Should TV and radio be allowed in courtrooms? THE COURTS are among the last of our public institutions to conduct their routine business out of easy public view -- and sometimes in complete privacy. Appellate panels arrive at their decisions in secret, for example, explaining later only what the judges feel like explaining. Once vested in their black robes, trial judges rule like monarchs, dispatching bailiffs to reprimand spectators who fail to exhibit the proper respect for the dignity of the judicial branch. In many jurisdictions, including Illinois, news cameras and recorders still are not permitted in the courtroom on the once valid premise that the distraction interferes with the truth-seeking function of the judicial system guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In April, the Illinois News Broadcasters Association filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court asking the state's highest tribunal to consider whether the new, smaller, quieter and presumably less intrusive equipment of television news might render the old restrictions obsolete. Petition denied Without bothering to schedule a hearing on the facts and opposing arguments, the Supreme Court summarily denied the petition. The broadcasters had requested an opportunity to demonstrate their latest equipment and suggested several possible options, such as a temporary test restricted to one judicial circuit. The issue hardly deserved to be kissed off so hastily. It is an issue likely to remain on the public agenda. For the business of the courts the people's business and, as the U.S. Supreme Court had occasion to declare in 1947, "what happens in the courtroom is public property." Adept as legislative representatives have become at dodging politically sensitive social questions, judges find themselves being thrust more frequently into crucial policymaking roles. This is happening in an ever more complex society where the courts are ever more remote from the people. If possible, the need for continuing close scrutiny of the administration of justice may be more pressing in Illinois than in most other states because of the legislature's refusal to change the method of judicial selection, a system that rewards political party service rather than judicial ability with judgeships. Potential disruption Television's potential for disrupting a jury trial cannot be ignored. I have covered trials of prominent public figures who were nearly trampled outside the courthouse by swarms of husky (and for all practical purposes blinded) behemoths, bulky cameras perched on their shoulders and trailed by lighting and sound technicians all wired together and struggling frantically to stay together. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the fraud conviction of Texas financier Billy Sol Estes in 1965 because his trial was televised. In that case the judge happened to be up for reelection and the prosecutor was himself a judicial candidate. "A defendant on trial for a specific crime is entitled to his day in court, not in a stadium or a city and nationwide arena," the majority opinion emphasized. "The heightened public clamor resulting from radio and television coverage will inevitably result in prejudice." Yet the high court stopped short of a constitutional bar against televised trials. Twelve states now permit the limited use of cameras and recording machines during criminal trials. Under proper supervision, broadcasters can share the film or tape of a single crew operating a small camera with available light from behind a screen in a corner of the room. There need be no blinking light to bewitch lawyers and jurors. The distraction need be no greater than the subdued clatter of the stenotypist in today's court scene. TV would be banned from juvenile proceedings and certain other sensitive testimony at the discretion of the judge. This would therefore add to the management problems of judges, who would be confronted by decisions over whether to admit or exclude cameras, yet another possible grounds for reversal of the decision by a higher court — which is surely one of the reasons so many lower judges resist the idea. In Florida, where a visiting committee of the Illinois State Bar Association observed the closing arguments of a murder trial that was televised, most prosecutors are enthusiastic about the presence of cameras and most defense lawyers are critical. In Illinois, public opinion appears to be crystallizing on the issue. Younger members of bar and bench, born in a television age, are likely to drag their elders (and the Illinois Supreme Court) along toward a more open policy. Judicial coverage Then the question becomes: what will television do with this newly won access? Sensational trials obviously will draw their attention. But will the electronic media train an investigative eye on the mundane workings of the judicial system, exposing abusive behavior by judges and prosecutors involving a lowly purse snatcher, as well as the dramatic, gripping story of a live Perry Mason bringing an ax murderer to justice? August 1978/Illinois Issues /33
|
|||||||||||||||
