Courtroom photography and broadcasting
The law varies from limited film and electronic media coverage in some countries, to a complete ban in others.
[1] There are concerns that the presentation and consideration of evidence may be affected by the presence of cameras influencing the behavior of court participants.
It has been argued, however, that the Simpson case was an anomaly that has little relation to the everyday concerns of media coverage of the criminal justice system.
[6] The courts have thus far been unwilling to overturn the ban on cameras, citing "concerns with expenditure of judicial time on administration and oversight of broadcasting; the necessity of sequestering juries so that they will not look at the television program of the trial itself; the difficulty in empaneling an impartial jury in the case of a retrial; the necessity of larger jury panels or increased use of marshals; the psychological effects on witnesses, jurors, lawyers, and judges; and related considerations of 'solemnity,' 'dignity,' and the like.
[11] In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, "The television industry, like other institutions, has a proper area of activities and limitations beyond which it cannot go with its cameras.
On entering that hallowed sanctuary, where the lives, liberty and property of people are in jeopardy, television representatives have only the rights of the general public, namely, to be present, to observe the proceedings, and thereafter, if they choose, to report them.
"[12] In the 1981 case Chandler v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that televising trials does not, per se, violate due process.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the court started allowing the public to listen in real time.
[21][22] According to the Ministry of Justice, filming in the Crown Court is expected to commence as soon as practicable after recovery from COVID-19 disruption.
Russell Causley, who was convicted of the murder of his first wife Carole, may be the first person to have a public parole hearing in October 2022.
[24] Some disadvantages of televised trials, from the point of view of the media, are that the proceedings are static visually, consume large amounts of TV crew time, and are sometimes difficult for the viewers to understand.
[27] Since 2014, Ukraine has allowed videotaping of court sessions without obtaining the specific permission of the judge, within the limitations established by law.
"[9] Justice Otto Moore of the Colorado Supreme Court opined in 1956, "Do we hear complaints that the employment of these modern devices of thought transmission in the pulpits of our great churches destroys the dignity of the service; that they degrade the pulpit or create misconceptions in the mind of the public?
