404 Not Found

FRONTLINE DEFENDS COURT DECISION ON FILMING JURY DELIBERATIONS
Tuesday, November 26, 2002

Michael Sullivan, executive producer of special projects for FRONTLINE, the PBS documentary series, today issued the following statement about the controversy in the Texas courts over the decision of District Court Judge Ted Poe to allow the videotaping of jury deliberations in a capital murder case:

"We want to commend Judge Poe for his courageous and principled decision to allow the public access to a full and complete exploration of the legal process in the most controversial sector of American jurisprudence—the administration of the death penalty.

For more than two years, FRONTLINE producers Miri Navasky and Karen O'Connor have been exploring the possibility of complete access to a capital murder trial with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys in Harris County. After a detailed study of Texas law by our attorneys, we were convinced that current law clearly gives any trial judge the discretion to allow videotaping of trials and jury room deliberations, even if the prosecution or the defense should object. We believe Judge Poe has designed a plan for the filming of Texas v. Harrison with great caution and care, ensuring that the defendant's rights are protected and that any jurors who are uncomfortable with the prospect of being filmed will not be asked to serve on the jury and will be released upon agreement by both sides. Furthermore, the secrecy and the privacy of the jury deliberations will be preserved because the court has ordered that all tapes of the deliberations remain in custody of the court until the conclusion of the trial.

As the process has unfolded, Judge Poe's careful handling of this project has resulted in the agreement of the defendant and his attorneys to the filming and has resulted in only minimal impact on the jury pool. Almost 90% of the prospective jurors declared they had no objection to being filmed in the process of deliberating the case.

We believe the objections of the Harris County District Attorney Charles Rosenthal, Jr., to Judge Poe's order to allow the filming are based on a faulty reading of Texas law, on misrepresentation of FRONTLINE's distinguished 20-year record of thoughtful and thorough reporting, and an apparent deep mistrust of Harris County jurors and the jury system.

Much of what has been reported on this case to date rests on speculation from the district attorney and many legal analysts as to whether the deliberations of the jury in this case would be substantially altered by being filmed. But there is real world data on this question in the results of a similar experiment in Wisconsin, where FRONTLINE was the first to film jury deliberations in a criminal case, and in Maricopa County, Arizona, where jury deliberations in criminal cases were filmed by CBS in 1996, with the endorsement of the American Bar Association.

Again in 2001-2002, over the course of 18 months, ABC filmed jury deliberations in Arizona in several criminal cases, including a non-capital murder case. Both Maricopa County projects were endorsed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Interviews with jurors following the verdicts clearly indicated they felt the camera had no impact on their deliberations or their verdicts. And officials in Arizona have reported they found no discernable impact of the filming on the juror's decision-making.

Just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that only juries, not judges, shall have the power to decide life or death in capital murder cases. FRONTLINE has pursued this project in the belief that a carefully controlled filming of this process will create a deeply illuminating document of exactly how capital murder cases are decided. We believe the project will be of enormous value to the public and to students of the law across the country, and will help American citizens better understand their role should they be called upon to exercise the ultimate responsibility to decide the fate of a fellow citizen.

In the end, this case seems to rest on the stark contrast between the district attorney's apparent pessimism that the capital justice system has inherent weaknesses and will suffer from this kind of detailed examination, and Judge Poe's optimism that the jury system is strong and will only benefit from more sunlight. We think Judge Poe has it right."