Cameras in the Courts by still photographs provided by the non-television participants in pool coverage. By totally excluding television participants, a complete visual record ... is lost forever.142
An example of the important role that a visual record of a court proceeding can play is that such a record can be used to assess witness credibility in a similar fashion as described in the Federal Rule of Evidence 607.143 “The demeanor of the witness on the stand may always be considered by the jury in their estimation of his credibility.”144 Public access “plays an important part as a security for testimonial trustworthiness ...;”145 in the modern age, this would include electronic coverage. Besides public access assisting in the judgment of witness credibility, electronic media coverage of court proceedings is also important as a check on the behavior of other courtroom players. A wholesome effect is produced, analogous to that secured for witnesses, upon all the officers of the court, in particular, upon judge, jury, and counsel. In acting under the public gaze, they are more strongly moved to a strict conscientiousness in the performance of duty. In all experience, secret tribunals have exhibited abuses which have been wanting in courts whose procedure was public.146
That “public gaze” is brought to bear by the camera. If it has any effect at all on courtroom participants, the presence of cameras enhances “strict conscientiousness,” while protecting against judicial abuses. The qualitative ability of viewers to see and hear what occurs in court is distinct from the “printed narrative” of the same event, whether from a verbatim record, an artist’s sketch or a reporters’ description. Through audio-visual coverage of trials and oral arguments, the public may observe the demeanor of the proceedings and the (usually) dignified manner in which cases are conducted and decided. More citizens are able to view and listen to cases of national significance than when there are only second-hand descriptions. Electronic coverage of those proceedings allows the public to, among other things, observe through the lens of the camera the unfiltered testimony of the witnesses, the advocacy of the participants, the demeanor of the justices, and the fair administration of justice. This in turn should foster a greater respect and understanding of the judicial system. There can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system.147
Maintaining the Balance While it is difficult to balance the right of access to the courts and right to fair trials, the Courts have forged an equilibrium between these competing concerns, which allows for camera coverage of courtroom proceedings and in fact protects the parties’ interests in fair administration of justice. Rather than being part of the problem, the presence of cameras in the courtroom can be part of the solution.
142. Id. at 1246. 143. See Fed. R. Evid. § 607. 144. 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 946, at 783 (J. Chadbourn, ed., rev. 1976) (emphasis in original). 145. 6J Wigmore on Evidence § 1834, at 435 (J. Chadbourn, ed., rev. 1976). 146. Id. at 438. 147. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra, 443 U.S. 368, 383 (1979). Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal
237