Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Cameras In Virginia Courtroom, Teresa D. Keller
Cameras In Virginia Courtroom, Teresa D. Keller
University of Richmond Law Review
On July 1, 1992, Virginia joined forty other states by allowing cameras into state courtrooms on a permanent basis. A pilot program had been underway since 1987, allowing news coverage by television cameras, audio recorders, and still cameras in a handful of state courtrooms. Lawmakers had extended the experiment twice, delaying a permanent decision in the face of varying opinions about the success of the program. The Supreme Court of Virginia issued two reports over the five year span indicating the pilot program had produced a negative effect on the judicial process. Broadcasters, on the other hand, consistently claimed the …
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
Judicial Restraining Orders And The Media: Does It Really Matter Who Is Gagged?, James M. Jennings Ii
University of Richmond Law Review
Writing in Bridges v. California, Justice Hugo Black observed forty years ago that "free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them." And yet, these constitutionally guaranteed rights have been in conflict since at least 1807.
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
The Prejudicial Effects Of Cameras In The Courtroom, Robert J. Fuoco
University of Richmond Law Review
The Supreme Court recently held in Chandler v. Florida, that absent a showing of actual prejudice, it is not per se unconstitutional to televise trials over the objection of the defendant. This decision has a direct bearing on state court procedures, as over one-half of the states currently permit television coverage of trials in one form or another. However, sheer numbers supporting a proposition do not make that proposition "right", nor does a Supreme Court decision upholding its constitutionality imply an unqualified stamp of approval. In fact, previous Supreme Court decisions have overturned convictions because the defendant's right to a …