skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 51676 Find in a Library
Title: SHOULD TRIALS BE TELEVISED, BROADCAST, PHOTOGRAPHED?
Journal: CLEVELAND BAR JOURNAL  Volume:49  Issue:12  Dated:(OCTOBER 1978)  Pages:296-300
Author(s): S T GAINES; B J STUPLINSKI
Corporate Author: Cleveland Bar Assoc
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: Cleveland Bar Assoc
Cleveland, OH 44115
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THE GREATER CLEVELAND (OHIO) BAR ASSOCIATION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT TRIALS NOT BE BROADCAST IS PRESENTED. ITS RATIONALE IS BASED IN PART ON THE ESTES V. THE STATE OF TEXAS DECISION (1965) RULING AGAINST TELEVISION.
Abstract: IT IS ARGUED THAT TELEVISING TRIALS IS LIKELY TO HAVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON JURORS, WITNESSES, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER PERSONS IN A COURTROOM. NERVOUSNESS, TENSION, FEELINGS OF HARASSMENT, THE DESIRE TO PRESENT A CERTAIN IMAGE ON CAMERA, AND DISTRACTION ARE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS WHICH THE PRESENCE OF TELEVISION CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM MIGHT CAUSE AND WHICH COULD ALTER THE OUTCOME OF CASES. THOSE IN FAVOR OF BROADCASTING COURTROOM PROCEEDINGS MAINTAIN THAT THE EQUIPMENT USED TODAY IS MORE SOPHISTICATED AND LESS OBTRUSIVE THAN THAT USED IN THE ESTES TRIAL, THAT DENIAL OF TELEVISION RIGHTS DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN THE PRINT AND TELEVISION MEDIA, AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SEE WHAT GOES ON IN A COURTROOM AND COULD DERIVE EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT FROM WATCHING TRIALS. THE ARTICLE ASSERTS THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT DENIED THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN A COURTROOM SINCE ELECTRONIC AND PRINT MEDIA REPORTERS HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE COURTROOM. IT NOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF A TRIAL IS NOT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC BUT TO RESOLVE DISPUTES, AND THAT TELEVISION TRIALS MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THIS FUNCTION. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN AMENDMENT BE REWRITTEN TO PROHIBIT THE FILMING OF PERSONS OBJECTING TO BEING FILMED AND THAT THE COURT EXERCISE DISCRETION IN DECIDING WHICH CASES SHOULD BE TELEVISED. (DAG)
Index Term(s): Media coverage; Ohio; Public education; Televisions; Trials
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=51676

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.