Despite the passion for broadcasters` arguments and improvements in their technology, the courts have so far refused to recognize the right to television coverage of court proceedings. Whether trials can be transferred is left to policymakers in federal and state courts. It was the Supreme Court justices themselves who were most opposed to allowing cameras in their courtrooms. However, several members of the current court have either expressed a desire to allow cameras in proceedings, or at least expressed some interest in considering the idea. C-SPAN compiled a conclusive list of cases in which judges ruled for or against cameras in the courtroom. According to their previous statements, the court is currently split 4-3 to ban cameras, but these two undecided votes could sway the majority in favor of admission. In 1981, the Court of Justice returned to this question and its Estes judgment. In Chandler v. Florida, the court ruled 8-0 that Florida could allow radio, television and photographic coverage of a criminal trial, even if the defendant objects. The Court analyzed the different views expressed in Estes and concluded that the majority had not promulgated a constitutional rule that any photographic or radio coverage of criminal proceedings inherently constituted a denial of due process. Therefore, the court concluded, “If these defendants are not found to have biases of constitutional dimensions, there is no reason for this court to approve or invalidate the Florida experiment.” In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: “The television industry, like other institutions, has an appropriate scope of activity and restrictions beyond which it cannot go with its cameras.
This area does not extend into a U.S. courtroom. When entering this holy shrine, where people`s lives, liberty and property are in danger, television representatives have only the right of the public to be present, to observe the proceedings and, if they wish, to report on them. [11] In Chandler v. 1981. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that televised broadcasts of the trials do not in themselves violate due process. [12] Although the U.S. Constitution contains a public procedure clause, it has been argued that the requirement of a public trial was created and met when there were no broadcasters or television hosts and few newspapers. [13] In some cases, jury deliberations were broadcast publicly.
[14] “I had the opportunity, a few years ago, to deal with this issue in relation to my own tribunal. All appellate courts have the power to televise their oral arguments if they so wish. We had a debate in our court about whether we would or should allow television cameras in our courtroom. I argued that we should. In the Supreme Court, the issue is somewhat different. It would be presumptuous of me to talk about it now. I will keep an open mind despite the decision I made in the third round. The installation of cameras in the courtroom has been controversial in the past.
Supporters invoked First Amendment provisions that guarantee the public`s right to public information. It was not until State v. Hauptmann (N.J. 1935) that courtroom cameras were clearly challenged. Around 700 media representatives, including 120 cameramen, attended the trial of Bruno Hauptmann, accused of kidnapping and murdering the young son of pilot Charles Lindbergh. In this photo, Lindbergh poses for a battery of film cameras in the library of the Hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington, New Jersey, in January. 3, 1935, before he entered the courtroom to attend the Hauptmann trial. (AP Photo, used with permission from The Associated Press) It is perhaps not surprising that these decision-makers have established various rules governing how and when cameras can be used in courtrooms. The federal judiciary and the District of Columbia, for example, prohibit televised coverage of all trials. Many state courts, on the other hand, allow cameras to enter the courtroom whenever the trial judge deems it appropriate. Other states allow coverage, but only if all study participants agree. And still others only allow television broadcasts of calls.
In Wisconsin, television cameras and photographers are allowed in any court case, as noted in the chapters of the Supreme Court Rules (here), which were passed in 1979. Although the defendants have the right to a public trial, the courts have not yet decided that they are entitled to a televised trial. The Judicial Conference and most federal judges generally objected to television and camera coverage of trials, arguing that live television broadcasts, in particular, distracted trial participants, interfered with the outcome of the trial, and thus deprived defendants of fair trials. In 2006, all 50 states allowed some kind of camera presence in their courtrooms. While the decision did not require states to allow cameras in their courtrooms, it helped allay concerns expressed in Estes about the impact of cameras on trial fairness. State courts have been more receptive to broadcasters` arguments, but none have recognized the right to broadcast a trial. On the contrary, the courts, which are the most receptive to cameras, give judges a wide margin of discretion in deciding whether or not to allow television broadcasts. Other states limit this discretion in cases of sexual abuse, in cases involving minors and in cases where some witnesses object. In the most restrictive states, coverage of trials is only permitted if all parties agree. Some proponents of access have suggested that judges adopt intermediate steps — such as same-day audio or live audio — as a test before authorizing cameras.
Bills on this issue have failed in Congress. The new appointees — such as Justices Elena Kagan and Sotomayor — showed their support on camera during their confirmation hearings, but changed their minds after joining the bench. In 1996, the Judicial Conference authorized the experimental use of cameras in some federal courtrooms, but decided a few years ago not to repeat this experiment. The U.S. Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to allow cameras in federal courts and recently blocked cameras from reporting on the Federal Court`s high-profile case on the constitutionality of California`s ban on same-sex marriage.
