28 , 1990, 38. 10. Fo r a n analysi s o f Cour t TV , se e Davi d Harris , The Appearance of Justice, 3 5 Arizon a La w Revie w 785 , at 797-80 7 (1993) . 11. TC I repor t o n file with th e author . 12. John Lippman , "We , the Jury," Los Angeles Times, June 30 , 1991.

Notes to Chapter 5 • 225 13. Kavanaugh v. Courtroom Television Network, 9 1 Civ . 7959, Decla ration o f Steve n Brill , March 3 , 1992 . 14. Ski p Wollenberg , "Propose d Courtroo m Channel s Pla n t o Merge, " A.P., November 21 , 1990. 15. Mar k Landler , "Wil l Viewer s B e Shouting: I Want M y Cour t TV? " Business Week, Jun e 24 , 1991. 16. Steve n Brill , "Th e Dram a o f Justice," American Lawyer, July-Augus t 1990. 17. Steve n Brill , "Camera s i n th e Court s an d Origina l Intent, " Legal Times, January 22 , 1996 , 24. 18. Brill , "The Dram a o f Justice." 19. Court TV Viewers' Guide (1992) . 20. Morrison , "La w o f th e Land, " 109 . 21. Becaus e i t i s a privat e company , th e financial statu s o f Cour t T V cannot b e corroborated . 22. Correspondenc e wit h th e author . 23. Davi d Shaw , "Di d th e Medi a Overfee d a Starvin g Public? " Los Angeles Times, Octobe r 9 , 1995 , S10. 24. Editorial , Broadcasting and Cable, February 6 , 1995 , 74. 25. Harris , The Appearance of justice 785 . 26. Correspondenc e wit h th e author . 27. "Mone y Talks , Client s Walk," Newsweek, Apri l 17 , 1995 , 32. 28. Jeffrey Toobin , The People v. O.J. Simpson (Rando m House , 1996) . 29. Quote d i n Davi d Shaw , "Th e Simpso n Legacy, " Los Angeles Times, October 9 , 1995 , SI. 30. Andy Meisler, "Bochco Tests America's New Legal Savvy," New York Times, Octobe r 1 , 1995 , H33. 31. Se e Kavanaugh v. Courtroom Television Network, 9 1 Civ . 795 9 (RPP), Declaration of Steven Brill, March 3, 1992, at 24-28, listing examples of thi s coverage . 32. Ala n Dershowitz , "T V Trial s Thriv e o n Sensationalism " (editorial) , Boston Herald, February 10 , 1992 . 33. Harris , The Appearance of Justice 826 , 827 . 34. In the aftermath o f Brill's exclusion from Cour t TV's future, a n article appeared speculatin g whether i n order t o boos t ratings Time-Warner woul d diminish the standards set by Brill. Intracorporate memos surfaced disclosin g that durin g his tenure Bril l had fough t of f attempt s b y Time-Warner (whic h denied the accurac y o f the claims) t o interfere wit h editorial positions of the American Lawyer, Corporate Control Alert, an d Cour t TV . Time-Warne r

226 • Notes to Chapter 6 countered wit h th e complain t tha t Cour t T V wa s no t a s profitabl e a s Bril l claimed, an d wasn' t expecte d t o sho w a positiv e cas h flow unti l lat e 199 8 or 1999 . Sta y tuned . Jennet Conant , "Don' t Mes s with Stev e Brill," Vanity Fair, August 1997 , 62.

NOTES T O CHAPTE R6

1. 3 8 Federa l Rule s an d Decision s 435 , at 435 , 436 (1965) . 2. Chie f Justic e Moyer, "Stat e o f th e Judiciary" speech , Fal l 1995 . 3. Kennet h Cul p Davis , 1 Administrative Law Treatise 441 (2 d edition , K. C . Davis, 1978) ; Kenneth F . Warren, Administrative Laws in the American Political System 18 6 (West , 1982) . 4. Hon. Elliott H . Levitas, U.S. Representative (Georgia), Statement to Ad Hoc Subcommitte e o n Broadcastin g o f Hous e Rule s Committee , 94t h Con gress, First Session , 42. 5. Hon . B . F. Sisk , U.S . Representativ e (California) , Statemen t t o Committee o n Rules , 94th Congress , Secon d Session , March 26 , 1976 , 9 . 6. Lawrenc e Friedman , Total Justice 159 7 (Russel l Sag e Foundation , 1985). 7. Jerome Frank , Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American justice (Princeton Universit y Press , 1949) ; se e als o Davi d Harris , The Appearance of Justice 3 5 Arizon a La w Revie w 785 , at 794-79 6 (1993) . 8. Susan Estrich , "Prim e Time fo r Ti m McVeigh," The Washington Post, September 20 , 1996 , A23. 9. A.P. v. U.S., 326 U.S . 1, at 2 0 (1945) . 10. Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50, at 5 1 (1951) . 11. Ibid. , 53. 12. Ronal d Goldfarb , The Contempt Power xvii-x x (Anchor , 1971) . 13. Application o f U.S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 36 1 F . Supp. 127 0 (U.S . Dist. Ct. , 1973) . 14. Walte r Goodman , "Cour t TV : Cas e o f th e Curiou s Witness, " New York Times, July 21 , 1997, B5. 15. Cary n James, "Televisio n Review, " New York Times, Septembe r 24 , 1996, 47. 16. Loi s G . Forer , " A Fre e Pres s an d a Fai r Trial, " 3 9 American Bar Association Journal 800 , 84 5 (1953) . 17. Craig v. Harney, 33 1 U.S. 367, at 37 6 (1947) . 18. Ralp h Frasca , "Estimatin g th e Occurrenc e o f Trial s Prejudice d b y Press Coverage, " 72 Judicature 3 , at 162 , 16 9 (October-Novembe r 1988) .

