Uuummmmm, cameras in courtrooms . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

.


.

[Thirtieschild]

1. Cameras in the coutroom are problematic

The problem with live television of major trials lies primarily with the attorneys, and among them primarily the criminal defense attorneys. Generally speaking criminal defense attorneys are actors -- thespians. The less they have to work with, the more lively the show they put on. It takes a very strong judge to keep them under control -- witness the O.J. Simpson and Ray Lewis trials. In the first the judge simply couldn't maintain control, and in the latter the judge became so enchanted with the show put on by the defense that she stomped on the state's case.

Trials recorded for use later are, of course, severely edited and may appear who knows when. This seems to keep the lid on proceedings, even though the show eventually featuring the trial may be highly biased.

Trials are about justice, not entertainment. The public's right to know is satisfied by access to the courtroom. Even though the jury is never shown, the impetus the cameras provide to the attorneys may have an unfortunate effect on jurors as well as judges. I tend to believe that if cameras are to be allowed. the proceedings should be taped for broadcast after the verdict and not shown live.

Mr. Disorganized `