Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Legal Issues Cameras in the Courtroom Cameras in the Courtroom This fall, Zacarias Moussaoui is scheduled to go to trial for his participation in the airplane bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. Along with the media frenzy that accompanies a trial of this magnitude, a separate battle is being waged between Courtroom Television Network LLC (Court-TV) and the U.S. Government over the right of the former to televise trial proceedings. The Government of the United States’ opposition is stated in a legal brief dated January 4, 2002. Their stance is that “the televising of federal criminal trials is prohibited by both Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 (‘The taking of photographs in the courtroom during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom shall not be permitted by the court.’) and Local Rule 83.3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” The Government contends that Rule 83 does not allow individual judges to grant the right to televise criminal proceedings, but that the rule applies “in all situations with no exceptions.” In section II of the brief, the prosecution attacks the claims by Court-TV that the First Amendment protects their televising of proceedings. In summarizing several Supreme Court cases where the issue of cameras in the courtroom was brought to the forefront, the U.S. Government effectively shows that Court-TV cannot claim First Amendment protection. Section IV finds the prosecution attesting that Court-TV has given no valid argument as to why the proceedings should be televised. They claim that while opening the courtroom to the public assures that the proceedings are conducted fairly, “there is no reason to believe that televising the proceedings widely would enhance the benefits to the administration of justice obtained through open trials.” The prosecution also admits that the televising of proceedings increases the audience, and therefore increases the educational benefits, but argues that this alone “does not warrant a constitutional requirement that television cameras be allowed at criminal trials.” The Government points out that in Estes v Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), many potential pitfalls of televised proceedings are listed, including: “(1) the possibility that televising the proceedings will have a ‘direct bearing on (a juror’s) vote as to guilt or innocence’, (2) the possibility that jurors will be ‘preoccupied with the telecasting rather than with the testimony’, (3) the possibility that jurors will be influenced by television broadcasts of the proceedings or subjected to commentary or criticism from members of the public, (4) the difficulty of obtaining an unbiased venire if a retrial is required in a case where the first trial was televised….” Court-TV’s brief requests allowance for cameras in the courtroom. It opens with the statement that all while fifty states permit some type of television coverage, and thirty-seven states allow cameras in criminal proceedings, the federal courts do not allow cameras in the courtroom. The defendant claims that this ban is unconstitutional. They go on to argue that “there is no principled constitutional distinction between the right to observe legal proceedings first-hand and the right to record and telecast those proceedings for the benefit of persons who, for any of a variety of reasons, cannot attend the proceedings at the courthouse.” , and thus the First Amendment protects this right to record. However, Court-TV then agrees that the First Amendment right of access is in no way absolute, and therefore they do not wish to see a ruling in which cameras should be permitted into all criminal trials. Permittance of cameras into courtrooms should be allowed on a trial-to-trial basis. The defense admits that there are many cases weighing against its position, but states that much has changed in the years since Estes v. Texas, and uses Justice Harlan’s concurrence from that case for support; “…Justice Harlan recognized that ‘the day might come’ when television could safely be admitted to our courtrooms because ‘all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms may disparage the judicial process’ would have been dissipated.” Court-TV points out that when Estes was decided, the technology was crude and intrusive, but that today’s broadcast equipment can be set up in a way that it is virtually undetectable. The most important point, according to Court-TV, is that none of the cases against cameras in the courtroom dealt with an issue so important to the public interest and concern, not only of the United States, but also of the world. While the Senate is expected to pass legislation requiring the closed circuit broadcasting of the case to certain cities for the families of the victims, Court-TV contends that many more people can legitimately claim to be victims or survivors of victims of the attacks. Therefore, Court-TV attests that the trial should be available to more than the limited audience. “Here, where the proceedings are certain to generate international scrutiny, the media will play an even more important role not only as the eyes and ears of the citizens of America, but also as a window on our system for justice for citizens of the world.” In section D2, the defense acknowledges that there “remains concern that ‘sensationalist’ reporting about court proceedings is itself an affront to the dignity of the judiciary.” , but contends that their own coverage of the trial will be complete and responsible, thus not causing concern. They argue that without cameras in the courtroom, the only information given to the public will come from the few members of the press or public that were able to attend, or from those simply guessing what has occurred. This gives rise to rumor, heresy, and false testimony. It is entirely possible that statements will be reported out of context, and therefore will misinform the general public. Court-TV asserts that televised coverage for this trial is ‘clearly warranted’ to ensure fair trial and to promote confidence in the justice system. While I find both sides have persuading and relevant arguments, I find that my opinion seems to fall in the middle of the road. I agree that cameras should be allowed in the courtroom for the pre-trial and trial of Zacarias Moussaoui for a variety of reasons. I feel the Government’s position that such coverage would taint potential jurors is completely inconsequential. Due to the outstanding amount of publicity, not only of the event itself, but also of Mr. Moussaoui, I don’t see how covering the trial itself could put him in a worse light. The events of September 11, 2001 are forever embedded in every American’s mind. No amount of time or publicity will change most of the public’s perceptions of the issue. The sheer magnitude of the events, paired with Mr. Moussaoui’s public statements, ensures that finding a completely unbiased jury will be near-impossible at best. I also agree with Court-TV in that the victims of September 11 are not all contained in the few cities granted closed circuit broadcast. The aftermath spreads far and wide, across boarders and seas. Many people continue to suffer the effects of losing loved ones, their belief that America is safe from terrorist attack, and their faith. This trial is the closure that so many of these people desperately need. Once they receive this closure, the healing process can begin. The U.S. Government also raises valid points. Witnesses, jurors, and justices may be put in danger by being broadcast for all to see. The al-Qaida actively seeks out those who testify or act against them, and the Government feels that making witness identities accessible is too great a threat to their lives. Jurors voting to convict, and justices presiding over the trial would then also be at risk. Although Court-TV affirms that they will take measures to ensure the anonymity of any who wish it, a trial with most of those in attendance ‘blocked out’ is not fit for broadcast, and not altogether possible. However, in providing closed circuit access, the Government is themselves putting these players in harm’s way. The prosecution also points out that publicity and acknowledgement is what the al-Qaida wants most. By publicly broadcasting this trial, it is essentially giving them exactly what they want. I believe that the public benefit far outweighs the concern anyone should have over the al-Qaida. Therefore, I feel that Court-TV should be allowed to broadcast the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui if, and only if, they can find a way to adequately protect those involved. Bibliography: Word Count: 1411
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.