Notes to Chapter 6 • 227 19. Jeffre y Abramson , We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (Basi c Books, 1994) , Appendix . 20. Harris , The Appearance of Justice 821-822 . 21. Judg e J . Skell y Wright , Fair Trial-Free Tress, 3 8 F.R.D . 435 , a t 43 7 (1966). 22. Yal e Kamisar , Essays in Law and Policy xii (Universit y o f Michiga n Press, 1980) ; Yale Kamisar, Fre d Inbau , Thurma n Arnold , Criminal Justice in Our Time 19-2 1 (Universit y Pres s o f Virginia , 1965) . 23. Jessic a Seigel , "Gettin g Civi l wit h O.J., " Buzz, December-Januar y 1997, 57-58 . 24. Care y Goldberg , "Simpso n Cas e Weariness Mixe s with Fascination, " New York Times, Septembe r 20 , 1996 , A18. 25. Care y Goldberg , "New , Likel y Tauter , Simpso n Tria l Opens, " New York Times, Septembe r 18 , 1996 , A14. 26. Davi d A . Anderson , Democracy and the Demystification of Courts: An Essay, 1 4 Revie w o f Litigation , 3 , 627, at 64 1 (1995) . 27. David A . Harris, The Appearance of Justice, 3 5 Arizona La w Review 785, 79 4 (1993) . 28. Anderson , Democracy and the Demystification of Courts 642 , 644 . 29. Judge Stephe n Reinhardt , Symposium: The Sound of the Gavel: Perspectives on Judicial Speech and the Open Judiciary, 2 8 Loyol a o f Lo s Angeles L. Rev. 805 , at 81 2 (Apri l 1 , 1995) . 30. Ibid . 31. Hearing s befor e th e U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee , 99th Congress , 2d session , July 29-31 , Augus t 1 , 1986 , 179 . 32. Paul J. Martinek, "Eavesdroppin g o n the Court," Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Novembe r 8 , 1993 . 33. Michae l G . Radigan , "Ma y I t Pleas e th e Court, " New York Law Journal, Octobe r 5 , 1993 , 2. 34. Obituary , New York Times, Decembe r 1 , 1995 , B10. 35. Speec h a t th e Librar y o f Congress , April 10 , 1997 . 36. The o Wilson , Headline Justice: Inside the Courtroom: The Country's Most Controversial Trials 11 (Thunder' s Mout h Press , 1997) . 37. Correspondenc e wit h th e author . 38. Crowley v. Pulsifer, 13 7 Mass 392 , a t 39 4 (1884) . 39. Patterson v. Colorado, 20 5 U.S . 454, a t 46 2 (1907) . 40. Steve n Brill , "Camera s i n th e Court s an d Origina l Intent, " Legal Times, January 22 , 1996 , 48. 41. Russel l Wiggins , The Public's Right to Public Trial, 1 9 F.R.D. 25, at 90, 9 1 (1925) .

228 • Notes to Chapter 6 42. Pau l Thaler , The Watchful Eye xx i (Praeger , 1994) . 43. Adria n Coronauer , The First Annual Symposium on Media and the Law: Free Speech v. Fair Trial, Comments of Judge Lawrence L. Pierson, 41 So . Dakota L . Rev. 79, a t 12 5 (1995) . 44. Georg e Gerbner , Trial by Television, 6 3 Judicature 11 7 (April 1980) . 45. Westmoreland v. C.B.S., Inc., 59 6 F . Supp. 116 6 (1984) . 46. Frederi c Lederer , Evolution in Courtroom Technology Presents Opportunity and Risk, Trial , November 1994 , p. 8 . 47. Marshal l McLuhan , Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man 7 (McGraw-Hill, 1965) . 48. Se e Lawrence M . Friedman , Law, Lawyers and Popular Culture, 9 8 Yale L . J. 157 9 (1989) . 49. Don Hardenbergh, The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide to Court Facilities, National Cente r fo r Stat e Court s Publicatio n R-131 , Wil liamsburg, Va. (1991) ; see also American Ba r Association, Twenty Years of Courthouse Design (1993 ) an d American Ba r Association an d American Institute o f Architects , The American Courthouse: Planning and Design for the Judicial Process, Institute fo r Continuin g Education , An n Arbor , Mich . (1973). 50. Hardenbergh , The Courthouse 52 . 51. Mar k Curriden , Courtroom of the Future Is Here, 2 2 A.B.A. J. 2 2 (January 1995) . 52. Jon Katz , "Ol d Media , Ne w Medi a an d a Middl e Way, " New York Times, Januar y 19 , 1997 , H43. 53. 4 2 US C 10608 , S . 235 , Publi c La w 104-132 , 11 0 Stat . 1246 , Apri l 24, 1996 . 54. Correspondenc e wit h th e author . 55. Thoma s E . Baker, C-SPAN: A Guide for Law Professors, 40 Journal of Lega l Educatio n 295-30 5 (Septembe r 1990) . 56. B . Lamb an d Staff , C-SPAN: America's Town Hall xix (Washington , D.C., 1989) . 57. Ir a Reiner , "Camera s Kee p Justic e Syste m i n Focus, " National Law Journal, Octobe r 23 , 1995 , A23. 58. Raymon d Hernandez , "Alban y Debate s La w on Camera s in Courts, " New York Times, July 7 , 1997 , B4. 59. Howar d Rosenberg , "Th e Simpso n Verdicts , Valuable Lesson s of TV in Courtrooms, " Los Angeles Times, Octobe r 5 , 1995 , A7. 60. Pau l D . Carrington , Lette r t o th e Editor , New York Times, Octobe r 24, 1995 , editorial page .

