Should Trials Be Televised?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Tumey v. Ohio
Television coverage is prejudicial to the interests of the defendant
The stance of the Bush administration
Perspectives of judges
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The aspect of in-camera court proceedings is a major factor in court scenarios in the 21^st century and has assumed significance since the public has a fair right to be kept informed about the proceedings of the trial and its final judgment. While it is necessary for court proceedings to be transparent and unbiased, it is also necessary that the right of privacy, confidentiality, and a fair trial of the defendant be protected through the due process of law. In most cases, it could be seen that the rights of the defendants could be lowered, if not compromised, in the event of trial proceedings going public, since community opinion could play a major role in the shaping of the future proceedings of the Court.

Tumey v. Ohio

The writer is of the opinion that more than the question of whether trials need to be televised or not, a more significant aspect would be in terms of the fact whether public opinion generated by widespread television coverage could prejudice the legal interests of the alleged offender and more importantly, influence the minds of the jury against the alleged defendant and verdict a biased and unfair judgment against him.

As Chief Justice Taft C.J. observed in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, the 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).

Thus it may be seen that there are several aspects that either support or decry the theory of having televised court proceedings. It would therefore be necessary to consider both aspects that impinge upon the topic. The facts in favor of having court proceedings televised could be as follows:

The public has the right to know about the court proceedings.
The elements of autocratic 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.
The aspects of a free and fair trial are openly conducted, and the public is aware of the progress of the case.
Relatives and family members of the litigating parties are updated on the current state of the case, without which they would be at the mercy of attorneys and court officials.
The legal protection that needs to be made available to the defendant is adequately protected.
Televised archives could set legal precedents for later cases. It could also be an important source in the event the present verdict is disputed, or the case is taken to the Court of Appeals or higher Courts for hearing.
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 case to proceed on camera, although it was contested 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 prejudicial to the interests of the defendant

The main aspect that needs to be considered is whether on television camera trials are prejudicial to the interests of the defendant and would compromise on proving his innocence, or otherwise. In empirical 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 trial. If television negatively affects a minority of jurors or witnesses, an unacceptable risk is presented.” (Cohn and Dow, p.32).

Thus the important decision as to whether television coverage of the trial needs to be effected or not needs to vest on the defendant, not even the jury, since it is his position that would be compromised in the event of detrimental effects coverage could cause in the future. 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 the course of a specific case through the influence of community opinion regarding the guilt of the defendant or otherwise. It is, however, common knowledge that defendants are most often than not condemned by the public even before the defense trial has begun. It may be difficult to change public opinion, even if the defendant is finally acquitted. What is, therefore, more important in the present context is to strike the right chord between enforcement of public rights and protection of the privileges of the defendant.

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

The stance of the Bush administration

According to it, 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 unduly 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 purview of TV coverage since it is believed to hamper the conduct of courts. It is widely believed in judicial circles that although it affords a front seat view of proceedings through TV and online video coverage, this may be at the cost of the privacy rights of the defendants and the sanctity and decorum of courts. These hallowed institutions could be reduced to just objects of public mockery, and judges would lose respect from the public if proceedings were live broadcast. The judiciaries are considered to be places of justice seekers and not commercial places of public interests, especially when a “grand jury is in session there.” (Flood).

Perspectives of judges

Judges do not consider themselves as a part of public media; as a matter of fact, media attention is detrimental to their work, and over publicity could kill a case even before it has been got started or the first gavel has sounded. Most judges would love to shun the press and media and avoid the glare of public attention. They believe that, more often than not, media cannot influence judgments since what transpires between lawyers and judges can only be recorded but not manipulated by the press and TV. And that may be one of the reasons why the public is demanding television trials since they would like to know the truth and not the distorted versions churned out by 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 dilution of truth as depicted in tabloids and newspapers.

It is believed that the presence of cameras may make witnesses diffident and circumspect in making statements since they are under public scrutiny. The fear of strong cross-examination under media attention could unnerve even the strong-willed witnesses, especially if they are not well briefed on all aspects of the case.

It is also belied that television cameras could indirectly interfere with the equanimity and dispassion that judges need to exercise in meeting justice, especially in closely fought courtroom battles. But it is also believed that it could serve as a restraining factor, and judges could feel the need to be more cautious, circumspect, and careful in hearing the arguments and forming an opinion regarding the case, based on the on goings of the Court and not extraneous matters or personal bias. The sanctity of the court and its delivery system assumed 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, the consciousness of playing to the gallery aspect, is what demeans the sanctity and inviolability of the Court.

However, there may be grains of truth in the belief that privacy and human rights of the defendants, could to a certain extent, be compromised since over publicity and hype may present a larger-than-life image of the parties 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 indulged with the defendant and finally passed a nonguilty verdict.

“Held: The televising over petitioner’s objections of the courtroom proceedings of petitioner’s 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 evidence, 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, the higher Court would not have the time or inclination to consider other aspects like color or racial aspects, the role of media, or political overtures.

The Courts mainly consider the fact whether the defendant is guilty or non-guilty and, if guilty, provide suitable punishment in commensuration with the level of the offense.

Other considerations do not, in most cases, have a bearing on the ultimate judgment delivered by the jury.

Therefore, according to the writer, the aspects of outside pressures or influences need to have no role as such. It is akin to 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 deliberations are more important and provide more food for thought and verdict than the nature of the offenses.

This being a highly controversial issue, there could be no one-fit situation that could be used on all occasions. There would be a need to consider the facts 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 suppress facts from public view or to contort the due process of justice but is based on the premise that public sentiment or community passing has no place in the carriage of justice and fair play. Judges need to pass sentences based on the merits of each case and not on other considerations, how well prevailing.

The jury retires in privacy to consult among themselves and offer a verdict on a consensus basis. There may be divided opinions among the jury members themselves, and finally, the majority decision shall subsist.

Therefore, it could be maintained that the main choice of whether court trial proceedings need to be televised is a matter within the domain of the critical parties in the trial – that is, the defendants and its attorneys, and it is for them to decide whether trials need to be conducted on camera or not. The Courts or the jury, on most occasions, have very little say in the matter in so far as it affects the nature and functioning of court processes.

Works Cited

Certiorari To The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas: Held. Usscplus.com. 1965. 2008. Web.

Cohn, Marjorie., and Dow, David. Defense Attorney Weigh In. Cameras in the Courtroom. 2002. 2008. Web.

Flood, Mary. Federal Judge Bans Public, Media from Area of Enron Grand Jury Hearings. Access my Library: Search Information That Libraries Trust. 2002. 2008. Web.

Florida, Chandler. V. Conclusion. Oyez: US Supreme Court Media. 1981. 2008. Web.

Tong, Lorraine. Televising Supreme Court and Other Federal Court Proceedings: Opponents. CRS Report for Congress. 2006. 2008. Web.

US Supreme Court: v. Find Law: For Legal Professionals.1965. 2008. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!