Appellant
Noel Chandler
Appellee
State of Florida
Appellant's Claim
Televising trials without approval from the defendant denies that individualhis due process rights and guarantees an unfair trial.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Joel Hirschhorn
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jim Smith
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (John Paul Stevens did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 January 1981
Decision
Affirmed a Florida court's ruling that televising trials did not infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.
Significance
Reinterpreted the Court's ruling in Estes v. Texas (1964), and paved the way for live television coverage of trials without fear of infringing on the defendant's or victim's right to privacy.
Cameras in the Courtroom
In July of 1977, two Miami Beach police officers, Noel Chandler and Robert Granger were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny and possession of burglary tools. During the burglary an amateur radio operator overheard and recorded conversations between Chandler and Granger over their police radios during the alleged burglary. Around the same time, the Florida Supreme Court approved a one-year pilot program that allowed televised coverage ofall court proceedings in Florida as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of the accused. Additionally, under the pilot program, court proceedings could be covered by television stations and other electronic media outletswithout the permission of the accused.
In a pre-trial motion, Chandler and Granger tried to have the pilot program declared unconstitutional. The trial court deferred to the Florida Supreme Court but it declined to rule claiming that the issue was not relevant to the charges against Chandler and Granger. The defendants continued to try to bar electronic coverage; however they were unsuccessful. Potential jurors were asked whether the presence of television cameras in the courtroom would impair orhamper their ability. Each juror selected stated that such coverage would not hamper them. The jury selection process was covered by a television camera.A defense motion to sequester the jury because of the television camera wasdenied. Jurors were told not to watch local news. The court denied a requestby the defense that jurors be barred from watching any television news broadcasts. A television camera recorded the testimony of the state's key witness and closing arguments. The jury found Chandler and Granger guilty on all counts. The defendants motioned for a new trial asserting that the television coverage had denied them a "fair and impartial trial." The Florida District Courtof Appeals upheld the convictions and the Florida Supreme Court denied review.
Does the Constitution Forbid Televised Coverage of Trials?
In positioning their case Chandler and Granger relied upon Estes v. Texas. In his opinion, Justice Burger wrote that the appellants had misinterpreted the Court's ruling.
While acknowledging that trials that generated a lot of publicity may infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair trial, Burger concluded that was no reason to ban television coverage of trials.
Justice Stewart while agreeing with the result took issue with the majority'sreasoning. Stewart agreed with the appellant's interpretation of Estes v.Texas that it banned all television coverage of criminal trials as unconstitutional, and he concluded that it should be overruled. While the majorityopinion recognized that technological advances would make televised trials less intrusive, Stewart argued that even if technological advances made televising trials less physically disruptive that cameras and recording devices bytheir mere presence make the process impartial.
Justice White wrote a separate opinion that agreed with the majority's ruling, but also took exception to the reasoning. He thought that Estes should be overturned.
Impact
The Court's ruling, in a way, made the Court TV network, a 24-hour network devoted to covering trials and legal news, possible. Yet, while the televisingof state criminal procedures has become standard, television cameras are rarely allowed in federal courts. The Supreme Court has continuously refused to allow any of their proceedings to be televised. Some, have once again, come toquestion the wisdom of placing cameras in the courtroom after such highly publicized trials as the murder case of O. J. Simpson, who was charged with murdering his wife and her male companion. The nation was obsessed with the caseand many believed that the attorneys and even the judge presiding over the case were impacted by the presence of the television cameras. After the Simpson trial concluded some state judges refused to allow television cameras in their courtroom fearful of creating a circus-like atmosphere. The presence of television cameras in courtrooms continues to generate debate.
Related Cases
Televised Trials
The 1980s saw the rise of televised trials in state and county courtrooms, coupled with a growing national interest in law-related TV shows such as Unsolved Mysteries and America's Most Wanted. These facts led in partto the establishment in 1991 of Court TV, a commercial cable network that presents legal information in an easy-to-understand format. But the true watershed with regard to popular interest in courtroom proceedings came with the 1995 trial of O. J. Simpson for the murders of his estranged wife Nicole Brownand her friend Ron Goldman.
To many observers, what they saw when the cameras went into the courtroom wasnot pleasant. "Lawyers in the O. J. trial pandered to the camera," wrote Detroit News television commentator Tim Kiska, "grieving parents wept atemotional press conferences, and an electronic `village' of countless camerassprung up outside of the Los Angeles courthouse." When U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch kept cameras out of his courtroom during the 1997 trials of Oklahoma City bombing suspects Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, he was no doubt influenced by the Simpson example.
Sources
Kiska, Tim. "O. J.'s Pandering Lawyers Jeopardize Future of Cameras in the Courtroom." Detroit News, 5 October 1995.
Noel Chandler
Appellee
State of Florida
Appellant's Claim
Televising trials without approval from the defendant denies that individualhis due process rights and guarantees an unfair trial.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Joel Hirschhorn
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jim Smith
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for theCourt), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (John Paul Stevens did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 January 1981
Decision
Affirmed a Florida court's ruling that televising trials did not infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.
Significance
Reinterpreted the Court's ruling in Estes v. Texas (1964), and paved the way for live television coverage of trials without fear of infringing on the defendant's or victim's right to privacy.