Notes to Chapter 6 • 229 61. Reiner , "Camera s Kee p Justice Syste m i n Focus, " All. 61. And y Meisler, "Bochco Tests America's New Legal Savvy," New York Times, Octobe r 1 , 1995 , 433. 63. Malcol m W . Browne , Lette r t o th e Editor , New York Times, Decem ber 1995 , 2. 64. Christophe r Isherwood , Goodbye to Berlin 1 5 (Foli o Society , 1975) . 65. Janet Malcolm , "Th e Rea l Thing, " New York Review of Books, Jan uary 9 , 1997 , 12 . 66. Bil l Nichols, Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary 41-43 (Indian a Universit y Press , 1991) . 67. Joh n S . Dougla s an d Glen n P . Harnden , The Art of Technique: An Aesthetic Approach to Film and Video Production 7 (Ally n an d Bacon , 1996). 68. Care y Goldberg , "Scene s from a Trial," New York Times, Novembe r 27, 1996 , A18. 69. Nel l Henderson , "Th e Murder s Tha t Won' t Die, " Washington Post Book World, May 26 , 1996 , 1 . 70. Richar d N . Winfield , "Courtroo m Cameras : A Fina l Word, " NY. State Bar Journal, Februar y 1997 , 18. 71. Reinhardt , The Sound of the Gavel. 72. Judge Jerome Frank , Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice 2-3 (Princeto n Universit y Press , 1949) . 73. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 37 0 Souther n 2d . 764 , a t 781 (1979) . 74. Justice Lewi s Powel l use d th e phras e i n Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 43 5 U.S . 589 , a t 60 9 (1978) ; se e als o U.S. v. Hastings, 695 F.2d. 1278 , at 128 1 (11t h Cir . 1983) . 75. Westmoreland v. C.B.S., Inc., 151 F.2 d 16 , at 2 2 (2 d Cir. 1985 ) 76. Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, 92 3 F . Supp . 580 , a t 588 , 589. (U.S . Dist. Ct. , S.D. , 1996) . 77. Kell i L . Sage r an d Kare n N . Frederiksen , Televising the Judicial Branch: In Furtherance of the Public's First Amendment Rights, 6 9 So. Calif. L. Rev. 151 9 (1996) .

INDEX

Adoption cases , 73 , 8 1 Alabama: televise d trial s in , 6 0 Alaska: televise d trial s in , 72-7 3 American Ba r Association , 23-24 , 5 6 American Judicatur e Society , 93-9 4 American Lawyer, 126-27 , 128 , 13 6 American Lawye r Media , 125 , 128-2 9 Anderson, David , 165-66 Antiracketeering trials , 51-5 2 Appellate courts , 17 , 34 ; electroni c cover age in , 67-77 , 81-84 , 85 , 93-94 . See also Court s o f Appeal s Archive records , 84 , 95 , 145 , 167-68 , 17 9 Arizona: televise d trial s in , 6 9 Arizona Suprem e Court , 6 9 Artis, John, 171-7 2 Attorneys, 34 , 77 , 126 , 166 ; behavior , xix, 38-39 , 158 , 181 ; opinion o f tele vised trials , xix , 57 , 71 ; reaction t o elec tronic coverage , 66, 69 , 75 , 86 , 117 , 118; reactio n t o televise d trials , 65, 74 , 85,112

Bench an d ba r rules , 23-2 5 Bill o f Right s (English) , 4 1, 42 Bill o f Right s (U.S.) , 19 , 45-46, 47 , 55. See also Firs t Amendment ; Sixt h Amendment Bird, Ros e E. , 15 7 Bishop, Joel Prentiss , 4 4 Black, Hugo , xx , 18-19 , 22 , 57, 10 7 Blackstone, William , 2 1 , 42 Blue ribbo n juries , 3 5 Bochco, Stephen , 151 , 18 3 Bork, Robert , 16 8 Brandeis, Louis , 63 , 15 7 Brennan, William , 50 , 57 , 59-6 0 Brill, Cynthia , 12 8 Brill, Steve , 88 , 125-30 , 133 , 135-40 , 152, 153 , 17 4 Bryan, Willia m Jennings , 7- 8 Burger, Warren , 19 , 49, 51 , 52, 166-6 7 Burr, Aaro n (trials) , 3- 4 Bushell case , 43-4 4 Byllinge, Edward , 4 6

Back Channel (onlin e network) , 14 8 Ballabon, Jeff, 141 , 144, 150-51 , 152 , 162, 18 2 Beecher, Henr y Ward , 5-6

C-SPAN (cabl e network) , 167 , 173 , 17 9 Cable in the Classroom, 14 8 Cable television , 82-84 , 124 , 125 , 134 , 135, 136-37 . See also Cour t T V

