DESPITE O.J., CAMERAS ARE COMING TO COURTROOMS.

Byline: Phil Davis Daily News Staff Writer

Bill Robles makes his living sketching courtroom drama for the nightly news - a career that thrives as long as cameras remain barred from many courts.

Maybe he should be a little nervous right now.

Congress is considering a repeal of the 37-year-old law that bars television and still cameras from most federal courtrooms. The ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act,'' which would put the decision to allow courtroom cameras in the hands of federal judges, has bipartisan support and a good chance of becoming law.

But Robles isn't worried. He's got O.J. Simpson on his side.

``It will never happen. Not in federal courts,'' said Robles, whose 29-year career has included subjects ranging from Charles Manson to Timothy McVeigh. ``I've found that since the O.J. trial, more judges are reluctant to allow cameras in the courtroom. The last couple of years have been very good. I think I had my best year in '97.''

Legal experts on both sides of the issue agree Simpson's ``Trial of the Century'' was the greatest blow to efforts to integrate cameras into courts since the original ``Trial of the Century'' - the Lindbergh baby kidnapping - prompted judges to first banish photographers in 1935. The federal government permanently barred cameras from its courtrooms in 1962.

``I think the Simpson case pretty much killed cameras in the courtroom,'' said Stephen Kay, a ranking Los Angeles County District Attorney and the first California lawyer to prosecute a case in front of a camera. ``I think cameras will get in occasionally. But because of the way all the attorneys were playing to television in the Simpson case, most judges would rather eat broken glass than allow cameras in their courtroom.''

That's bad news for the media, but good news for the elite group of speed sketchers like Robles who are now enjoying a boom in business - even in traditionally camera-friendly state courts. Cameras have been barred from most recent high-profile state murder trials, from Polly Klaas to the JonBenet Ramsey pretrial hearings. Recently, Los Angeles County civil court judges denied petitions to allow cameras in cases from Francis Ford Coppola vs. Warner Bros. to a lawsuit against Six Flags Theme Parks.

The backlash struck just as cameras were gaining a solid foothold in traditionally off-limits courtrooms. Judge Lance Ito's decision to allow the high-profile 1995 Simpson trial to be televised live was heralded as a legal landmark. Meanwhile, federal judges were wrapping up a successful three-year experiment with cameras in their courtrooms. The Federal Judicial Center recommended relaxing the ban on cameras in federal courts, but by the time it came up for consideration, the Simpson media circus was in full roar.

``It was soundly defeated,'' said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. ``There's no question that after O.J., the door slammed shut. A lot of judges were concerned about what they saw. There was a very strong reaction that we don't want the media coming in and running our courtrooms. But that doesn't really seem to be what's happening.''

Cooper said a post-Simpson California study reached similar conclusions. The study was ordered by then-Gov. Pete Wilson who wanted cameras barred from California courts. But, instead of confirming Wilson's suspicions that cameras were responsible for courtroom anarchy, the survey found that the only judges who oppose cameras in the courtroom had little or no experience with cameras.

``It's a perception that's based more on myth than reality,'' Cooper said.

But suspicions linger. U.S. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski was pleased with experiments that allowed cameras in federal appeals courts, but he still suspects a camera can influence the proceedings.

``It's not just an observer,'' Kozinski said. ``It makes a difference. When on camera, people tend to act to the camera or get flustered. I think caution is definitely appropriate.''

Robles said even his presence in a courtroom with pen and pad has an impact.

``People are obviously aware of it. They're aware when you're drawing,'' Robles said. ``When jurors are aware you're drawing them, they will come back after a break without glasses or with their hair combed.''

But Henry Schliff, president and CEO of Court TV, said it's only a matter of time before judges are convinced cameras can be a passive observer.

``Like a good lawyer, we have enough facts, enough evidence, to show that it's handled responsibly,'' Schliff said. ``We're not taking jurors aside and interviewing them without respect to the court. We are sensitive to our role and generally - certainly at Court TV - I think the coverage is balanced.''

``What we'd like is something like Court TV, where the public gets to see most of the trial and really see how the court system works,'' Cooper said.

Not everyone is so sure judges will continue to resist the electronic age.

``Unfortunately, there's no future in it. The golden age is past,'' said semi-retired Los Angeles artist David Rose, who has sketched everyone from John DeLorean to President Ronald Reagan. ``They're breaking down the doors.''

The ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act'' is lingering in the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, which answers to the Judiciary Committee. But, an aide to the bill's co-sponsor U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said the measure should make it to a full Congressional vote this session.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the University of Southern California, said the move to allow judges to decide whether to allow cameras in federal courtrooms is an ``essential first step.''

``Until the federal ban on cameras is removed, there can be no cameras in the courtroom,'' he said. ``I think if cameras are allowed, it will grow on judges.''

Cooper agrees. She said state judges frequently use the federal example as a reason to deny camera access to a trial. If the law passes, all that's really needed is more successful televised trials - and perhaps a little revised perspective on the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

``So much of what we think of as the circus of O.J. happened outside the courtroom,'' Chemerinsky said. ``I believe the case wouldn't have been tried any differently if cameras hadn't been allowed.

``People should be able to see their government at work,'' he added. ``I think judges and even lawyers will do a better job if they're being watched.''