MOST STATES WITH LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE OF THE CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM GIVE JUDGES LITTLE OR NO LATITUDE IN DECISIONS REGARDING CAMERA USE IN A GIVEN TRIAL. THE COURTROOM PARTICIPANTS DETERMINE CAMERA USE BY THEIR PREFERENCES, WITHOUT MEDIA RECOURSE TO A THIRD PARTY. WISCONSIN AND FLORIDA, HOWEVER, HAVE ENTRUSTED DECISIONS ABOUT COURTROOM CAMERA USE TO THE JUDGES. THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING PERMANENT RULE REGARDING CRITERIA FOR CAMERA EXCLUSION FROM COURTROOMS; 'THE PRESIDING JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE OF A PARTICULAR PARTICIPANT ONLY UPON A FINDING THAT SUCH COVERAGE WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT UPON THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WHICH WOULD BE QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THE EFFECT ON MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND SUCH EFFECT WILL BE QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM COVERAGE BY OTHER TYPES OF MEDIA.' WHILE WISCONSIN ALSO ENTRUSTS JUDGES WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMING COURTROOM CAMERA USE, THE CRITERIA FOR THE JUDGE'S DECISION INDICATE THAT CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF DEFENDANTS AND WITNESSES SHOULD BE GRANTED REQUESTS FOR PROHIBITION OF CAMERA USE DURING THEIR TRIAL APPEARANCES, UNLESS THE MEDIA CAN PROVIDE STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR ALLOWING VISUAL COVERAGE. IT IS TOO EARLY IN BOTH THE FLORIDA AND WISCONSIN EXPERIENCES TO ASSESS THE TRENDS AND USES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR CAMERA USE IN SPECIFIC TRIALS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)