New York judge rules ban on cameras in court unconstitutional.

The question of whether television cameras should be allowed in courtrooms reared its head again in late January, resulting in a ruling that struck down New York's ban on television coverage of trials.

The issue arose shortly before the prosecution resulting from the shooting of Amadou Diallo got under way. Diallo, a West African immigrant, was shot and killed last year by four New York City police officers outside his Bronx apartment when he reached for his wallet, which the officers said they thought was a gun. All four officers were acquitted of second-degree murder charges.

Before the trial, the proceedings were transferred to Albany, where Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi declared unconstitutional a New York statute that had barred cameras from courtrooms for 48 years. The ruling was in response to Court TV's motion requesting that cameras be admitted to the Diallo trial. Neither the prosecution nor the defense appealed Teresi's decision. (People v. Boss, 701 N.Y.S.2d 891 (Albany County Sup. Ct. 2000).)

"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that all criminal trials must be open to the press and public absent compelling and clearly articulated reasons for closing such proceeding[s]. Article 1, [sections] 8 of the New York Constitution also ensures the right of the press and the public to view court proceedings," Teresi wrote in the ruling.

Long a sore point of debate, television coverage of trials is allowed in 37 states. Forty-eight states allow some form of audiovisual coverage in courtrooms. No camera coverage is permitted in federal courtrooms. Only Mississippi, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia forbid all recording and broadcasting of trials.

Critics of in-court cameras fear they may compromise defendants' rights. They claim that witnesses may alter their stories to appeal to a TV audience; that cameras may distract the attention of the judge, lawyers, and other court personnel; that TV publicity may dissuade a jury from rendering unpopular verdicts; and that case selection, camera angles, and other aspects of live coverage may be manipulated to cater to viewers. Objectors say these issues may compromise the fairness of the trial. Opponents also argue that televising pretrial proceedings may make it nearly impossible for attorneys to find impartial jurors.

Those in favor of cameras in court point to the First Amendment--which guarantees the public the right to know what goes on in a courtroom--and the Sixth Amendment--which guarantees a criminal defendant a public trial. They also say that cameras are a necessary supplement to print media coverage of the justice system and that they present the most objective view of the trial. Cameras in court can educate the public about the judicial process and promote public confidence in the outcomes of cases with high public interest, supporters say.

Teresi agreed. "The quest for justice in any case must be accomplished under the eyes of the public. The denial of access to the vast majority will accomplish nothing but more divisiveness, while the broadcast of the trial will further the interests of justice, enhance public understanding of the judicial system, and maintain a high level of public confidence in the judiciary."

Teresi's ruling is not binding on other cases, and the issue is likely to come up again.

"Arguments against televised trials are without merit," said Sol Rosen of Washington, D.C., vice chair of ATLA's Criminal Rights Section. "If lawyers misbehave, they are subject to discipline by the court and bar association. If a judge loses control of a trial, as Lance Ito did in the O.J. Simpson trial, then he or she would be held to sanctions by judicial tenure commissions and in the court of public opinion as to his or her ability to act as a judge."

Rosen said he hopes the federal courts "will follow suit and open proceedings to public scrutiny."