Katz, Andrew S.

English

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 8Number 3 April, 1978 Article 114-1978Prime Time Crime: TV in the CourtroomAndrew S. KatzFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information,please contact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationKatz, Andrew S. (1978) "Prime Time Crime: TV in the Courtroom," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 8: No. 3, Article 11.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol8/iss3/11Prime TimeCrime: TV inthe Courtroomby Andrew S. KatzThe criminal lawyer rose from his seatat the defense table to make the routinemotion for aquittal following the presen-tation of the state's evidence. He stoodfacing the watchful eyes of the judge andthe unobtrusive lens of the televisioncamera wondering if many viewers hadswitched to the Courthouse channel dur-ing a commercial...If the practice of television coverage inthe courtroom overcomes the constitutional and ethical hurdles it now faces,what is now a pilot program in the Stateof Florida will become a regular service ofbroadcast journalism. On July 5, 1977,the Supreme Court of Florida ordered atest period for television broadcast oftrials by declaring, that for one year, "thesame rules of law applicable to inclusionor exclusion of the press or public at par-ticular proceedings or during thetestimony of particular witnessess shallapply to the electronic media and stillphotographers."The obstacles preventing cameras inthe courtroom were placed, in part, by theAmerican Bar Association in the form ofCanon 35, which prohibits still photogra-phy, radio, and television in court pro-ceedings. The United States SupremeCourt gave impetus to the ban by overturning the conviction of Billie Sol Estesfor fraud in 1965, on the ground that thetelevision broadcast of the trial withoutthe defendant's consent, denied him a fairtrial. Today, one of the staunchest oppo-nents to televised oral argument in theSupreme Court is Chief Justice Warren E.Burger, who consistently refuses to allowelectronic coverage of his remarks whenhe speaks in public. This resistance to theelectronic media by the judicial establish-ment has resulted in superficial newscoverage of what is happening in today'scourts. The hasty renderings of thecourtroom artist seem out of place in amedium that utilizes global live-remotecoverage of the news via satelite.Due process has been the legal principal used to bar broadcasting of trials.The presence of TV equipment in thecourtroom coupled with the psychologicaleffects of being "on camera" were origi-nally believed to impair the ability of adefendant to have a fair trial. Thirteenyears latter the fears expressed by theSupreme Court in its Estes opinion maynow be groundless. Improvements intelevision equipment make the presenceof TV less obtrusive, without the need forspecial lighting. Also, the Americanpublic has become much more ac-customed to the notion of being televised,especially since closed circuit TV nowscans many public places. Until theSupreme Court of Florida's decision toopen up their courts to TV, there has beenno test to determine if the misgivings con-cerning the Estes opinion have any basistoday.During the one-year test period, theFlorida courts, with some exceptions, willbe open to the television camera. A defen-dant has already taken the matter tofederal district court, claiming it would beunconstitutional to try him with televisioncoverage of the trial over his objection.U.S. District Judge James King abstainedfrom ruling on the issue. He has declaredthat all such defendants must stand trialfirst, appeal through the Florida system,and then take the issue into federal court.The Florida Supreme Court is taking acalculated risk in its decision, because, bythe mere presence of a TV camera at trial,an entire year's worth of state convictionsmay be subject to reversal in federalcourt, despite the severity of the crime.If the Florida pilot-program passes thetest of constitutionality, what is in storefor the future? CBS newsman FredGrahm, speaking before the Conference ofChief Justices of the state supreme courtsearly this year, pinpointed some possibledevelopments. First, he predicts an increase in the coverage of trial and appell-ate courts by radio and television.Perhaps in response to Mr. Grahm's com-ments, the Conference of Chief Justicesadopted a resolution for a committee tostudy amending "the Code of JudicialConduct to permit electronic and photo-graphic coverage of the courts... underguidelines that would preserve the dignityand decorum of [our] judicial proceedings." In a similar vein, an ABA fairtrial/free press committee recently re-leased a revised draft of proposed stand-ards that, for the first time, recognizesthat cameras in court are by themselves"not... inconsistent with the right to afair trial."Another development postulated byMr. Grahm is the opening up of a secondlayer of constitutional questions, once thedue process issue has been settled. Hewonders whether there are rights not to beon television rights that are distinguishable from the right not to be mentioned inthe public press. Television in the courtsmay pose new privacy issues as well.Already two exceptions have been madein the blanket access given television byI__________________________________________________THE FORUMthe Florida courts-one case involving un-dercover police informers and another in-volving relocated government witnesses.All were allowed to testify without thepresence of TV cameras. Certainly the po-tential harm to the privacy interests of theindividual will have to be considered inthis area.The momentum for increased court-room television coverage is gathering.What might evolve is a new standard forhow much the public is entitled to knowand how much the individual is entitled toconceal. In any event, the time is probablynot too distant when the home viewer willwatch justice dispensed from the comfortof his armchair.Recent DecisionsMARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIATechnologyand theEnvironment:NEPA Strikesa Balanceby John Jeffrey RossUntil recently, only a minority hasquarrelled with the rampant expansion oftechnology in this country. Appliedscience has produced both rapid economicgrowth and an enviable standard of livingfor a substantial number of people.Because economic and governmentalprogress depend heavily on man's facilityto alter and control his macrocosm, tech-nology enjoys a favored status in ourculture.However, the carefree exploitation ofhuman and natural resources throughtechnological progress is not without itsantagonists. For example, the pervasiveinfluence of a scientific ideology in educa-tion and the social sciences draws critic-ism from those fearful of the dehumaniza-tion of the art of teaching and the study ofman's behavior; other commentators de-cry the "alienation" of workers in indus-try that has been subject to extensivetechnological influence.'The progress of the "new industrialrevolution" has had a particularly strongimpact on the environment. The applica-tion of human expertise to man's sur-roundings entails for many an environ-mental crisis. As one writer notes:The new pessimism toward technologyand its role in society can thus betraced to two major realizations: Thefirst is that modern technology faces uswith grave threats to our lives, to ourhealth and to our ability to enjoy oursurroundings, and to our liberties, andthese threats now weigh heavily againstthe unmistakable blessings technologyhas made possible. Second, there is lit-tle room for hope that these threats canbe countered either quickly or easily...J. G. Speth, The Federal Role in Tech-nology Assessment and Control, inFEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 422 (E. Dolginand T. Guilbert ed. 1974).Although technology in itself need notbe inimical to the well-being of man andhis environment, its deployment often hasbeen accompanied by the use of unsoundjudgment and ignorance of its potentialharm to the ecology of which man is apart. The essential task facing environ-mentalists, then, is to provide informationIt has been suggested that intensive concentration oftechnology in the workplace alienates the laborerfrom his work product, as well as increasing socialstratification with the emergence of special interestgroups tied to the use of technology (such as "tech-nocrats"). See H. Lefebvre, THE SOCIOLOGY OFMARX 196 (1969). Alienation, in the political sense,describes a loss of control over the means of production. Commentators note the lack of an active, in-terested involvement by workers in industry with ahigh concentration of technology. "Technologicalfactors are paramount also in their impact on self-estrangement, since the machine system largelydecides whether the worker can become directlyengrossed in the activity of work or whether detach-ment and monotony more commonly result." R.Blauner, ALIENATION AND FREEDOM 8 (1964)•APRIL, 1978 27I

Prime Time Crime: TV in the Courtroom

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&amp;context=lf

Prime Time Crime: TV in the Courtroom

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Baltimore School of Law