Respectfully, no there shouldn't be cameras in the courtroom. It becomes a distracting circuit for the litigants and it encourages silliness. If you want to watch, go watch.
-
-
-
.....encourages silliness? Does that outweigh the value of transparency?
-
Court rooms are public. You can go watch. You let cameras in the courtroom and all of a sudden you get a lot of show boating and people focused on camera time rather than advocating. In theory, it's a good idea, but having tried a lot of cases, I'm worried.
-
What if...............I have a job or live out of state and can’t go to court every time there’s a trial in the public interest
-
I get your point. The issue is I'm more concerned about the quality of the judicial process. If cameras are in, the quality of the litigation will go down b/c now people are concerned about cameras rather than cases. I get people want to watch, but press isn't always good.
-
There are some reasonable concerns, including privacy of defendant. My instinct is they are outweighed by transparency, though I recognize it may not be that simple in every case.
-
I get that argument. And def depends on the case. I guess I've got a face more for the radio than the cameras, ha.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Um ,OJay trial proved that was horrendous .
-
hm yeah wow I wonder if Jeffrey Toobin has ever heard of the OJ trial and might have included that knowledge in his consideration
-
Um yeah I know he wrote "the book " on the trial . duh ! He also wrote what a shit show the courtroom was.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't agree, Mr. Toobin. Civil cases, sure. Oral arguments before appeals courts and the Supreme Court, sure. But not in criminal trials. Jury tampering is easy enough as it is without broadcasting their faces.
-
NEVER in all my years (35+) covering criminal trials as a news photographer was a jury EVER shown on television. There are extremely strict rules against it in every state I worked in.
-
In this case the media wanted names and addresses of the jurors released. If there was a camera in the courtroom it may not have shown them in TV but you could be sure their faces would be recorded and some intern would be scouring social media looking for their info.
-
I've covered cases where jurors names were made public, but not addresses. We had to dig up contact info. As far as an intern recording a jury? Not unless they want to go to jail. I always pointed my camera behind me when jurors moved thru the courtroom. Safer for me like that.
-
I’m glad to hear that but I’m not sure every reporter or cameraman would think that way especially if the verdict went the other way.
-
Every reporter/pool camera operator had best follow the 1 simple rule: Jurors shall not be photographed, or shown on camera. Period. Anything else is begging for a contempt citation, possible incarceration and ALL media being barred from the proceedings. No matter the verdict.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As a former judicial clerk, no. There should not be cameras in courtrooms. It's dangerous for jurors and judges (privacy concerns), and only encourages outrageous behavior from litigants.
-
They don’t have to show the jury or the judge...
-
What's easier? To allow cameras and review the footage for any views of the jury/judge and edit, or to keep cameras out? The audio record becomes public, anyway (in most cases), so I don't see a compelling interest for visual footage.
-
I don’t completely disagree with you, I do get your position. I just believe there should be exceptions and something of this magnitude, imho, meets the criteria. Obviously, others disagree bc there aren’t cameras.


-
Fine, I'll bite: What are your criteria for allowing in cameras? We can dissect this together.
-
Um, I want to know?
Seriously anything of great significance that could potentially affect the US derogatorily
Millions were riveted 2 tv over OJ, covered by too many stations & The USA has far more at stake with proceedings that could affect the 45 of US #illegitimate or not. -
You can can listen to the public record. The audio record. The same record the appellate court reviews. The same record the supreme Court reviews, if certiorari is accepted.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.