The best reason against it is the problem that we could become a symbol since we are the Supreme Court, and if it was in our court, it would be in every court in the country, criminal cases included…When you have television in some, not all, criminal cases, there are risks. The risks are that the witness is hesitant to say exactly what he or she thinks because he knows the neighbors are watching. The risk might be with some jurors that they are afraid that they will be identified on television and thus could become the victims of a crime. There are risks involving what the lawyer might or might not be thinking…Is he influenced by that television when he decides what evidence to present?
Contents contributed and discussions participated by Alexis Macklin
CAMERAS IN THE COURT - C-SPAN - 0 views
-
-
If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don’t introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works…We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. WE are judged over a much longer term. We’re not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don’t think we should take that chance.”
NM&L (Fall 2002): Judges restrict camera access in courtrooms - 0 views
-
judges have the authority to allow camera access
-
California Court Rule 980, which prohibits the use of images depicting spectators in court
For Cameras in Courtrooms - 0 views
Against cameras in courtrooms - by a judge in minnesota - 2 views
-
1983, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved an experimental program
-
experimental program has been a failure
Both Sides- Cameras in Courtrooms - 0 views
-
citizen's right to a fair and impartial trial
-
itigants, witnesses, and jurors
-
negative impact on the trial process
- ...5 more annotations...
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page