Thanks to the media, the Los Angeles District Court has become a movie setting starring such celebrities as Erik and Lyle Menendez, Heidi Fleiss and O.J. Simpson. We can not forget those other supporting characters like Marcia Clark (and her new hair cut), Judge Lance Ito (Do all judges slouch when on the bench?) and that new heartthrob–Robert Shapiro with sidekick F. Lee Bailey.
Open courts have allowed the media access into courts. It was not always like this. Before television, people actually had to attend court trials if they wanted to know what was occurring.
The Sixth Amendment allows open courts in America, but it was written before anyone had heard of a television.
The original Supreme Court understanding of an open court placed no restrictions on how or who could attend a court session.
In the late 1970s, when television was beginning to make itself a part of America’s everyday habit, the Supreme Court began to close courtrooms if certain restrictions could be proved.
For instance, in cases where a victim is a minor, showing the victim on television could damage the victim’s entire life. In cases where the content of the case, if released, could hurt the trial, the courtrooms are closed.
In 1980, the Supreme Court decided in Richmond Newspapers vs. Virginia that criminal courts are open to the public via media or actual attendance unless it is necessary to close it in order to ensure a fair trial.
Although this ruling and similar rulings attempt to allow a fair trial by giving criminal defendants the right to prove why their proceedings should be closed, it fails to recognize one thing. In an age when information is produced for mass consumption, sometimes showing and releasing any court documents to the public, especially through the media, can be extremely harmful.
Just look at that great American scandal tabloid television show, Hard Copy. It has made a mockery of our judicial system by releasing information about several criminal proceedings before the judge had time to rule on it.
Although they do not affect the outcome of the trial by doing re-enactments of crime scenes, other shows have.
KNBC News made an error when it released false information in the Simpson case about the off-camera courtroom proceedings. They reported that a sock found at Nicole’s condo matched O.J.’s blood type.
The test had not been done yet. Although KNBC aired a correction saying their sources may have given them misinformation, it aired only once. It is hard to believe that prospective jurors did not see this. It had to weigh heavily on them.
Who cares about the First Amendment when the media exploits its right to enter a criminal court proceeding?
Does anyone want to hear another expert’s opinion on the Menendezes or the court celebrity of the week?
What the Sixth Amendment right to an open court was supposed to do is ensure a fair trial. The accused can be judged fairly in front of others and those involved can attend.
It has opened the door for irresponsible and, sometimes, inaccurate journalism. The First Amendment should not be the baby-sitter for journalists; rather it should be the defender of truth in criminal cases.
Having the media in the courtroom is an extraordinary advancement for the field of justice. Unfortunately, bad journalists often get a hold of what happens in the courtroom in order to abuse it. They inaccurately report on hearings, insinuating and filling in the blanks. That is what a court hearing is for, to decide who did what, when, where, why and how. It is not to sell more papers or get higher ratings.
Giving the media access to courtrooms is good when they do what is supposed to be done, report the news, and not what they often do, create it.
