The Use of Videotapes and Cameras in the Courtroom and the Jury Deliberation Room - Research Proposal Example

Dominick Andrews MCJ 6257 Crimnal Courts and Professional Ethics Kenyon Topic: The Use of Videotapes and Cameras in the Courtroom andthe Jury Deliberation Room I. Introduction The advent of high-end technology such as the internet, minute video recorders and camera, does not only facilitate life and work but also brings out debatable issues in some significant units of our society. One debatable issue is the use of videotapes and cameras in the courtroom and the jury deliberation room whether it should be accepted, and if ever, what ethical guidelines should be observed by the “players” – the judges, jurors, prosecutor, defense, the media, and the public in general. As Kuchler and O’ toole (2008) noted: “The proliferation of the technology in the court room (and perhaps in the jury deliberation room) is not only affecting the process of trial, such as the presentation of evidence, but is changing the way we practice law.” While the use of videotapes and camera in the courtroom is already an “acceptable” practice, the acceptance of the same in the room where the jurors decide a particular case, is yet to be resolved with finality. This research paper is aimed to present some of the past, the current trend, innovation, and the future of criminal justice as it relates to the use of videotapes and cameras in the courtroom and the jury deliberation room. Videotapes or cameras, as used in this research, refer to television cameras that are utilized by the media in covering case trials. Methodology The writer utilized the Internet and looked on some of the commentaries by various writers from reputable Internet sites in relation to the topic from year 1993 to 2008. The researcher was able to researched seven (7) significant references from reputable sites in the Internet. Each article was carefully studied. Most of researcher’s majority input in this paper were based from the references gathered. Some parts of some articles were lifted exactly to form part of this paper, however, they were well-cited as a recognition for the writers and to avoid plagiarism. In short, the concept of this paper was original. However, some of the contents were lifted directly from the references to give a better understanding of the topic. Hypothesis 1) The acceptance of videotapes and cameras in the jury deliberation room is a violation of the United States Constitution particularly the First, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments; and 2) Videotapes and cameras should not be allowed in the jury deliberation room because it is an external factor that greatly affects the decision of the jury. II. Historical Background “ In 1968, Congress passed the Jury Selection and Service Act requiring that jury pools consist of all eligible voters and that jurors be chosen randomly, much like a lottery. Before the trial begins, people are selected from the jury pool and summoned for duty. Although only 12 people usually sit on a jury, dozens of people are called to the court. Each potential juror undergoes a pretrial interview, usually conducted by the judge and lawyers involved with the case. Potential jurors are excused from service if they know the people involved with the trial, have financial interest in the trials outcome, or already have formed an opinion about the defendants guilt. Jurors are instructed to make their decision about the defendants guilt based on the facts presented at the trial. In some cases, they are not allowed to see media coverage of the case that could sway their opinion. After all of the evidence is presented, jurors talk to one another about the case and decide on a verdict. Two amendments in the Bill of Rights address that by jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that during criminal trials, an accused person has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury from the area where the crime was committed. The Seventh Amendment says that in all civil cases where the money ‘value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.’ Today, the value in federal civil cases must exceed $10,000. Trial by jury is the only Bill of Rights item also safeguarded in the Constitution.” ( “A courtroom drama” ) On February 12, 2003, Texas’ highest criminal appeals court “reversed” a judge’s decision in November to let a television program videotape jury deliberations in a capital murder trial. (Liptak, 2003). In the year 2007, it was the “first time” that an argument was held with none of the judges present. The judges, who were miles away listened to the arguments in a hearing via hookeup or videoconferencing. The said court activity was held at the U.S. 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals. (Weinstein, 2007) III. Review of Related Literature Roschwalb (1994) in the USA Today wrote: “The first major trial covered by newsreel cameras was in 1935 when Bruno Richard Hauptmann was tried for the kidnapping/murder of the Lindbergh baby. The footage of "the most sensational American murder trial of the century" played in 10,000 of the nations 14,000 movie theaters. A cloud of international notoriety surrounded the case. Using a special teletype machine, the media fed information to major world capitals. The enormous publicity prompted one legal scholar to depict the trial "as perhaps the most spectacular and depressing example of improper publicity and professional misconduct ever presented to the people of the U.S. in a criminal trial." A jury found Hauptmann guilty. He appealed. