Should Cameras Be Allowed In Court Cases

While researching this issue, I wanted to see what my State laws were and how it pertained to the question at hand. “Historically, access to courtrooms and adjacent areas to broadcast, televise, record and photograph court proceedings was tenuous, particularly after the media coverage of the Sam Shepard trial in the 1950s caused many courts to close their doors to the media. Then, on October 29, 1991, the Supreme Court of Missouri established a task force to determine whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom. After considering the issue, the task force recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a rule authorizing broadcasting, televising, recording and taking photographs in Missouri courtrooms on an experimental basis and under controlled conditions. This rule derived from the Court's constitutional authority to

administer the judicial system within Missouri. In September 1992, the Supreme Court promulgated what is now known as Court Operating Rule 16 to allow broadcasting, televising, and recording and still photography in eleven judicial circuits and in all appellate courts in Missouri. After monitoring and evaluating coverage during the experimental period, the task force recommended that the rule be expanded to include all courts. In October 1994, the Supreme Court adopted Court Operating Rule 16 to allow cameras in all Missouri courtrooms, effective July 1, 1995, within certain guidelines addressing issues such as advance notice by the media, placement of cameras in the courtroom, and restrictions on camera or audio equipment. Although the task force recognized that camera access to Missouri courtrooms is not a constitutional right, the spirit of the rule is that cameras generally be allowed in the courtroom as a means of making the judicial process more accessible to all citizens. It therefore is important for media coordinators and media representatives to help ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted in a dignified manner to preserve the ends of justice. The task force noted that ultimately, the success of the rule depends on the cooperative efforts of media representatives, media coordinators and the state's courts. It therefore is incumbent on media coordinators to work with media representatives and the courts to ensure that the cameras in the courtroom program is conducted fairly and in accordance with the rule.” I believe that cameras should be allowed into the courtrooms. Cameras permit the court the respect it deserves, which is precisely why the highest courts in most U.S. states and many other countries, including Britain and Canada, have embraced televised sessions. Cameras are the only trustworthy witness the justices have to demonstrate that they take their job seriously and that they are not partisan or gridlocked. In fact, cameras would likely help the public realize that the Supreme Court functions a degree better than most other government institutions. Given the distressingly low public regard for the court, the fact that the institution does exist in the realm of television, and most of all, that they have outsourced control over their own reputation, the Supreme Court is in worse shape ignoring TV than they could ever be if they embraced it. Ultimately, cameras in the Supreme Court are not for our sake: it’s for theirs. Based upon the above material in my state of Missouri, the following regulations that guide media in the courtrooms were established.
• No media coverage will be permitted in a courtroom without the express permission of the trial judge.

COR 16.02(a).

• If the judge finds that media coverage would interfere materially with the rights of a party to a fair trial, he/she shall deny permission for media coverage. COR 16.02(b).

• If the presiding judge prefers, he/she can grant standing permission allowing cameras in the courtroom unless he/she specifically orders otherwise. This is the practice followed in the Supreme Court of Missouri.

• Once permission is granted, the trial judge may prescribe the conditions of media coverage consistent with Court Operating Rule 16. COR 16.02(a).

• If the media coordinator fails to schedule an equipment demonstration before a proceeding that media have asked to cover, the court may deny permission for media coverage. COR 16.04(a)(4).

• It is recommended that the court make a record of its order granting or terminating coverage.

• To the extent possible and practical, it is recommended that the court conduct meetings and phone conferences concerning media requests on the record and make all resulting orders on the record and/or in

writing.