Cameras in the Courts
Television and the Courts
I
t took almost 80 years for society in general and the state courts in particular to warm to the concept that permitting cameras in the courtroom on a regular basis had become a corollary of the notion of a public trial. By the 1980s the day had finally arrived “when television [became] so commonplace an affair in the daily life of the average person as to dissipate all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms [would] disparage the judicial process.”148 After that, change came rapidly. Television itself was evolving from an electronic medium broadcast over the airwaves into one where the televised content was reaching homes in the United States through cable systems. With the inception of Cable Network News (CNN) in 1980, more Americans were able to watch regional and national events unfold day-to-day, if not minute-by-minute. “We now interrupt this program” bulletins are now almost as antiquated as the “town crier.” Television coverage of trials was soon to take on national implications. Although judges still continued to ban cameras from the courtroom (such as in the 1976 terrorism trial of Patty Hearst, and the 1980 murder trial of Jean Harris), for the most, part local news could not devote enough airtime for gavel-to-gavel coverage anyway. Therefore, it was surprising when CNN decided to televise, live, for the first time to a national audience, the re-trial of Claus von Bulow for the murder of his wife. Despite the tedious nature of the testimony, “television ratings were good.”149 The public’s apparent interest in trials led a number of media companies to begin Court TV as a joint venture in 1991.150 A news television network primarily reporting on legal and judicial proceedings in the United States, Court TV specialized in gavel-to-gavel coverage of civil and criminal trials. During the next six years, it televised over 400 trials,151 along with oral arguments in various trial courts and appellate proceedings. It also televised over 51 federal court cases.152 Court TV may best be known for its extensive network coverage of several high-profile trials, including the 1991 rape trial of William Kennedy Smith, the 1993 murder trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez, and the 1995 murder trial of O.J. Simpson. While saturation coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial by Court TV and CNN represented the apex of television coverage of court proceedings, it also engendered a backlash against such coverage. Just as the aftermath of the Lindbergh coverage resulted in a ban on cameras in the courtroom, the vast majority of articles written about the subject pointed to the fact that while television coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial may not have been the cause for the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the case, the perception by the bench, bar, and public was to draw that inference.153 148. Estes v. Texas, supra, 381 U.S. at 595-96 (Harlan, J., concurring). 149. Kronenwetter, supra note 11, at 73. 150. In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that the editor of this journal was a paid summer intern at American Lawyer Media, one of the partners in Court TV, at the time of its testing and launch. 151. Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, 923 F. Supp. 580, 582 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (granting Court TV permission to televise an argument in the Southern District of New York on a motion to dismiss). 152. Id. Twenty-eight of these trials were covered under the auspices of the first federal cameras experiment. See Fed. Jud. Ctr., supra note 60, at 37. 153. See, e.g., Jill Smolowe, et. al, Cameras on Trial, Time magazine, July 24, 1995, http://www.time.com/ time/magazine/article/0,9171,983209,00.html: [T]he mounting backlash against televised trials owes little to concerns about the First Amendment's guarantees of a free press vs. the Sixth Amendment's promise of a fair trial, an issue that has yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Instead, the legal community is assessing the fallout from the Simpson case--the media stalking of witnesses, the glut of pop
238
Volume 1, Issue 3