A Florida study found generally favorable attitudes toward the use of electronic media and still photography coverage of trials among attorneys, witnesses, court personnel, and jurors. Evaluations of cameras in Washington State and Nevada courts also were generally favorable. A California study found that, when guidelines are strictly enforced, extended media coverage of courts has no adverse effects. A Minnesota advisory commission recommended that the Supreme Court permit video coverage of proceedings on a trial basis, and a Louisiana study favored use of cameras, noting that they had no adverse consequence for court decorum. Both Florida and California have adopted legislation permitting cameras in the courtroom. In addition, several articles have favored the use of video equipment. A survey of 2,000 jurors, witnesses, and court personnel found that televising proceedings did not interfere with judicial administration or disrupt trials; a study of 190 trials found that media coverage had little effect on trial participants. The text of the California rule permitting coverage is included. A negative reaction to courtroom cameras was found by a national survey of attorneys, with greatest disapproval found where cameras were used least and among older attorneys. Article tables, footnotes, and references.