231

232 • Index Cablevision System s Corporation , 134 , 137 California: televise d trial s in , 52 , 87 , 93 , 117-18, 13 8 California Suprem e Court , 5 2 Canada: televise d trial s in , 9 5 Canon o f Judicia l Ethics , xix , 24 , 85 , 15 5 Carter, Rubi n (Hurricane ) case , 170-7 2 Case Simulation Game (onlin e network) , 148 Case studies , 110-1 3 Chafee, Zechariah , 2 2 Challenges (jur y selection) , 30-3 1 Chandler v. Florida (1981) , 61-64 , 66, 85, 187 , 18 8 Change o f venue , 26 , 27 , 29-30 , 37 , 107 , 178 Chemerinsky, Erwin , 1- 2 Child custod y cases , 73 , 8 1 Child welfar e cases , 89-9 1 China: an d televise d trials , 9 5 Circuit courts , 54 , 85 , 91 , 92-9 3 Civil procedure , 90-91 , 92 , 93-9 4 Civil trials , 17 , 31 , 161 , 163, 164 , 181 ; electronic coverag e of , 60 , 65-66, 67 , 73, 86-87 ; media coverag e of , 3 , 5-6, 78, 12-13 , 70 , 150 , 151 , 184; rules fo r television coverage , 74 , 77 , 81 , 85, 8 9 91; televisio n coverag e of , 70 , 72 , 8 5 86, 89 , 92 , 110 , 141-43 , 150-5 2 Clark, Charles , 3 4 Clark, Tom , 10-11 , 37-40 , 57 , 58 , 122 , 158-59 Closed trials , 48 , 53 , 54, 72 . See also Pub lic trial s CNN (cabl e network) , 149 , 151 , 17 5 Coke, Si r Edward , 4 1 Colorado: televise d trial s in , 56 , 6 4 Commercialization o f trials , xix , 6-7, 58 , 84? 144-46 , 152 , 153 , 172-7 3 Commission o n Governmen t an d Mas s Communications, 2 2 Committee o n Audio-Visua l Coverag e o f Court Proceedings , 7 5 Common law , 23 , 26; an d publi c trials , 2 , 41-43, 47 , 4 9 Communist trial s (Ne w Yor k City) , 2 8 Community attitudes . See Publi c opinio n Concessions and Agreements of West New Jersey, 46-4 7

Conference o f Stat e Chie f Justices , 2 4 Congressional power , 2 5 Constitutional law , 62-63 , 95, 155 , 167 , 179 Constitutions. See Stat e constitutions ; United State s Constitutio n Constructive contempt , 22-23 , 38 , 3 9 Contempt o f court , 18 , 2 3 Content analysis , 8 7 Continuances, 26 , 28-29 , 56 Cooley, Thoma s M. , 44-4 5 Copyright infringemen t cases , 15 1 Counsel Connect (softwar e service) , 148 49 Court personnel : reaction t o televise d tri als, 65, 7 4 Courtroom design : fo r electroni c media , 176-77, 18 8 Courtroom Televisio n Network . See Cour t TV Courts, 166 ; costs, 13 , 84 , 88 ; dignity of , 24, 58 , 85 , 97. See also Appellat e courts; Federa l courts , Stat e court s Courts o f Appeals , 52 , 70 , 91 , 92-9 3 Courts on Trial (Frank) , 18 6 Court TV , 89-90 , 92 , 124-25 , 159 , 160 , 162, 169 , 179 ; coverage by , 12 , 138 , 139-44, 150-51 , 153 , 157-58 , 179 ; criticism of , 14 , 144-45 ; finances, 1 3 3 34, 152-53 ; format, 131-33 , 138 ; history, 127-31 , 136-38 ; rules for , 139 ; spin-offs, 145-46 , 148-49 ; staff, 131 , 137-38; suppor t for , 138-39 , 149-50 , 151, 174 ; surve y by , 97-98 , 11 0 Court TV Law Center (website) , 14 8 Crime news , 1 , 105-7 . See also Crimina l trials, medi a coverag e o f Criminal procedure , 31 , 40-41, 43 , 47; and th e media , 25 , 53 , 85 , 92-93 , 163 64 Criminal trials , 163 ; effect o f medi a on , 2 , 4, 13 , 17 , 36-40 , 66, 105-7 , 150 , 158 59; effec t o f television , xviii , 108-9 , 111-13, 162 , 163-65 , 181 , 184-85 ; electronic coverag e of , 60 , 66, 67, 7 2 74; medi a coverag e of , 1 , 6-11 , 12-14 , 34, 53 , 159-61 , 170-72 ; rol e o f medi a in, 47-54 , 163-64 ; televisio n coverag e of, 77 , 85 , 141-43 , 150 , 151 , 159-6 1 Cronkite, Walter , 131-3 2

Index • 233 Cuba: publi c trial s in , 5 8 Czech Republic : an d televise d trials , 9 5 D'Alemberte, Talbot , 60 , 178-7 9 Darrow, Clarence , 7- 8 Davies, Robertson , 16 8 Day, Jack , 8 2 Defendants, 72 , 77 , 155 ; civil rights , 2 6 27, 35 , 42-43, 44-45 , 48 , 7 5 Delaware: televise d trial s in , 7 7 Denmark: an d televise d trials , 95 De Republica Anglorum (1565) , 4 1 Dershowitz, Alan , 15 2 District o f Columbia . See Washingto n (D.C.) District courts , 91 , 92, 93 , 109-1 0 Divorce cases , 73 , 81 , 14 1 Docudramas o f trials , 151-5 2 Douglas, Willia m O. , xviii-xix , 57 , 58 , 67 , 107, 16 3 Dow-Corning breas t implan t case , 14 1 Due process , 20 , 35 , 36 , 161 ; and th e me dia, 34 , 37 , 38-39 , 61 , 158-59 . See also Fourteent h Amendmen t E! Entertainment Television , 151-5 2 Educational us e o f electroni c media , 68 , 84, 146 , 148 , 173 , 179 , 18 1 Electronic coverag e o f trials , 68 ; effects of , 65, 66, 67, 69 , 71 , 87. See also Civi l trials, electroni c coverag e of ; Crimina l trials, electroni c coverag e of ; Televise d trials El Vocero de Puerto Rico, 5 2 English law , 20-21 , 23 , 41-45, 4 7 Entertainment: trial s as , 9 , 16-17 , 73 , 82 , 112, 17 3 Estes v. Texas (1965) , 11 , 56-60, 61 , 63, 64, 94 , 122 , 15 9 Estrich, Susan , 15 7 Evidence, 36 , 48 , 73 , 81 , 92, 160-62 , 15 9 Experimental research , 113-1 5 Fair trials , 34 , 49, 52 ; corrective procedu res for , 35-40 ; definitio n of , 54 ; effec t of medi a on , 10-11 , 18-19 , 58 , 158 61, 171-72 ; effec t o f televisio n on , xviii xxi, 58-59 , 75 , 116-17 , 157-61 . See also Sixt h Amendmen t Federal courts , 53 , 163 ; use o f medi a in ,

