404 Not Found

FRONTLINE DEATH PENALTY PROJECT FACT SHEET
Monday, December 2, 2002

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The intent of this film is to give viewers the rare opportunity to see a death penalty case, from start to finish, and to observe and record the progress of twelve citizens who are faced with the singular responsibility of deciding whether a defendant should live or die. This documentary will show how the death penalty system works -- a view from the ground up -- told by those deep inside the system. It will bring new insight and greater depth to a significant social issue that is often politicized, always charged, but rarely understood. This film will stand as a compelling record of our capital justice system that will provide the public with an alternative view to the courtroom dramas that have popularized commercial television.

WHY FILM A DEATH PENALTY CASE?
One of the critical tests of a democratic society is how its judicial system administers capital justice. This year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that only juries, not judges, have the power to decide life or death in capital cases. There are few issues today that are more controversial and important than capital punishment. However impassioned the national debate may be over capital punishment -- whether it's just or unjust -- the reality is that most of us have never seen how the capital justice system actually works.

WHEN DID THE PROJECT BEGIN?
Producers Miri Navasky and Karen O'Connor began doing research on this film over two years ago. After doing preliminary research on the death penalty in Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, the producers first visited Harris County in June of 2000, the summer of the presidential campaign, when the death penalty in Texas was receiving widespread and controversial media attention. Navasky and O'Connor spent weeks and then months in Harris County to learn firsthand everything they could about the capital system. The producers had numerous meetings with judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers and watched many capital trials, including the entire individual voir dire process and multiple trial proceedings.

WHO DID THE PRODUCERS TALK TO?
Over the course of that summer and fall, the producers met repeatedly with defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors as they watched capital trials, discussed the critical role of the jury selection process, trial preparation and strategy, and the outcome of each verdict. Attorneys on both sides spent considerable time with them discussing each phase of the capital process. At the conclusion of many trials, the producers were permitted to talk with jurors about their verdicts to learn more about the process from inside the jury room and what it was really like to deliberate in a death penalty case.

WHAT WAS THE GENERAL RESPONSE TO THE PROJECT?
Although wary at first, interest in the project grew as people learned more about the ambitions and interests of the film and as people saw the considerable time the producers dedicated to research. Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges were enormously cooperative. There was agreement that whatever one's personal views might be on the death penalty, whether for or against it, the general public has never seen how the capital justice system actually works and that there was merit and tremendous public value in documenting the entire process of a capital trial.

Throughout the lengthy research process, the producers were strongly encouraged by all parties to move ahead with their plans to film a capital trial from jury selection (which had never been granted before) through trial. At that point in the research process, filming deliberations had not yet been formally proposed.

WHY WAS JUDGE POE CHOSEN?
Both prosecutors and defense attorneys repeatedly recommended that the producers talk to Judge Poe. Ted Poe, a former prosecutor, is among the most admired and highly regarded judges in Harris County. Prosecutors and defense attorneys respect his sharp legal mind, bold thinking, and his fairness to both sides in a criminal case. In his eight years as a trial attorney for the State, Ted Poe successfully prosecuted eight death penalty cases. On the bench for over twenty years, Judge Poe has presided over fifteen death cases in his court. He understands the severity of the penalty and the absolute requirement for the integrity of the process.

Sometimes controversial, Judge Poe was among the first judges in Harris County to have allowed a criminal trial to be filmed, despite objections from the State. His great confidence in the criminal justice system and his belief in opening the courts to the public closely tracked the interests of this film.

WHY FILM DELIBERATIONS?
Access to jury deliberations will allow the producers to document what a death penalty case looks like from the inside out -- to take a closer measure of how jury verdicts are actually reached, what informs those decisions and how ordinary citizens are affected by the legal responsibility and moral burden of deciding a defendant's fate.

A Texas attorney researched the law regarding the filming of jury deliberations. After a lengthy research process, it was determined that no Texas law prohibited the filming of jury deliberations and that each judge had the legal discretion to permit or deny such a request.

Following that legal research, we asked Judge Poe to consider our additional request to film not only jury selection and all trial proceedings, but also jury deliberations. After months of careful review, Judge Poe notified the producers that before he would consider any formal request, the defendant and his defense attorney would first have to consent to the filming of jury deliberations and agree not to use the issue of filming or the recordings in any post-conviction appeal.

WHY CHOOSE THE HARRISON CASE?
The producers committed to film the first death penalty case to be prosecuted in Judge Poe's court. When the death penalty cases of Carey Grant and Cedric Harrison were assigned to Judge Poe's court, the producers began specific conversations about filming the entire trial, including deliberations, with the prosecutor and defense attorney handling both cases.

In September 2002, Navasky and O'Connor moved ahead to film the death penalty trial of Carey Grant. They began discussions with Mr. Grant and his defense attorney about filming the entire trial, including jury deliberations, but as the producers were filming his arraignment, Mr. Grant was offered and accepted a plea of capital life.

When Cedric Harrison's case moved forward, the producers then began discussions with the defendant, the defense attorney and the defendant's mother to obtain permission to film jury deliberations. When all parties consented, the producers filed their formal request to film the trial of Cedric Harrison, including jury selection and jury deliberations. The request to film was granted by the Court on November 11, 2002.

OTHER DELIBERATIONS FILMED TO DATE:
Three different television networks (PBS, CBS and ABC) have filmed numerous jury deliberations in criminal trials, including murder trials. In 1986, FRONTLINE at PBS broadcast the jury deliberations in a Wisconsin criminal trial. In 1997, CBS broadcast three different jury deliberations in three distinct Arizona criminal trials. And this past summer, ABC broadcast a five-part series, which again, broadcast the deliberations of all trials filmed, including multiple murder trials.

1. Wisconsin PBS "Inside the Jury Room" Airdate: 8 April 1986

• In late 1985, FRONTLINE filmed jury deliberations in a criminal trial in Milwaukee County Criminal Court with the approval of the presiding judge.
• The cameraman and the soundman were present in the deliberations room.
• Prospective jurors were informed of the filming and were given the opportunity to refuse to serve on the jury. From a panel of 40 potential jurors, only three individuals chose to withdraw.

2. Arizona CBS "Enter the Jury Room" Airdate: 16 April 1997

• In 1996, CBS filmed three criminal trials in Superior Court of Maricopa County.
• During deliberations, CBS used remote control cameras.
• The project was endorsed by the American Bar Association and approved by Chief Justice Stanley Feldman, the presiding judge of the Arizona Supreme Court. Feldman issued an order allowing CBS to film jury deliberations in criminal trials in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona.
• The defendant waived any right to use the filming as a post-conviction appeal issue.
• Jurors who did not wish to participate were excused from service.

3. Arizona ABC "State V" (5 part series) Airdate: June-July 2002

• Starting in January 2001, ABC filmed numerous trials, including murder trials, in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona.
• During deliberations, remote control cameras were used.
• Again, the Arizona Supreme Court approved the filming. On January 17, 2001, the presiding judge of the Arizona Supreme Court signed an order permitting ABC to film jury deliberations.
• In Maricopa County Superior Court, the presiding judge of Maricopa County Court agreed with the Supreme Court's Order, as did at least five criminal trials judges in Maricopa County.
• Jurors who did not wish to participate were excused from service.