Running Head: CAMERAS IN THE COURTOOM

Determining Camera Privileges in the Courtroom

Shanyah McCluney

Communication Law & Ethnics

North Carolina A&T State University

 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

Abstract

This essay seeks to tackle the issues, impact, and effects that cameras have had on court

proceedings. Over the years, the Supreme Court has denied media outlets from broadcasting live

footage in the courtrooms. Cases such as Crown v. Zenger and Chandler v. Florida have helped

shape the history of freedom of press as it relates to the publication of materials. Many press

representatives have voiced their stance on televising proceedings as it reflects to “freedom of

press” according to the First Amendment. This situation becomes a matter of public policy as

American citizens are entitled to be informed about the functionality of their government and its

criminal cases. This argument sheds light on the transparency that cameras provide for its

country and assurance that the government is practicing openness. The Supreme Courts will

make a counterargument citing cases such as the Estes to provide clarity on why cameras

become an issue within judicial work.

Introduction

For a little over a century, journalists have done their diligence to inform the public of

what is happening in a local area, city, or around the world. Through immersive writing,

researching and reporting, communities have been able to stay updated by reading the local

paper, listening to the radio, or watching it from the comfort of the television. As the centuries

change, so does the way the world receives information. With the advancement of technology,

reporters use cameras to advocate the accuracy of their stories. In America, citizens have been

granted the freedom of press according to the first amendment. Yet as new innovative

technologies are created such as cameras, stipulations have developed which has contradicted the

18th Century document. Although citizens have been granted the right to free press, there still
 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

lies a grey area between the rights of having a camera inside of courtroom as it relates to the first

amendment. With unclear and uncertainty of how to determine where cameras draw the line,

there is a need to establish where free press begins and ends.

The Beginning of Freedom of Press

After the constitution was successfully ratified on September 17th, 1787 by 39 delegates

during the constitutional convention, representative James Madison introduced a significant

addition that strengthens the original document known as the Bill of Rights. Madison and other

delegates realized many Americans would have been denied their basic human rights without

this inclusion. Today, the Bill of rights contains 27 amendments that have been modified to

adjust with the times. One of the most important amendments that have considerably improved

the quality of life for Americans is the First Amendment. This amendment states, “Congress

shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” which helped citizens have

the liberty to speak, write or publish their inclinations.

James Madison believed this was a critical feature to incorporate because it was rightfully

deserved by the people. The first amendment went through several revisions before it was

finalized and impeded into the constitution. According to Gina Hagler, it was important the

wording provided clarity concerning speech, expression, and press. “But freedom of the press is

not an absolute. It is a balance between the need for information on the one hand and the need for

government to function on the other” (Hagler 2013). In 1733, the John Zenger case which

involved the criticism of government officials further demonstrated a need for citizens to have

the ability to publish freely without the control of the British influence. After all, America is

known as “the land of free “which acknowledges the refusal of authority from others.
 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

Impact of Cameras during on Court Proceedings

Courtrooms have evolved over the years by adapting to the digital era. Unfortunately, the

US Constitution did not completely accommodate reporters and their equipment due to

unadvanced technology. As early as the 1930s, journalists were seeking the privilege of

televising judicial court proceedings. One of the first cases to allow the use of cameras was the

1934 Lindbergh trial which involved the prosecution of Bruno Hauptmann in the kidnapping of

Charles and Anne Lindbergh's son. The scandalous trial took a turn when cameramen broke

protocol by stealing recorded footage of the trial. After the video recordings were edited, the

reels were distributed to theaters around the country within 24 hours. The Supreme Court was

previously against all recording devices being allowed in the courtroom, but this situation

indicated a need for stricter regulation.