24-25, 54 , 59-60 ; an d televise d trials , 84-94, 89-94 , 109-10 . See also Unite d States Suprem e Cour t Federalism, 62-64 , 7 6 Federal Judicia l Center , 85 , 87 , 11 0 Federal Rule s o f Civi l Procedure , 90-91 , 92, 93-9 4 Federal Rule s o f Crimina l Procedure , 25 , 85, 92-9 3 Federal Victim s Protectio n an d Right s Act , 53 First Amendment , 54 , 161-62 , 187 ; opin ions concerning , xxi , 16 , 22, 91 , 186; and Sixt h Amendment , 1-2 , 18-19 , 4 8 49, 158-59 ; Suprem e Cour t decision s concerning, 20 , 48-53 , 54-5 5 First Circui t Court , 9 3 Florida: televise d trial s in , 11 , 60, 62 , 6 4 65, 108-9 , 138 , 14 4 Florida Suprem e Court , 60 , 62 , 96-9 7 Fortescue, Si r John, 4 1 Fourteenth Amendment , 40-41 , 187 ; Su preme Cour t decision s concerning , 20 , 37, 48 , 57 , 158-5 9 France: televise d trial s in , 9 5 Frank, Jerome , 34 , 18 6 Frankfurter, Felix , 26 , 3 2 Freedom o f th e press , 155 , 157 ; history , 20-22. See also Firs t Amendmen t Friedman, Lawrence , 15 7 Fuhrman, Mark , 18 0 Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale (1979) , 47-49 Gavel-to-gavel coverage , 12 , 60 , 82 , 90 , 111, 149 , 151 , 16 7 Georgia, 14 2 Germany: televise d trial s in , 9 5 Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk (1982), 50-5 1 Goldberg, Arthur , 57 , 5 8 Goldberg, Carey , 18 4 Goldman, Fred , 18 0 Graham, Fred , 130-33 , 138 , 14 6 Grand jury , 43 , 53 , 5 4 Greenfield, Jeff , 14 , 17 9 Habeas corpus , 35 , 43-4 4 Hale, Si r Matthew , 41-4 2

234 • Index Hamilton, Andrew , 3 Hand, Learned , xviii , 28 , 3 1 Harlan, John , 57 , 59 , 6 4 Harris, Davi d A. , 149 , 152 , 16 5 Hauptmann, Brun o (trial) , 8-9 , 24 , 10 6 Hawaii: televise d trial s in , 70-71 , 8 7 Hawaii Suprem e Court , 7 1 Hawthorne Principle , 101 , 103- 5 Hearst, Willia m Randolph , 8 Heck, Denni s L. , 8 2 Heisenberg's Uncertaint y Principle , 99, 101-3 History of the Common Law of England (1670), 41-4 2 Holmes, Olive r Wendell , xx , 16 , 17 3 Hoyt, Jame s L. , 116-1 7 Idaho: televise d trial s in , 7 7 Illinois: televised trial s in , 7 7 Impartiality o f trials , 48 . See also Judges , impartiality of ; Jury , impartialit y o f In Court (cabl e network) , 134-35 , 136-3 7 Indiana: televise d trial s in , 76-7 7 Inquests, 4 3 Internet: tria l proceeding s on , 84 , 148-4 9 Isherwood, Christopher , 18 3 Israel: televise d trial s in , 9 5 Italy: televise d trial s in , 9 5 Ito, Lance , 159 , 18 1 Jackson, Robert , 10 , 34 , 36 , 15 8 Japan: an d televise d trials , 9 5 Jefferson, Thomas , 2 1 Johnson, Steve , 137-3 8 Journalism. See Medi a "Journalism New , Ol d o r Dead, " (lec ture), 16 9 Journalistic ethics , 22 , 143-44 , 15 1 Journalists, 169-72 ; behavior , 5-6, 14 , 158, 169 , 17 2 Judges, 165-66; behavior , 112 , 115 , 181; impartiality of , 17 , 35 , 163 ; opinion o f televised trials , 71 , 82-83, 155 , 156 , 166-68, 172-73 , 186-87 ; reaction t o electronic coverage , 66, 69, 74-75 , 8 6 87, 117-18 ; reaction t o televise d trials , 64-65, 73 , 77 , 84-85 , 93 , 94, 97-98 , 109-10, 14 1 Judicial Conferenc e o f th e Unite d States , 84, 90 ; oppositio n t o electroni c cover -

