Candid Camera: Should Trials Be Televised?

Introduction

When there are court proceedings where a defendant is being tried, there usually are questions as to whether the general public should be let to witness the trial as part of the public right to be kept informed of what is going on and also it would help in making the trials to be more transparent. On the other hand, some questions concerning the legality or the viability of making the defendant face trial in camera arise. This is because of the issue of right to privacy which should be accorded everyone, even suspects. This is on top of the fact that the suspects should be given a fair hearing without compromising or lowering their rights. The other problem of letting the public be involved in hearing is that there is a chance of the public opinion influencing the outcomes of the trial, yet this should not be the case.

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510

In such a situation, the main issue to be considered is that, in the event court proceedings are televised, is there a possibility that the sentiments expressed in public opinion would jeopardize the legal interests of the suspect and influence the possible decisions to be made by the judges thus resulting into a biased judgment against the defendant. As Chief Justice Taft C.J., observed in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, case “… Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man… to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.” (US Supreme Court: v).

Having the above facts raised, it is found that there are credible opinions which various people have on the issue of televising trials. This means that it is important to take into account arguments on all sides of the case. Some of the arguments which support having trials done on camera are:

1. The public have right to know about the court proceedings
2. The elements of high-handed judgments could be considerably reduced through on camera trials since the jury is conscious of the fact that they are facing the camera and are therefore under public scrutiny.
3. The aspects of free and fair trial is openly conducted and the public are aware of the progress of the case
4. Relatives and family members of the suing parties are updated on current state of case, without which they would be at the mercy of attorneys and court officials
5. The legal protection that needs to be made available to the defendant is adequately protected.
6. Televised archives could set legal precedents for later cases. It could also be important sources in the event the present verdict is disputed or the case is taken to Court of Appeals or higher Courts for hearing.
7. In the O.J. Simpson murder case, the defendant‘s attorneys preferred an on camera coverage during the actual trial proceedings but not for the pre-trial events.

In the Chandler v. Florida case, the court allowed the trial of the accused on camera although it was challenged by the defendants who were later found guilty of burglary. The Supreme Court in this case held that there was no apparent violation of the defendants’ “constitutional rights in this case.” (Florida).

Television coverage is harmful to interests of the defendant

The main aspect that needs to be considered is whether on television camera trials are harmful to the interests of the defendant and would compromise on proving his innocence, or otherwise. In other practical situations it has been seen that in most cases this is not a major factor and Court proceedings have carried on, irrespective of the presence of Television cameras. According to Jack T. Litman, a NY defense attorney, “if television cameras affect the role of a single participant, the accused has not received a fair trail. If television negatively affects a minority of jurors or witnesses, an unacceptable risk is presented.” (Cohn and Dow, p.32).

It has been shown that in case televising a trial may negatively a trial, it is the defendant who may be most adversely affected and therefore, when considering whether to televise the trial or not, the suspect should be given the role of making the decision. In the O.J. Simpson murder case, his attorney felt that the evidence or lack of it could be determined by Court and be beamed for the world to see.

In many cases, court officials have suggested that television cameras are capable of changing course of specific case, by influencing community opinion regarding the guilt of the suspect, or otherwise. It is however, well known that the public will make its judgment on the suspect way before the court trials begin. Mostly it becomes hard changing the public opinion, even if the defendant is finally found not guilty. In this situation therefore the important issue is to make a balance between enforcing rights of the public and protecting the rights of the accused individual.

In practical situations it is seen that the Supreme Court of US does not permit criminal cases to be conducted on camera, although several suggestions had been made for including the same within the context of Court cases. This is primarily because the Courts are of the opinion that televising criminal case trials would influence the conduct of the court and pose a security threat to the judges. There have been many instances when life threats have been issued to judges as a result of public conduct of court trails which has led many Courts to reject the cause for televising court proceedings. The Bush administration, on its part is vehemently against conducting criminal cases through television.

Stance of the Bush administration

The Bush Administration has expressed opposition to electronic media and coverage of federal court proceedings. In its November 9, 2005, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1751, the Administration stated that while it “understands the public interest in viewing trials, the Administration believes Section 22 has the potential to influence court proceedings improperly and to compromise the security of participants in the judicial process.” (Tong, p.13).

The importance of on camera trials could be judged from the fact that many cases of appeal and criminal cases are outside the context of TV coverage since it is believed to interfere with the conduct of courts. It is widely believed in judicial circles that although it enables people to have a good account of the trials, it comes with a negative cost of the privacy rights of the suspects and also it sort of demeans the integrity of the courts, as the public could lose respect for the courts as they become objects of public mockery. The judiciary system is for seeking justice and should not be commercialized especially when “grand jury is in session there.” (Flood).

