Federal appellate judges granted power to allow cameras in court.

The ban on cameras in federal courts was lifted partially at the March meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington, D.C., where members voted 14- 12 to allow each appellate, court to make its own decision about television coverage. At the same time, the judges agreed by overwhelming voice vote to continue to bar cameras from federal trial courts.

According to Judge Gilbert Merritt of Nashville, Tennessee, head of the conference's executive committee, there will be no rush by appellate courts to allow television coverage. He predicted "a very gradual process" of experimentation. (Paul M. Barrett, Televised Coverage of Appeals Courts Wins Clearance, Wall St. J., Mar. 13, 1996, at B2.

The first court to exercise its new freedom was the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Los Angeles, which announced March 24 that it would allow televised oral arguments at civil appeals and death penalty appeals. (Phillip Carrizosa, 9th Circuit to Allow Cameras Back into Courtroom for Oral Arguments, L.A. Daily J., Mar. 25, 1996, at 2.) The Ninth Circuit was one of two federal courts experimenting with televised proceedings until the Judicial Conference ended the experiment in December 1994. During the three-year experiment, the appellate court received only 23 requests for camera coverage and granted 15 of them.

The so-called cameras-in-court issue has been stimulated by public and professional reaction to the high-profile O.J. Simpson murder case. Most states allow cameras in trial courts with various restrictions. After the Simpson verdict, the governor of California urged courts in his state to bar cameras, and a commission was formed to recommend new rules.

The commission, however, proposed only minor adjustments that do not create a presumption for or against granting permission for media coverage. Trial judges continue to make that decision. (Mike Lewis, Panel Calls for Partial Ban of Cameras, L.A. Daily J., Feb. 23, 1996, at 1.)

The California experience-debate followed by little or no substantive action--is common. A study of courtroom camera usage in all 50 states was conducted recently by researchers at Loyola University, New Orleans. The study concluded that the Simpson case has fueled a flurry of renewed attention to the controversy over courtroom cameras . . . [but] there is no evidence the concern . . . has has led to any significant negative results from the viewpoint of proponents." (S.L. Alexander, The Impact of California v. Simpson on Cameras in the Courtroom, 79 Judicature 169 (1996).)