age, 25 , 91 , 92-94, 168 , 175 ; pilot pro gram by , 85 , 87-8 8 Judicial discretion , 34 , 159-60 ; an d elec tronic coverage , 25 , 60 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 76,91 Judicial interpretation , 2 3 Judicial opinions , xviii-xxi , 10-11 , 37-40 , 47, 51 , 56-60, 107 , 15 8 Judicial power , 47 , 76 , 90 , 91 , 159 , 1 7 1 72, 17 5 Judicial procedures , 22 , 25-26 ; effec t o f electronic coverag e on , 57 , 75, 119-21 ; effect o f medi a on , 14 , 103 , 105 , 161; psychological aspects , 17 , 31-32 , 40 , 57, 75, 99 , 107 , 109 , 113 , 121 ; role o f media in , 48-50 , 54 , 64 , 88 , 166 , 173 , 183. See also Civi l procedure ; Crimina l procedure; and specific procedures (e.g. , Voir dire ) Judiciary, xix , 24 ; criticis m by , xviii , 11, 166; criticis m of , 17 , 39-4 0 Jury, 43-44 ; impartialit y of , 26-34 , 38 , 40, 107 , 109-10 , 118-19 , 121 ; influences on , 17 , 105 , 118-21 , 163 ; instructions to , 33-34 , 115 ; prejudices of , 33-34, 115-16 , 162 ; protection of , 72 , 73, 81 , 108, 143 , 179 ; reaction t o elec tronic coverage , 65, 66, 67, 69 ; reactio n to televise d trials , 70-71 , 74 , 75 , 108 9, 118 , 119-21 , 122 ; selection , 4 , 3 0 33, 37 , 115 ; sequestration, 3 5 Justice, administratio n of , 23 , 102 , 182 83; effec t o f medi a on , 14 , 16 , 37-38 , 47, 48-50 , 68 , 114-16 , 167-68 ; effec t of televisio n on , xviii , 150-51 , 118 , 17 3 Juveniles: protectio n of , 51 , 53, 73 , 8 1 Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue (1996), 90-91 , 18 7 Kennedy, Anthony , 94 , 16 6 Kevles, Bettyann , 9 9 Key, Philli p Barton , 4 Kidnapping trials , 8-9 , 24 , 10 6 King, Rodne y (case) , 15-16 , 36, 160 , 18 0 Korea (South) : and televise d trials , 9 5 Langbein, John , 149-5 0 Latin America : an d televise d trials , 9 5 Law, 25 , 36 , 55, 94 , 156 . See also Bil l o f Rights (U.S.) , English law ; Stat e law s

Index • 235 Lawyers. See Attorney s Lazarsfeld, Paul , 10 6 Legal journalism , 126-27 , 132 , 149 . See also Cour t T V Leval, Pierr e N. , 17 5 Libel trials , 3 , 14 1 Libertarian philosophy , 21-2 2 Lilburne, John, 4 4 Lindbergh, Charles , 8 Los Angeles Times, 2 1 In. 2 8 Louisiana, 7 7 MacDonnell, John , xxi-xxi i Madison, James , xxi , 4 5 Maine: televise d trial s in , 73-74 , 8 7 Maitland, Leslie , 170-7 2 Malcolm, Janet , 18 3 Margolis, Davis , 14 9 Marisol v. Giuliani (1996) , 89-90 , 91 Marshall, E . G. , 13 4 Marshall, John , 3 Marshall, Thurgood , 16 8 Maryland: televise d trial s in , 69-70 , 7 7 Maryland Cour t o f Appeals , 7 0 Massachusetts: laws , 50-51 ; televise d tri als in , 67-68 , 85 , 87 , 13 8 May It Please the Court, 167-6 8 McFadden, Cynthia , 13 8 McLuhan, Marshall , 17 5 Media, 180 ; accuracy of , 13-14 , 150 , 1 8 3 84; control of , 20-21 , 22-30 , 37 , 39-40 ; criticism of , 8-9 , 13-14 , 37 , 164-66 , 168-69; effec t of , 6 , 9 , 66, 97-98 , 106 7, 160-61 , 185 ; influence of , 2 - 3 , 4 , 5 , 13, 92 , 105-7 , 115 ; motivation of , 16 ; power of , 22 , 171-72 ; researc h on , 1 2 1 22; rol e of , xxi-xxii , 2 , 16 , 2 1 , 37-38, 155, 157-58 , 163-64 ; suit s by , 48-54 , 68. See also Journalists ; Newspapers ; Radio an d trials ; Televise d trials ; and under specific subjects (e.g. , Judicia l procedures, effec t o f medi a on ) Mencken, H . L. , 8 Mexico: televise d trial s in , 9 5 MGTV (cabl e network) , 8 4 Michigan: televise d trial s in , 84 , 8 5 Michigan Suprem e Court , 8 4 Miller, Arthur , 13 4 Minnesota: televise d trial s in , 68-6 9

Minnesota Advisor y Commissio n o n Cam eras i n th e Courtroom , 68-6 9 Minnesota Suprem e Court , 68 , 6 9 Minors. See Juvenile s Mississippi, 7 6 Mock trials . See Simulate d trial s Moret, Jim , 1 3 Moyer, Tom , 15 6 Murder trials , 3 , 6-7 ; effec t o f medi a on , 7-8, 27 , 36-37 , 52 , 107 , 113 , 161 ; media coverag e of , 4 , 10 , 12 , 13-14 , 3 8 39, 48 ; televised, 65, 13 , 151 , 159-61 , 179, 18 1 National interest . See Publi c interes t NBC (network) , 13 7 Nesbit, Evelyn , 6 Neuborne, Burt , 17 9 Nevada: televise d trial s in , 71-72 , 87 , 13 8 New Jersey , 87 ; laws, 46-4 7 New Jerse y Suprem e Court , 38-4 0 Newspaper readers , 106-7 , 12 7 Newspapers, 3 , 4, 5 , 20, 34 , 68 , 151 , 16972; effec t of , 13 , 36, 97-98 , 105-7 , 158, 211n . 1 9 New Yor k State : laws , 74 ; survey s in , 110 ; televised trial s in , 74-76 , 85 , 87 , 89-92 , 111-13, 134 , 13 8 New York Times, 90 , 157 , 16 5 Nichols, Bill , 18 3 Ninth Circui t Court , 54 , 85 , 9 3 Nuremberg trials , 9-1 0 Observational research , 98-101 , 102 , 1 0 3 5 Oklahoma, 56 Oklahoma Cit y bombin g trial , 32 , 157 58, 17 8 On Appeal (televisio n program) , 145 , 14 6 Open trials . See Publi c trial s Oregon, 5 2 Oswald, Le e Harvey , 1 5 Patrick, Sharon , 134-35 , 13 7 Penn, William , 4 6 Pennsylvania: televise d trial s in , 77 , 8 5 Pennsylvania Declaratio n o f Right s (1776), 4 7 Peremptory challenges , 3 1 Petit jury , 43-44 , 5 4

