Fall 2001 Human Rights Magazine

By Henry Schleiff

With a recent decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court, cameras are now allowed in courts-at least at the appellate level-in every state in the union. For the first time in the nation's history, either the legislative or judicial branches of every state government have recognized and endorsed the importance of enabling the public to see its judicial system in action. It is time now to extend that opportunity to all state trial courts and the federal courts as well.

In the past ten years, Court TV has nationally televised more than 730 trials and legal proceedings, giving millions of Americans the opportunity to see firsthand our nation's judicial system at work. Unfortunately, the level of camera access to courtrooms still varies greatly among the states. Ten states allow cameras only at the appellate or supreme court level-and not in trial courts. The federal government permits cameras only in certain federal appellate courts and not in the District of Columbia. The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow cameras in its chambers.

Clearly, broadened access would benefit the electronic media, including Court TV. The ultimate beneficiaries, however, would be the American people, who would gain a more comprehensive understanding and knowledge of their own judicial system and see the extraordinary lengths to which that system goes in search of the truth.

One recent example brings into sharp focus how the presence of cameras in the courtroom enabled those who might question the fairness of a particular outcome see firsthand how that outcome was achieved. In New York State, West African immigrant and street vendor Amadou Diallo was shot dead on February 4, 1999, by four plainclothes officers who were searching his Bronx neighborhood for a rape suspect. The officers fired forty-one bullets at the unarmed Diallo when they thought he was reaching for a weapon. The ensuing publicity and public outcry led a New York appellate court to order a change of venue for the trial from New York City to Albany. Emotions in this case were extremely volatile, and many believed that the change in venue would result in an unfair trial. Although New York is one of the ten states where cameras are not allowed in trial courts, Judge Joseph C. Teresi of the state supreme court in Albany County declared that the state law prohibiting cameras in the courts was unconstitutional, paving the way for the trial to be televised in its entirety.

Though the police officers were acquitted, there was no violence, most notably in the New York City community where Mr. Diallo had lived. If people had not been able to see the process, their reactions might have been very different. The public benefit of televising trials was made abundantly clear. In fact, New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani commended the judge for opening the courtroom to cameras stating ". . . I believe that that fact alone-the camera and the television coverage of it-has changed the minds of a lot of people about what happened, and again, reminds us of the wisdom of trial by jury." Camera access to federal trials would enable the public to see the courts deal with cases involving discrimination, immigration, and other issues governed by federal law or involving federal agencies. It would afford the public the ability to watch the federal judiciary, just as C-SPAN allows the public to watch the U.S. Congress.

Existing access to state trial courts has already enabled the televising of landmark cases involving libel, malpractice, negligence, product liability, breach of contract, and a broad range of felonies. But current laws prevent trial coverage in such important legal centers as Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, the District of Columbia, and others. Access to all state and federal courts would enable the public to see the full array of cases that our judicial system routinely handles.

In September 2001, legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress that would permit cameras in all federal courts. That legislation, currently pending in both the House and the Senate, has bipartisan sponsorship and would give federal judges sole discretion to determine whether trials in their courtrooms should be televised or not. The September 11th terrorist attacks delayed consideration of this legislation, but it is likely to be addressed before the current session expires.

It is no coincidence that all fifty states now allow some camera access in their courts. Clearly, there is a widening consensus that cameras in the courts serve the public interest. The challenge, of course, is to balance the public's interest in seeing justice pursued with the specific requirements of a particular case. That matter is best left to the individual judges, who should have the discretion to make the necessary assessments and rule accordingly.

Hopefully, Congress-and the ten states that do not yet allow cameras in trial courts-will allow the judiciary that discretion. In doing so, they will be taking an important step toward opening up the judicial process while still ensuring its necessary protections. Making the process more visible will increase public understanding of the judicial branch of government; it will also increase accountability. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said about government, "sunshine is the best disinfectant. . . ."

Henry Schleiff is chairman and CEO of Court TV.

As published in Human Rights, Fall 2001, Vol. 28, No. 4, p.14-15, cont’d p.25.