Chandler v. Florida - Cameras In The Courtroom, Does The Constitution Forbid Televised Coverage Of Trials?, Impact, Televised Trials
State of Florida
Televising trials without approval from the defendant denies that individual his due process rights and guarantees an unfair trial.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
None (John Paul Stevens did not participate)
Date of Decision
26 January 1981
Affirmed a Florida court's ruling that televising trials did not infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.
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.
- 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).
Kiska, Tim. "O. J.'s Pandering Lawyers Jeopardize Future of Cameras in the Courtroom." Detroit News, 5 October 1995.
- Charles Harrelson Trial: 1982-83 - Chagra Testifies For Prosecution, Harrelson Alleges Complicated Set-up, Verdicts And Convictions, Harrelson's Son Funds Appeal
- California v. Greenwood - Significance, A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy, Should The Fourth Amendment Protect Garbage?, Impact
- Chandler v. Florida - Cameras In The Courtroom
- Chandler v. Florida - Further Readings
- Chandler v. Florida - Does The Constitution Forbid Televised Coverage Of Trials?
- Chandler v. Florida - Impact
- Chandler v. Florida - Televised Trials
- Other Free Encyclopedias