Open courts ensure freedom

editorial cartoon by Yasuyuki Nagasawa
editorial cartoon by Yasuyuki Nagasawa

For the first 200 years of the United States of America, we lived in a world null and void of television. If Americans wanted to see a sporting event, they had to attend it; there was no instant replay or professional analysis.

Likewise, if the colonists in Salem wanted to know if their neighbor was a witch, they had to attend the witch trials in person.

In the late 20th Century, Americans have the chance to watch all criminal court cases thanks to television. They are allowed to observe for themselves what happens during a hearing. But there is a problem—when does the First Amendment right to freedom of the press infringe upon a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial? When is pre-hearing publicity a cause to close a trial? And when are cameras in the courtroom so harmful that a it must be closed?

The Campus Times believes there is no reason why a criminal courtroom should be closed. We recognize that laws prohibiting the revealing and showing of a minor involved in a court case on television, radio and print are necessary, but those laws are stable and stand in all states.

Open courts enable people to see how the system does or does not work, but the alternative is much worse—no coverage at all. The outside coverage of criminal trials (e.g. political analysis, family interviews, crime scene re-enactments, etc.) is not an issue here. There is no doubt about it, some outside coverage of court cases is cheap and destructive to the core of true journalism. What is at issue, though, is the actual placement of video and still cameras and recording devices in the courtroom. Not everyone can make it down to Washington to see Congress in session, but thanks to C-Span, they can watch Congress on television.

The media in the courtroom has the same effect on Americans and their knowledge of court proceedings. Before the O.J. Simpson pre-trial, who had heard of the inadmissibility of evidence or, for that matter, knew the California standing on evidence? Only those familiar with the court system, such as lawyers. But now everyone (at least those who were paying attention) knows that evidence obtained without a search warrant or obtained without probable cause or apparent danger is inadmissible in court. The media has opened the courtroom to all of America, but now because of evidence leaks, some judges and scholars feel that it is necessary to close the courts.

The Sixth Amendment states a mistrial must be declared when a prejudicial surrounding exists. Some have interpreted this to mean cameras in courts bring about such surroundings, but this is also not the case. As seen in live coverage of The People of the State of California vs. Theodore Briseno, Stacy Koon, Lawrence Powell and Timothy Wind, no matter how much is shown on television, public opinion and pre-trial hype sometimes has little or no effect on the trial. Those who viewed the trial “gavel to gavel” were able to observe the reason why these men who, on tape, were obviously guilty, were found not guilty.

Most people do not see the process unfold. They do not have the opportunity to take part in a trial, but by having cameras in the courtroom, America is able to observe history. The Campus Times feels more harm is done by closing courtrooms than by allowing them to stay open. Negligent journalists will always exist, but America’s trust in the judicial system may not. By allowing the media into the courtroom, it insures the honesty of courts and America’s observation of them.

Other Stories

Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Campus Times Editorial Board.

Latest Stories

Related articles

Editorial: Censoring free speech is un-American

At this moment in time, our First Amendment rights are under threat in ways we have not seen in at least a generation. 

Editorial: Local news is dying, and that has repercussions

Local news organizations have become a dying breed, and many do not realize the impact that this has on their lives, but there is still time to save it.

New bail policy causes controversy

The city of La Verne and 11 other cities filed an injunction against Los Angeles County’s new Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols, known as the zero-bail policy, a day after it was adopted, due to public safety concerns. 

Bill would benefit journalism industry

The California Journalism Preservation Act, Assembly Bill 886, introduced Feb. 14 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require digital advertising companies like Facebook and Google to pay publishers a “journalism usage fee” each time they use local news content alongside advertising.