236 • Index Photography, 183 ; in courtrooms , 59 , 67, 69, 70 , 120-2 2 Pittman, Bob , 12 9 Plea agreements , 52 , 53 , 16 3 Police, 180 ; behavior , 38 , 39 , 160 ; an d media, 1 3 Powell, Lewis , 48-49, 5 3 Press. See Medi a Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County (1986) , 52 , 53 Presumptive acces s rule , 6 0 Pretrial hearings : an d th e media , 11 , 48, 51-54, 56, 61, 8 9 Pretrial publicity , 15 , 25-26, 29 , 34 , 55, 161, 179 ; effect of , 4 , 36 , 69 , 11 5 Prime Time Justice (televisio n program) , 145-46 Public interest , 27 , 29, 31 , 48-51, 53 , 162; role o f medi a in , 67 , 68 , 157-58 , 187 88; an d televise d trials , 82 , 83 , 94, 141 , 169-70, 174-76 , 178-80 , 18 2 Public opinion , 17 , 29, 47 , 69 , 157 ; abou t the media , 168-69 ; effec t o f th e medi a on, 4 , 13 , 15 , 29, 105-7 , 158 ; polls, 17 , 30, 108 , 11 0 Public self-consciousnes s theory , 119-20 , 122 Public trials , 26 , 58, 95, 160 , 173 ; benefits of , xxi , 44-45 , 47, 49-50 , 92 , 156 ; definition of , 55; histor y of , 41-47 ; rol e of, xviii-xix , 40-41 , 180 ; Suprem e Court decision s concerning , 47-53 , 5 4 55, 214n . 60 . See also Close d trials ; Sixth Amendmen t Public trust , 49-50 , 156-57 , 165-66, 18 6 Puerto Ric o Suprem e Court , 52-5 3 Quakers, 46 , 4 7 Quindlen, Anna , 17 4 Radin, Max , 42-4 3 Radio audiences , 10 6 Radio and the Printed Page (Lazarsfeld) , 106 Radio an d Televisio n New s Director s As sociation (RTNDA) , 7 7 Radio an d trials , 7 , 9 , 18 , 32 , 67 , 106 , 167

Rape trials , 36 , 50 , 53 , 109 , 138 , 142 , 144 Reeves, Richard , 16 9 Rehnquist, William , 51 , 52, 166 , 167-6 8 Reiner, Ira , 14 , 180 , 18 5 Reinhardt, Stephen , 18 6 Reporters. See Journalist s Rice, Willia m Mars h (case) , 210n. 1 9 Richmond Newspapers v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1980) , 47, 49-5 1 Right t o know , xx , 61-62 , 83 , 155 , 179 , 188 Right t o privacy , xx , 51 , 53, 75, 94 , 108 , 145, 18 8 Rodell, Fred , 16 5 Rodney, Caesa r A. , 4 Rogers, Tom , 13 6 Roosevelt, Theodore , 7 Rosenblatt, Alber t M. , 7 4 Ross, Steve , 12 8 Ruby, Jack, 15 , 3 6 Russin, Joe, 133-3 4 Scopes trial , 7- 8 Second Circui t Court , 8 5 Sensational trials : effec t of , 4 , 32 , 36 ; me dia coverag e of , 15 , 16-17 , 30 , 106-7 ; television coverag e of , 138 , 142 , 144 , 145, 151-52 , 187 . See also "Tria l o f the century " Sex crim e cases , 73 , 8 1 Shaftesbury, Ear l o f (trial) , 4 4 Shaw, David , 12 , 13 , 14 9 Shepherd v. Florida (1951) , 36 , 15 8 Sheppard, Sam , 1 0 Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) , 10-11 , 35 , 37, 38-40 , 158-5 9 Sickles, Danie l (trial) , 4 Simpson, O . J . (trials) , 12 , 151-52 , 159 , 161; effec t o f medi a coverag e on , 17 , 99, 106-7 , 154 , 160 , 172 , 184-85 ; media coverag e of , 12-13 , 16 , 36 , 143 , 149, 169 ; reaction t o medi a coverag e of, 13-14 , 93 , 94, 164-65 , 179-80 , 18 1 Simulated trials , 114-15 , 116-20 , 12 2 Sixth Amendment , 40-41 , 46 , 54 ; an d First Amendment , 1-2 , 18-19 , 48-49 , 158-59; Suprem e Cour t decision s con cerning, 48-53 , 5 7 Sixth Circui t Court , 9 3

