Vol. 5, No. 5, Pg. 32. Cameras in the Courtroom Revisited.

• Author: By Don S. Rushing and Ward Bradley

South Carolina Lawyer

1994.

Vol. 5, No. 5, Pg. 32.

Cameras in the Courtroom Revisited

32Cameras in the Courtroom RevisitedBy Don S. Rushing and Ward BradleyOn September 21, 1993, the South Carolina Supreme Court adopted South Carolina Appellate Court Rule 605, entitled "Media Coverage of Court Proceedings." This new rule formally opens South Carolina courts to audio-visual coverage. Coverage is subject to the approval of the presiding judge and limited to proceedings otherwise open to the public. See Rule 605(a)(3), SCACR. This rule affects all courts--from the Supreme Court to magistrate courts.

Before adopting this rule, the South Carolina Supreme Court allowed audio-visual coverage in the Richland County General Sessions and Common Pleas courtrooms. The Court authorized a trial period from February to July 1992 in cases set before the author.The audio-visual coverage did not adversely affect court proceedings, and the Court expanded the experiment to include all circuit courts, family courts and masters-in-equity courts.

The new policy is far from the Court's attitude in 1962, when it reversed a defendant's criminal conviction because the trial judge allowed photographers to take pictures during the trial. The Court reasoned that the photography detracted from the essential dignity of the proceedings, distracted the witnesses, degraded the court and created misconceptions in the mind of the public. State v. Sharpe, 239 S.C. 258, 122 S.E.2d 622 (1961).

Rule 605

In conjunction with the experiment, the Court issued guidelines to regulate the effect of this new media presence on courtroom proceedings. The guidelines, and media cooperation in understanding and following them, contributed to the success of the experiment. New Rule 605 incorporates most of these guidelines.

Lingering Doubts

Although Rule 605 now allows cameras in South Carolina courtrooms, there is some disagreement over whether cameras should be in courtrooms. The new rule leaves that decision in each case to the discretion of the presiding judge. In the interest of justice "the presiding judge may refuse, limit, or terminate audio-visual coverage." Rule 605(b)(3), SCACR.

There are those who believe that cameras in courtrooms damage the integrity of the judicial system. Indeed, Canon 3A(7) of the ABA Judicial Code of Conduct limits the use of cameras in the courtroom for just that reason. Gerry Spence, writing for the ABA Journal (as reported in The Charlotte Observer on May 3, 1992) believes that televising court proceedings adversely affects the litigants. In his words: "We preserve our historical treasures, but in a nation crying out for justice we transform our courts into profane peep shows and our victims and accused into freaks and fiends."

The scene Spence describes is a possible outcome of the presence of cameras in the courtroom. For example, in Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 14 L.Ed.2d 543, 85 S. Ct. 1628, reh. den., 382 U. S. 875, 15 L. Ed. 2d 118, 86 S. Ct. 18 (1965), the United States Supreme Court reversed a swindling conviction on due process grounds because of media presence in the courtroom. The Court noted that there were at least 12 cameramen in the courtroom and that cables and wires snaked across the...