NCJ Number
51676
Journal
CLEVELAND BAR JOURNAL Volume: 49 Issue: 12 Dated: (OCTOBER 1978) Pages: 296-300
Date Published
1978
Length
5 pages
Annotation
THE GREATER CLEVELAND (OHIO) BAR ASSOCIATION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT TRIALS NOT BE BROADCAST IS PRESENTED. ITS RATIONALE IS BASED IN PART ON THE ESTES V. THE STATE OF TEXAS DECISION (1965) RULING AGAINST TELEVISION.
Abstract
IT IS ARGUED THAT TELEVISING TRIALS IS LIKELY TO HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON JURORS, WITNESSES, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER PERSONS IN A COURTROOM. NERVOUSNESS, TENSION, FEELINGS OF HARASSMENT, THE DESIRE TO PRESENT A CERTAIN IMAGE ON CAMERA, AND DISTRACTION ARE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS WHICH THE PRESENCE OF TELEVISION CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM MIGHT CAUSE AND WHICH COULD ALTER THE OUTCOME OF CASES. THOSE IN FAVOR OF BROADCASTING COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS MAINTAIN THAT THE EQUIPMENT USED TODAY IS MORE SOPHISTICATED AND LESS OBTRUSIVE THAN THAT USED IN THE ESTES TRIAL, THAT DENIAL OF TELEVISION RIGHTS DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN THE PRINT AND TELEVISION MEDIA, AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SEE WHAT GOES ON IN A COURTROOM AND COULD DERIVE EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT FROM WATCHING TRIALS. THE ARTICLE ASSERTS THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT DENIED THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN A COURTROOM SINCE ELECTRONIC AND PRINT MEDIA REPORTERS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE COURTROOM. IT NOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF A TRIAL IS NOT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC BUT TO RESOLVE DISPUTES, AND THAT TELEVISION TRIALS MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THIS FUNCTION. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE REWRITTEN TO PROHIBIT THE FILMING OF PERSONS OBJECTING TO BEING FILMED AND THAT THE COURT EXERCISE DISCRETION IN DECIDING WHICH CASES SHOULD BE TELEVISED. (DAG)