Index • 237 Smith, Si r Thomas , 4 1 Smith, Willia m Kenned y (case) , 14 4 Social scienc e research , 96-98 , 123 ; flaw s in, 85-86 , 111 , 117; methodology, 88 , 98, 108 , 110-11 , 112 , 113-15 ; validity , 98-99, 100-101 , 104-5 , 10 8 Souter, David , 9 4 South Dakota , 7 6 Soviet Union : televise d trial s in , 5 8 Speedy trials , 27 , 30 , 42 . See also Publi c trials Spence, Gerry , xi x State constitutions , 45 , 4 6 State courts : electroni c coverag e in , 60 , 69, 72 , 77-80 ; televised trial s in , 11 , 24, 56 , 62-63 , 64 , 76-82 , 85 , 94 , 163 . See also Appellat e courts ; and specific courts (e.g. , Californi a Suprem e Court ) State laws , 42 , 46-47 , 50-51 , 7 4 Steinberg, Joel case , 111-13 , 13 8 Stern, Carl , 144-4 5 Stevens, John Paul , xx-xxi , 50 , 5 2 Stewart, Potter , 48 , 57 , 59 , 6 4 Stroble v. California (1952) , 26 , 10 7 "Sunshine i n th e Courtroo m Act, " 2 5 "Sunshine" laws , 15 6 Supreme courts . See Unite d State s Su preme Court ; and specific state courts (e.g., Ne w Jerse y Suprem e Court ) Supreme Court Watch (televisio n pro gram), 145 , 146 , 14 9 Survey research , 96-97 , 108-1 0 Sweet, Robert , 90-9 1 Teen Court TV (program) , 14 6 Tele-Communications, Incorporate d (TCI) , 136-37 Telegraph, 2 , 9 Televised trials , xxii-xxiii , 15 , 87 , 154 , 181-82, 185-86 ; ban s on , 24-25 , 5 9 60, 76 , 84-85 , 88 , 90 , 91 , 94-95, 175 ; constitutionality of , 11 , 59-60, 63-64 , 186, 187-88 ; criticism of , xvii-xx , 14 , 57-60, 81-82 , 154-55 , 162 , 166-67 , 172-73; effect s of , 70 , 71-72 , 85-87 , 100-101, 139 , 162-63 ; market for , 135, 144 ; participants ' permissio n for , 56, 61 , 64, 70 , 72 , 77 , 81 , 95; preceptions about , xviii , xix , xx , 57-58 , 62 , 175; program s propose d for , 152 ;

research on , 72 , 85-88 , 96-98 , 107-8 , 110-13, 116-20 , 154 , 162 ; role of , 180 81, 187-88 ; rules for , 24 , 77 , 81 , 85, 90-93, 139 , 188 ; support for , xx-xxi , 61-63, 93-94 , 155-56, 168 , 169-70 , 174-77, 183 . See also Civi l trials , television coverag e of ; Cour t TV ; Crimi nal trials , televisio n coverag e of ; Stat e courts, televise d trial s in ; and under states (e.g. , Maryland , televise d trial s in ) Television, 11 , 15-16, 61 , 185 ; role of , 174-76, 177-7 8 Television audiences , 61 , 136 , 137 , 139 , 144, 152 , 15 3 Tennessee: televise d trial s in , 7 6 Texas: televise d trial s in , 56, 7 7 Thaw, Harr y (trial) , 6 Tilton, Theodore , 5 Time-Warner, 128-29 , 131 , 137, 152-5 3 Tocqueville, Alexi s de , 94 , 14 3 Toobin, Jeffrey , 15 1 Trade secret s cases , 73 , 8 1 Treason trials , 3-4 , 4 4 "Trial o f th e century, " 5-9 , 12 , 14 , 18 5 Trials, xxii , 35-36 , 116 , 155 . See also Civil trials ; Crimina l trials ; Judicial pro cedures; Televised trial s Trial Story (televisio n program) , 145 , 14 6 Trial transcripts , 167-68 , 18 0 TVW (cabl e channel) , 82-8 4 Uncertainty Principle . See Heisenberg' s Uncertainty Principl e United State s Congress , 24-25 , 45-46 , 156-57 United State s Constitution , 42 , 45-46 , 4 8 49, 55. See also Bil l o f Right s (U.S.) ; Fourteenth Amendmen t United State s Suprem e Court , 16 , 30 , 35 , 36-37, 60 , 188 ; decisions, 10 , 20 , 23 , 27, 37 , 61-64 , 158-59 ; oppositio n t o televised trials , 84 , 94 , 166-67 , 168 . See also decisions under specific issues (e.g., Sixt h Amendment , Suprem e Cour t decisions concerning ) Venue. See Chang e o f venu e Vermont Declaration of Rights (1777) , 4 7 Victims: protectio n of , 51 , 53, 7 3 Video-on-Demand, 14 8

238 • Index Videotapes, 16 , 14 8 Virginia: televise d trial s in , 73 , 8 7 Voir dire , 30-33 , 81 , 11 5 Waller v. Georgia (1984) , 51-5 2 War crim e trials , 9-10 , 95 Ward, Rober t J. , 89 , 9 0 Warren, Earl , 57 , 58 , 59 , 6 4 Washington (D.C.) , 76 Washington (State) : televise d trial s in , 60 , 64-65, 82-84 , 8 5 Washington (State) Suprem e Court , 64 , 173 Weinstein, Jack , 9 2 White, Byron , 57, 5 9 White, Stanford , 6- 7 Will, George , 179-8 0

William th e Conqueror , 4 3 Wilson, Theo , 169-7 0 Winchell, Walter, 9 , 1 0 Wisconsin: televise d trial s in , 66-67 , 116 17 Witnesses, 72 , 159-60 ; effec t o f medi a on , 13; influence s on , 44 , 51 , 71-72; pro tection of , 53 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 81 ; reaction t o electroni c coverage , 65, 66; reaction t o televise d trials , 67 , 70 , 75, 112, 11 8 Witness exclusio n rule , 7 2 Wright, J . Skelly , xix-xx , 155-56 , 163-64 , 172 Zemans, France s K. , 93-9 4 Zenger, Joh n Peter , 3

A B O U T TH E A U T H O R

Ronald Goldfar b i s a Washington D.C . attorney , literar y agent , and author . A former governmen t attorne y in the Air Force JAG and a prosecutor o f organized crime cases in the Kennedy Justice Department, h e founde d a la w firm i n th e nation' s capita l i n 1966. H e i s the autho r o f nin e previou s book s an d ove r a hun dred magazin e an d newspape r articles . Goldfarb ha s bachelo r o f art s an d la w degree s from Syracus e University, and Master and Doctorate of Law degrees from Yale. He lectures to university and professional organizations , has consulted fo r nationa l commission s an d foundations , an d i s a fre quent panelist and commentator o n radio and television. He lives in Alexandria, Virginia .