SINCE THE ESTES RULING IN 1965, CERTAIN EVENTS HAVE CALLED ATTENTION TO TELEVISION'S ABSENCE FROM COURTROOMS. AMONG THESE EVENTS ARE THE TELEVISING OF CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS DEBATES OVER THE PANAMA CANAL TREATY AND THE EFFECT OF OPEN MEETING LAWS IN BRINGING TELEVISION INTO QUASI-JUDICIAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE CHICAGO POLICE BOARD. COURT ADMINISTRATORS MUST UNDERSTAND ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF TELEVISION IN COURTROOMS AND MUST REALIZE THAT THE PUBLIC TRIAL RIGHT BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO THE DEFENDANT. IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ESTES CASE EVEN AFFECTS THE PUBLIC'S BEING ABLE TO HEAR WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED EARLIER IN COURTROOMS. IN 1978, THE FAIR TRIAL-FREE PRESS COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ARGUED THAT PERMITTING STILL AND TELEVISION CAMERAS IN COURTROOMS DOES NOT INHERENTLY VIOLATE A DEFENDANT'S FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT CAMERAS BE PERMITTED IF THE TRIAL JUDGE, EXERCISING APPROPRIATE DISCRETION, DETERMINES THAT THEY CAN BE USED WITHOUT DISTRACTING TRIAL PARTICIPANTS. TELEVISION ENTERED FEDERAL COURTS THROUGH VIDEOTAPED TESTIMONY WHEN FEDERAL RULES WERE CHANGED IN 1970 TO PERMIT THE RECORDING OF DEPOSITIONS BY OTHER THAN STENOGRAPHIC MEANS. IN SOME STATES, JURORS SEE COMPLETELY VIDEOTAPED TRIALS, AND NUMEROUS STATES HAVE JOINED COLORADO IN ALLOWING COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS TO BE TELEVISED. TRIALS HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT, SERVING TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT COURTS EXIST AND POSSIBLY HELPING TO ASSESS OR DETER FUTURE CRIME. TELEVISION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OBTRUSIVE DUE TO CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY AND SAFEGUARDS ARE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE THAT TELEVISION DOES NOT DISTRACT PARTICIPANTS OR IMPAIR THE DIGNITY OF COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS. JUDGES WILL BE CRUCIAL IN FACILITATING THE ACCEPTANCE OF TELEVISION IN COURTS. FOOTNOTES, INCLUDING CASE LAW CITATIONS, ARE PROVIDED. (DEP)