Another issue that arose in a different trial was the issue of cameras interfering with the

case itself. The Chandler v. Florida case televised the trial of two Miami police officers that were

charged with burglarizing a local restaurant. Originally, the courts were concerned stating “It is

difficult to demonstrate or analyze whether a witness would have testified differently if his or her

testimony had not been broadcast. And witnesses subject to harassment as a result of the

broadcast of their testimony might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings” (West,

S.R 2012). This was later recanted as the courts ruled that there was no evidence that the

broadcasting had any effects on the fairness of the trial. The inclusion of the cameras in the trial

was an experiment that could not be prohibited under the Canon 3A.
 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

Issues following the First Amendment

Cameras began to become a conflict of interest due to the uncertainty of how they should

be handled according to the First Amendment. The 39 delegates who originally oversaw the

document most likely wrote the amendments according to their period. Abiding by this

document has caused an outcry from the world of journalism. “Members of the press have

argued that the Constitution protects their right to cover the Court through use of their preferred

method of newsgathering. In their view, the Press Clause of the First Amendment supports this

result, as does the Equal Protection Clause”' (West, S. R. (2012). The Supreme Court has made

several arguments saying the amendment doesn’t require them to televise the court's

proceedings. Chief Justice Warren cited the Estes case by acknowledging that lives, liberty, and

the property of people would be at stake with the allocation of broadcasted proceedings. Despite

Warren voicing his argument, one of the rights of the First Amendment is to be informed of the

working of its government. Television has become the most preferred medium by Americans to

stay updated by the news. According to the A.C Nielsen CO., the average American watches

more than 4 hours of televison each day. For media outlets to brief their viewers, video cameras

would promote the sincerity of the court proceedings. This practice can keep citizens informed

and the government accountable for their actions.

Cameras in the 21st Century

Today, court proceedings are handled differently around the world but have remained a

global issue. Some countries continue to advocate for the inclusion of cameras in the courtroom,

while others are forced to leave the issue alone. United Kingdom’s Supreme Court allowed their

hearings to be televised under Section 47 of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. Fortunately,

American courtroom proceedings may be broadcasted with the authorization of a judge. Some
 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

of the most notable civil cases that have been recorded were the trial of Casey Anthony, Dr.

Conrad Murray, and Jodi Arias. One of the benefits coming from the broadcast is that citizens

were able to analyze the trial and determine its efficiency. Through the freedom of press, they

were also able to learn the functionality of the courtroom. Public trials alleviate the potential

outrage of communities who want to see criminals prosecuted for their crimes. This privilege

further advocates for the constitutional right instilled in the First Amendment to attend trials.

Cameras may enhance the trial experience, but it is up to the state to decide if they will be

allowed in the courtrooms. Most states make cameras permissible, but New York is one of the

few states that prohibit them in the court.

Federal trials continue to deny camera access to its courtroom proceedings despite the

rights outlined in the First Amendment. The Michigan Review mentions a concern the Federal

courts may have “While individually, a free press and greater access to media infrastructure are

critical pre-conditions for curbing corruption, they are not sufficient. The presence of both

together is the key in reducing corruption in an economy” (Dutta, N., & Roy, S. 2016)

Conclusion

After a deep review of “Freedom of Press”, there still lies a need for additions and

modifications to laws as it applies to cameras in the courtrooms. Although the constitution stands

to protect the liberties of Americans, there is much improvement to be made as the United States

continues to advance from a technological perspective. The Courts should expect to see new

communicative devices in the future and prepare to create new policies to adjust accordingly.

There are still issues to tackle to make the inclusion of cameras more acceptable, especially in

the Federal Courts.

 CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM

Reference

Gardner, N. (1985). Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials.
Michigan Law Review, 84(3), 475-516. doi:10.2307/1289011

https://www-jstor-org.ncat.idm.oclc.org/stable/1289011?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

Dutta, N., & Roy, S. (2016). The interactive impact of press freedom and media reach on
corruption.  Economic Modelling, 58, 227–227.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264999316301316

Youm, K. H. (2012). Cameras in the courtroom in the twenty-first century: the u.s. supreme
court learning from abroad? Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012(6), 1989–2031.

http://ncat.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=f5h&AN=86414825&site=ehost-live

West, S. R. (2012). The monster in the courtroom. Brigham Young University Law

Review, 2012(6), 1953–1988.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ncat.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=1&sid=29389f8a-82db-498f-8716-1b90aeddc3e3%40sessionmgr4008

Hagler, G. (2013). Understanding freedom of the press. ProQuest Ebook

Central https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ncat.idm.oclc.org/