|
|
 |
TV JURY
Have cameras in the courtroom undermined the U.S. justice system? January 20, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:Would only allowing trials to be broadcast after the verdict solve the problems? Do lawyers and judges dress and act differently when they're infront of a camera? How do legal shows like "The People's Court" affect America's view of its justice system? Why aren't there cameras in the Supreme Court? How does Court TV decide what cases to cover, and how do cameras in the courts affect the careers of lawyers and judges? Additional comments.
NewsHour Backgrounders
November 10, 1997
The "Nanny," Louise Woodward is convicted and then set free.
June 3, 1997
Comparing the OJ Simpson case with the trial of Timothy McVeigh .
February 5, 1997
The civil trial verdict goes against OJ Simpson.
September 3, 1997:
A look at criminal law in France.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of law.
Outside Links
Justice Department
In his testimony before a congressional panel, Supreme Court Justice David Souter said: "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going roll over my dead body."
Understanding the Justice's aversion to TV court coverage is easy; just consider the biggest case in recent memory, the "Nanny Trial" of Louise Woodward. In this case, a British au pair was accused of shaking a Massachusetts couple's son to death, and coverage of her trial was likened by some to a sporting event, with its play-by-play commentary and crowd reactions broadcast from both the United States and England.
TV had good intentions.
Except for South Dakota, Indiana and Mississippi, all states allow TV cameras in courtrooms. Video cameras were placed in courts to offer the American public the opportunity to become better educated about the judicial process, and prevent the abuses that can take place in closed proceedings. TV cameras can also provide the level of public access needed to build genuine public support for the justice system.
The court of public opinion.
But the passionate public response to trials such as that of Louise Woodward and O.J. Simpson has worried some legal analysts about the impartiality of today's justice system. Today, 59 percent of judges surveyed said that the media circus surrounding the Simpson trial convinced them TV can negatively affect courtroom proceedings. Despite this, however, 96 percent of those same judges reported that TV cameras did not affect the outcome of proceedings in their courtrooms.
Public involvement in a controversial court case isn't new. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction of Sam Sheppard, who was accused of bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death. The Justices ruled that the pre-trial TV reports declared Sheppard guilty and that "bedlam reigned at the courthouse."
With cameras in the courtroom, however, even mundane legal routines become public drama. According to Peter Neufeld, a criminal defense attorney who was on O. J. Simpson's defense team, cameras in the courtroom create a kind of "environment where lawyers start acting out, where judges start acting out, and it's not very healthy for those who are pursuing justice."
Is a trial still fair if the public gets involved? To what extent do judges, jurors and lawyers change their behavior when they know the world is watching?
Our guests are Court TV reporter Tim Sullivan and Steven Lubet, a Professor of Law at Northwestern University.
Questions asked in this forum:Would only allowing trials to be broadcast after the verdict solve the problems? Do lawyers and judges dress and act differently when they're infront of a camera? How do legal shows like "The People's Court" affect America's view of its justice system? Why aren't there cameras in the Supreme Court? How does Court TV decide what cases to cover, and how do cameras in the courts affect the careers of lawyers and judges? Additional comments.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
