Does television belong in the courtroom?

• Author: Roschwalb, Susanne
• Position: Includes related chronology of television coverage of court proceedings

THE AMERICAN legal system--generated 200 years ago with a view that what went on in the courts was the business of lawyers and judges--is having difficulty responding to wall-to-wall media coverage of court cases today. The coverage is extensive and intense; public appetites are insatiable; and ethical guidelines are indistinct. Some attorneys are aware of the value of the media and use it to their best advantage. Others try to ignore it to the detriment of their clients. The inclusion of the camera in the courtroom is having the biggest impact in bringing high-profile cases to the court of public opinion. Such visibility could be effective at encouraging lawyers to become more efficient and have a positive effect on educating the public about the system. Or, it could perpetuate inequities.

On one side is the important consideration that the courts keep the public informed as to what is going on in the legal system, and one of the most effective avenues of communication is television. Practically all states now allow cameras in the courtroom, and the Federal courts have initiated pilot projects to determine whether they should be permitted in Federal trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court, however, remains a holdout on cameras in the courtroom. Because of the many land-mark decisions argued before it, the Supreme Court may be the most important court in which to have television cameras.

On the other side, few members of the public are aware about how they are being manipulated through the media. They do not realize that some defendants employ public relations experts, while others do not. Such expertise can affect the outcome of a trial significantly. As a rule, attorneys receive no training in public relations, and members of the media have no training in the law. Yet, the camera can have a life-or-death effect on courtroom decisions.

Prosecutors faced a particular challenge in the O.J. Simpson case. That the chief appeal lay in its entertainment value may not be a very high-minded conclusion, but it seems inescapable when entertainment has become the primary force in American media. Defense attorney Robert Shapiro was well-schooled in how to use the media to his advantage. In 1993, he told the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers that, when dealing with television, "not only is the content critical, but how it's said, where it's said, and your appearance are equally important." He described how the media create an...