Two landmark courtroom camera cases have opposed their use because of the potential of cameras to prejudice trials by distorting the courtroom atmosphere in such a way that the jury will render a verdict it would not have otherwise reached. To make a fair assessment of the impact of cameras on the trial process and its participants, it is first necessary to identify the factors operating in the trial environment before cameras are introduced. This will expose which prejudices are inherent in the trial process and which are introduced by cameras. Pretrial prejudice may derive from presumed guilt, pretrial publicity, jury selection, and voir dire. During the trial, prejudice can arise from juror characteristics, defendant characteristics, the adversary process itself, the presentation of evidence, judge and attorney behavior, and judicial instructions. Jury deliberations are also routinely riddled with prejudices injected by strong personalities. This review indicates that many of the prejudicial behaviors said to result from the presence of courtroom cameras are operative in the courtroom regardless of the introduction of cameras, with many of the prejudicial aspects of trials being inherent in the nature of the trial process. Submitting the trial to wholesale public scrutiny may have the effect of reducing prejudicial behavior by courtroom actors. It is doubtful that it would increase prejudicial behavior beyond its present level.