|
February 28, 2000
Via Overnight Mail
The Honorable Robert M. Murphy Jr.
re: State of Oklahoma v. Terry Lynn Nichols, Dear Judge Murphy: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press writes to support the Motion to Allow Use of Television Camera in the Courtroom filed by the New York Times Company, KFOR-TV, Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst Argyle Television, Inc., A.H. Belo Corp., KTUL Television, Inc., Griffin Television, L.L.C., and Courtroom Television Network, Inc. (collectively, “Movants”). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a voluntary, unincorporated association of reporters and editors that works to defend the First Amendment rights and freedom of information interests of the news media. The Reporters Committee has provided representation, guidance and research in First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act litigation since 1970. The Reporters Committee concurs with the arguments advanced by the Movants and does not seek to intervene in the case. It writes separately only to emphasize the broad First Amendment principles underlying the Motion to Allow Use of Television Camera in the Courtroom. By allowing a television camera in the courtroom to view the trial in the above-referenced case, the Court will have provided the public with an unfiltered view of a matter that will continue to generate widespread public interest. By closing off televised access to this case, the Court runs the risk of fostering doubts about the fairness of the judicial proceedings in the minds of the public, the vast majority of which have neither the means nor the resources to attend the trial in person. As the Court knows, this case has generated a multitude of suppositions about the underlying equity of the case against the defendant. A decision to banish from the courtroom a portion of the news media – especially the portion that can provide the public with the most direct, unvarnished access to the judicial proceedings – will likely only add intensity to those theories. The benefits of televising a judicial proceeding can be seen from reviewing the Amadou Diallo murder trial that was completed on February 25 in Albany, New York. On that day, a jury acquitted four New York City police officers in Diallo’s death. The jury’s verdict, like the rest of the trial, was televised live. In spite of the deep emotions that many New Yorkers felt about Diallo’s death, the decision of Justice Joseph C. Teresi to allow the public to watch the trial did not lead to grandstanding in the courtroom or increased tension outside of it. In fact, one can only speculate how much more ferocious the public’s reaction would have been had it not been able to watch the emotional testimony of the defendants that may have played a part in the jury’s decision. In opening his courtroom to television cameras, Justice Teresi had ruled at the outset of the Diallo trial that courts must consider the “great public interest” in a case in deciding whether to ban a segment of the media from covering a trial. “The quest for justice in any case must be accomplished under the eyes of the public,” Teresi wrote. “Allowing the trial to be televised will further the interests of justice, enhance public understanding of the judicial system and maintain a high level of public confidence in the judiciary.” Indeed, following the jury’s verdict, even the most vociferous protesters have not complained about the integrity of the trial or the legitimacy of the jury’s verdict. As the Diallo case illustrates, televising a trial cannot guarantee that the public will agree with the jury verdict, but it can assist in the public’s acceptance of that verdict. Other public policy concerns also support the Movants’ position. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that criminal trials are presumptively open to the public. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980). The Court reached this conclusion after examining the history of American criminal trials and finding that openness was “an indispensable attribute of an Anglo-American trial” because it “gave assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to all concerned, and it discouraged perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret bias or partiality.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 569, 578. Because the public now receives much of its news about the judicial system from television, allowing a television camera into the courtroom would be in keeping with the ideals described the Court in Richmond Newspapers and its progeny. The Diallo case illustrates the folly of attempting to single out the broadcast media for different First Amendment treatment than other media. Following Justice Teresi’s decision in that case to allow a pool camera to televise the trial, no trial participant complained that its interest or strategy had been affected by the presence of the single camera in the courtroom. And following rendition of the jury’s verdict, perhaps the only aspect of the case not to come under criticism from a trial participant or a segment of the public was the decision to televise the proceedings. As Justice Teresi showed, a jurist’s control over his or her courtroom will not be minimized by the presence of a camera. Both the experience of the media in televising trials – Court TV alone has televised more than 700 trials – and the continually improving technology used to cover trials – Court TV’s single, stationary courtroom camera produces no noise and requires no additional lighting – has allowed the public to observe a courtroom without intruding on the proceedings. As the founding fathers knew, the unencumbered ability of the media to enhance public discourse about what transpires in our legal system is one of the paramount benefits that we gain from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Openness inspires confidence in our government officials; secrecy inspires fear of those same men and women. As James Madison said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.” Indeed, it was this ideal that led the U.S. Supreme Court to caution courts against keeping the public outside the doors to the courtroom: “[W]here the trial has been concealed from public view an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted. . . . People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 571-72. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press urges the Court to grant the Motion to Allow Use of Television Camera in the Courtroom filed by the Movants. Respectfully,
Lucy A. Dalglish
Gregory H. Kahn
|