Cameras in the Courtroom
In July of 1977, two Miami Beach police officers, Noel Chandler and Robert Granger were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny and possession of burglary tools. During the burglary an amateur radio operator overheard and recorded conversations between Chandler and Granger over their police radios during the alleged burglary. Around the same time, the Florida Supreme Court approved a one-year pilot program that allowed televised coverage ofall court proceedings in Florida as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of the accused. Additionally, under the pilot program, court proceedings could be covered by television stations and other electronic media outletswithout the permission of the accused.
In a pre-trial motion, Chandler and Granger tried to have the pilot program declared unconstitutional. The trial court deferred to the Florida Supreme Court but it declined to rule claiming that the issue was not relevant to the charges against Chandler and Granger. The defendants continued to try to bar electronic coverage; however they were unsuccessful. Potential jurors were asked whether the presence of television cameras in the courtroom would impair orhamper their ability. Each juror selected stated that such coverage would not hamper them. The jury selection process was covered by a television camera.A defense motion to sequester the jury because of the television camera wasdenied. Jurors were told not to watch local news. The court denied a requestby the defense that jurors be barred from watching any television news broadcasts. A television camera recorded the testimony of the state's key witness and closing arguments. The jury found Chandler and Granger guilty on all counts. The defendants motioned for a new trial asserting that the television coverage had denied them a "fair and impartial trial." The Florida District Courtof Appeals upheld the convictions and the Florida Supreme Court denied review.
Does the Constitution Forbid Televised Coverage of Trials?
In positioning their case Chandler and Granger relied upon Estes v. Texas. In his opinion, Justice Burger wrote that the appellants had misinterpreted the Court's ruling.
Estes is not to be read as announcing a constitutional rule barring still photographic, radio, and television coverage in all cases and under all circumstances. It does not stand as an absolute ban on state experimentation with an evolving technology, which, in terms of modes of mass communication, was in relative infancy in 1964, and is, even now, in a state of continuing change.
While acknowledging that trials that generated a lot of publicity may infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair trial, Burger concluded that was no reason to ban television coverage of trials.
Dangers lurk in this,as in most experiments, but unless we were to conclude that television coverage under all conditions is prohibited by the Constitution, the states must befree to experiment. We are not empowered by all the Constitution to overseeor harness state procedural experimentation; only when the state action infringes fundamental guarantees are we authorized to intervene. We must assume state courts will be alert to any factors that impair the fundamental rights ofthe accused.
Justice Stewart while agreeing with the result took issue with the majority'sreasoning. Stewart agreed with the appellant's interpretation of Estes v.Texas that it banned all television coverage of criminal trials as unconstitutional, and he concluded that it should be overruled. While the majorityopinion recognized that technological advances would make televised trials less intrusive, Stewart argued that even if technological advances made televising trials less physically disruptive that cameras and recording devices bytheir mere presence make the process impartial.
The Court in Estes found the admittedly unobtrusive presence of television cameras in acriminal trial to be inherently prejudicial, and thus violative of due process of law. Today the Court reaches precisely the opposite conclusion. I haveno great trouble in agreeing with the Court today, but I would acknowledge our square departure from precedent.
Justice White wrote a separate opinion that agreed with the majority's ruling, but also took exception to the reasoning. He thought that Estes should be overturned.
Although the Court's opinion today contends that it is consistent with Estes, I believe that it effectively eviscerates Estes. The Florida rule has no exception for the sensational or widely publicized case. Absent a showing of specific prejudice, any kind of casemay be televised as long as the rule is otherwise complied with.
Impact
The Court's ruling, in a way, made the Court TV network, a 24-hour network devoted to covering trials and legal news, possible. Yet, while the televisingof state criminal procedures has become standard, television cameras are rarely allowed in federal courts. The Supreme Court has continuously refused to allow any of their proceedings to be televised. Some, have once again, come toquestion the wisdom of placing cameras in the courtroom after such highly publicized trials as the murder case of O. J. Simpson, who was charged with murdering his wife and her male companion. The nation was obsessed with the caseand many believed that the attorneys and even the judge presiding over the case were impacted by the presence of the television cameras. After the Simpson trial concluded some state judges refused to allow television cameras in their courtroom fearful of creating a circus-like atmosphere. The presence of television cameras in courtrooms continues to generate debate.
Related Cases
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1964).
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
- Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc, 435 U.S. 589 (1978).
Televised Trials
The 1980s saw the rise of televised trials in state and county courtrooms, coupled with a growing national interest in law-related TV shows such as Unsolved Mysteries and America's Most Wanted. These facts led in partto the establishment in 1991 of Court TV, a commercial cable network that presents legal information in an easy-to-understand format. But the true watershed with regard to popular interest in courtroom proceedings came with the 1995 trial of O. J. Simpson for the murders of his estranged wife Nicole Brownand her friend Ron Goldman.
To many observers, what they saw when the cameras went into the courtroom wasnot pleasant. "Lawyers in the O. J. trial pandered to the camera," wrote Detroit News television commentator Tim Kiska, "grieving parents wept atemotional press conferences, and an electronic `village' of countless camerassprung up outside of the Los Angeles courthouse." When U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch kept cameras out of his courtroom during the 1997 trials of Oklahoma City bombing suspects Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, he was no doubt influenced by the Simpson example.
Sources
Kiska, Tim. "O. J.'s Pandering Lawyers Jeopardize Future of Cameras in the Courtroom." Detroit News, 5 October 1995.
User Comments Add a comment…