Cameras in the Courts tween 1978 and 1979, the ABA Committee on Fair Trial and Free Press put forth a number of resolutions on the issue, which marked a reversal from the group’s previous stance regarding courtroom cameras. In final form, the resolutions read: Television, radio and photographic coverage of judicial proceedings is not per se inconsistent with the right to a fair trial. Subject to rule(s) established under the supervisory authority of the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction, such coverage may be permitted if it would be unobtrusive and would not distract the attention of the trial participants, demean the dignity of the proceedings, or otherwise interfere with the fair administration of justice.58
Unfortunately, the resolution failed by a 146-153 vote of the ABA’s House of Delegates,59 leaving Canon 3A(7) intact.60 Ironically, in the week preceding the ABA vote, the Conference of Chief Justices, representing the chief justices of the highest courts of all 50 states, had just voted 44-1 to allow television cameras back into court.61 The ABA House of Delegates also ignored the fact that at the moment of its vote, 23 states already allowed television coverage of trial and/or appellate courts on either a permanent or experimental basis.62 Commenting on this sad state of affairs, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Alfred T. Goodwin stated, “The cost of the per se rule . . . is the denial of public information to the growing number of citizens who rely on television and radio for their news.”63
Chandler v. Florida While this debate raged on, the state of Florida had been steadily progressing toward allowing cameras back into its courtrooms, which ultimately lead to another challenge. In Chandler v. Florida,64 the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with cameras in courtrooms authorized under a revised version of Canon 3A(7) adopted in Florida.65 Chief Justice Burger, delivering the opinion of the Court, noted that: in promulgating the revised Canon 3A(7), the Florida Supreme Court pointedly rejected any state or federal constitutional right of access on the part of photographers or the broadcast media to televise or electronically record and thereafter disseminate court proceedings.66
Burger’s majority opinion then quoted the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling allowing such broadcasting:
58. Alfred T. Goodwin, A Report on the Latest Rounds in the Battle Over Cameras in the Courts, 63:2 Judicature 75 (Aug. 1979). 59. Barber, supra note 51, at 16. 60. Canon 3A(7) was eventually removed from the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct on the grounds that the issue was more properly dealt with by rules adopted in each jurisdiction. Fed. Jud. Ctr., Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Appeals 3 (1994), available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf. nsf/lookup/elecmediacov.pdf/$file/elecmediacov.pdf (citing ABA Stdg. Comm. on Ethics & Prof. Resp., Final Draft of Recommended Revisions to ABA Code of Jud. Conduct [Dec. 1989]). 61. Id. (citing P. Douglas, Media Technology, Fair Trial, and the Citizen’s Right to Know, 44 N.Y.S. Bar J. 364, 367 [Oct. 1982]). 62. Id. 63. Goodwin, supra note 58, at 76-77. 64. 449 U.S. 560 (1981). 65. Id. at 583. 66. Id. at 569. Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal
229