Perspectives of judges

Judges are not considered part of public media, in fact, media attention is damaging to their work and when a case receives too much public attention it could be derailed before it is heard in court. Most judges would love to shun the press and media, and avoid the glare of public attention. They believe that, most of the time, media cannot influence judgments since what goes on between lawyers and judges can only be recorded but not influenced by press and TV. And that may be one of the reasons why the public are demanding on television trials since they would like to now the truth and not the altered versions aired in the press and media. TV presents the true state of affairs in courts and leaves the viewers to form their own opinions. There is no way the facts can be changed by the press.

Another issue against televising court proceedings is that some witnesses may become afraid and not able to testify accordingly when on camera. The questioning by the lawyers on camera could also terrify the witnesses more so if they are not well briefed on all aspects of the case.

It is also believed that television cameras could indirectly interfere with the equanimity and dispassion that judges need to exercise in passing judgements, especially in closely fought court room battles. But it is also believed that it could serve as a restraining factor and judges could feel the need to be more cautious, prudent and careful in hearing the arguments and forming an opinion regarding the case, based on the on goings of the Court and not external factors or personal bias.

The sanctity of the court and its delivery system could have greater importance than the presence or absence of Television media. But one fails to understand how the presence of a discreetly placed tiny camera in a place where possibly few know, could lower the sanctity or autonomy of court proceedings. It would not be wrong to state that, more than the presence of media attention, it is being influenced by the external public opinion that demeans the sanctity and independence of the Court.

However it could be true that the privacy and human rights of the defendants, could be compromised, since over publicity and hype may present exaggerate the issues at stake and seek to influence the minds of the jury. In the landmark Estes v. Texas case 381 U.S. 532 (1965), the Court felt that since the fundamental rights of the defendant under the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution were relegated, The over publicity and hype of media ensured that the jury coddled with the defendant and finally passed a non guilty verdict.

“Held: The televising of proceedings of the criminal trial, in which there was widespread public interest, was inherently invalid as infringing the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Certiorari To The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas: Held, p.532-552).

Conclusion

The main aspect that needs to be considered is that courts decide cases based on material evidences, depositions of witnesses, arguments and counter arguments and how well the attorneys of the prosecution and the defendants are able to convince the courts of their stands- whether it is correct or incorrect. Besides material bearings of such kind, higher Court would not have the time or inclination to consider other aspects like color or racial aspects, role of media or political opinions. The Courts mainly consider the fact whether the defendant is guilty or non- guilty and if guilty, to provide suitable punishment in accordance with the level of the offense. Other considerations do not; in most cases have effect on the ultimate judgment delivered by the jury.

Therefore, according the writer, the aspects of outside pressures or influences need to have no role, as such. It is like the performance of a referee or umpire in a game, whose duty is to administer justice without fear or favor. The ultimate fate of the match is not his concern, but the conduct of the match most certainly is. And this is also true in the case of court trial proceedings, where the facts argued are more important than the nature of the offences.

Due to the controversial nature of this issue, there cant be one solution to it but rather its acceptance or rejection will depend on the situation, after careful consideration of the facts of the case and circumstances surrounding the issues, the conduct of the parties and the ultimate need for prevailing justice. Even in the case of US Courts which possess the highest degree of transparency and openness in court trial dealings, the aspect of television coverage, especially with regard to criminal and high profile trials is a matter of specific choices. This may not be intended with the need to repress facts from public view or to twist the due process of justice but is based on the premise that public sentiment has no place in the passing of justice and fair play. Judges need to pass sentences based on the merits of each case and not on other considerations. The members of the jury usually also have differing opinions and after consulting they will agree on the most popular view. Therefore the issue of televising should be decided by the parties involved in the case.

Works Cited

1. Certiorari To The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas: Held. Usscplus.com. 1965. Web.
2. Cohn, Marjorie., and Dow, David. Defense Attorney Weigh In. Cameras in the Courtroom. 2002. Web.
3. Flood, Mary. Federal Judge Bans Public, Media from Area of Enron Grand Jury Hearings. Access my Library: Search Information That Libraries Trust. 2002.
4. Florida, Chandler. V. Conclusion. Oyez: US Supreme Court Media. 1981.
5. Tong, Lorraine. Televising Supreme Court and Other Federal Court Proceedings: Opponents. CRS Report for Congress. 2006. Web.
6. US Supreme Court: v. Find Law: For Legal Professionals.1965.