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals commented that few convictions would stand if important trials continued to be tainted by intense media coverage. The appellate court did not overrule, however, holding that the defendant should have moved for a continuance. The proceedings were the first thorough example of a trial courts difficulty in controlling prejudicial publicity of this intensity. In the case of Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court’s decision faulted the press for biased coverage, including the amount of pre-trial publicity, printing of names of prospective jurors, prejudicial photography, debate and comments about the trial in the media, and disruption of courtroom decorum by reporters. As a result of the Sheppard trial, the Supreme Court ordered judges in future cases to take precautions to avoid a prejudicial atmosphere generated by the media, thus changing the way the press was allowed to cover court proceedings.” Another writer in the person of Steven Brill (1996) of the USA Today cited in his work the case of Chandler v. State of Florida: “In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Chandler v. State of Florida that the presence of a camera televising a trial does not inherently deprive a criminal defendant of a fair trial. Nonetheless, many defense attorneys historically have opposed cameras in courts. A number of lawyers, though, have changed their view, increasingly believing that the presence of a camera strengthens the integrity of the process, ensuring that their clients rights are protected by judges and prosecutors alike.” IV. Discussion While the video tapes and camera in the courtroom were found “not to impede or negatively affect the participants in a trial”, (Brill, 1996) its effects to the judgment of the jurors in jury deliberation room is yet to be realized. Most of the references to this work looked upon the U.S. Constitution and the case laws in explaining whether or not to accept the use of the videotapes and camera in the jury deliberation room. Some defense lawyers argued that it should be accepted as a part of the defendant’s right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment. In Richmond Newspapers v Virginia (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to public trial is also afforded to the public in general and not only to the defendant. One way for the public to be afforded with this right is a camera coverage inside a court or jury deliberation room connected to a television since “not everyone actually can attend trials” (Brill, 1996). On the other hand, some prosecutor’s and judges argued that there is “no constitutional right of camera in the court” . Billie Sol Estes v.Texas (1965) is the case that is most cited for this proposition. In this case, the Court ruled that camera coverage was not a constitutional right and overturned the criminal conviction of fiancier Billie Sol Estates because the publicity attendant to his trail, including the presence of ameras, had deprived him of due process. However, some defense lawyers claimed that “there is no constitional bar (to camera coverage) either”. In Chandler vs. Florida (1981), the Court clarified its position that the presence of camera in and of itself without any attendant circus atmosphere of lights, tangled wiring, reproters, and photographs bustling through the courtroom—did not deprive a defendant of fair trial. (Brill, 1996) One of the factors being considered in realizing this issue is an ethical guidelines for the attorneys, publicists, and the media not only in covering a jury deliberation but also in utilizing the media for the advancement of a case. As Roschwalb (1994) noted: “Few members of the public are aware that they are manipulated through the media. Some lawyers use the media to gain publicity in their case to the extent of giving advices which are ‘contradictory’ or statements. Some defendants employ public relations with expertise that can affect the outcome of the case”. (words reinstated) On the other hand, the media itself creates an “atmosphere of chaos”. During an interview, reporters will be “shouting from all directions” (Roschwalb, 1994). What adds to this chaos are the “media frenzy to annotate, comment on, (add analysis) that may go beyond the actual proceedings”. (Brill, 1996). Others include erroneous local news that benefit a party to a case. Listed are down are some of the “old concerns” for media coverage in court trial, and perhaps the deliberation of the jury in a certain case according to Steven Brill (1996): 1) Cameras in the courtroom create a “media circus”. 2) Camera prolongs trial. 3) The camera’s supposed effect on partisan. 4) The media only want to televise sensational cases. 5) The purpose is entertainment, not journalism. 6) The media profit from the coverage of the cases. 7) Camera coverage fosters disreepct for the judicial sytem. 8) Camera coverage is just plain and distasteful. V. Conclusion/Recommendation/s In 1998 the Administrative Office of the United States Courts launched a pilot program to fund advanced technology for courtrooms. This effort included monitors, document cameras, video-conferencing capabilities, and internet connections. (Kuchler and O’toole, 2008) The success of this program will depend on a statute that should be made by the Legislative Body that will bind the “players” in a courtroom trial and jury deliberation. As Roschwalb (1994) correctly stated: “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 court room decisions.” Works Cited “A courtroom drama: should cameras be allowed in the jury room? - News Debate - www.lawforkids.org”. February 21, 2003. Find Articles.com. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at < http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_19_102/ai_97872596> Brill, Steven. “Cameras belong in the courtroom”. July 1996. Find Articles.com Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at Kuchler, Deborah D,  OToole, Leslie C. “How Technological Advances in the Courtroom Are Changing the Way We Litigate[dagger]. January 16, 2007. Find Articles.com. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at < http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4023/is_200801/ai_n25500606/pg_1?tag=artBody ;col1> Liptak , Allan. “Bid to Tape Deliberations By Texas Jury Is Rejected”. February 13, 2003. New York Times (Online). Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at Robbins, Mary Alice. “Texas Court Considers Whether to Allow Filming of Deliberations”. January 21, 2003. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at < http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1042568673653> Roschwalb, Susanne. “Does television belong in the courtroom? - includes related chronology of television coverage of court proceedings”. Find Articles.com. Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at Weinsten, Henry. “Court’s use of video is facing review”. January 16, 2007. Los Angeles Times (Online). Retrieved on January 21, 2009 at Read More