Media In The Courtroom

Media in the courtroom can profoundly change and alter the outcome of a trial by allowing society to form an opinion before justice prevails. How is that possible, from Judge Judy to the Supreme Court society wants to be involved by any means possible to give their opinion on how justice should prevail? The journalists and television companies sell this belief, they hide behind the first amendment rights to air and publish any information that in turn helps to sell their product. Society is blinded by the need to know mentality, they have not realized the end results may not end in their favor. The only time society sees an error in our system is when the error affects their lives. Reality T.V is a catalyst to this need to know mentality. Cameras, Television, Radio, Internet, and Journalists these are the instruments that set criminals free. Ladies and Gentlemen I intend to prove without a reason of doubt that media in the courtroom is detrimental to the process of a fair trial and a defendants right to due process.
As John Q public should be aware the justice system is a process to keep society safe, if they interfere with that process how can they say lady justice prevailed. Let’s say they have a defendant who has been accused of killing 10 people he has signed a confession of guilt and of course has hired a lawyer. First he is arrested and informed of his rights. Next they go into the courtroom where a judge informs him of his rights and his right to a fair trial and due process. Then he is given a jury of his peers and these jurors are instructed by our Judge not to speak about this case for if they do they are jeopardizing the defendant’s right to a fair trial and his due process. As you can see every step and precaution is taken to protect the rights of the accused. So you may be asking yourself, what is due process, in one word--fairness. (www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm)
Some of you may remember a landmark case known as the Simpson trials where a husband O.J Simpson was accused of killing his wife Nichole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman. The case was only hours old, no real detective work had begun, no charges had been pressed and the media jumped into action. Why because O.J Simpson was a Heisman trophy football player. His case did not start in a court room, it started with him being filmed driving the notorious white bronco down a freeway crying about his predicament. The media decided this was a story worth covering this was going to sell papers and boost ratings. Consequently taking us through every piece of evidence, every mishap, and every tear from the victim’s families, and showing us motherless children. How does that help decide if he is guilty or not guilty? The media then decided to put on their own courthouse proceedings via television, they tried him and the entire court proceeding each day showing us how pathetic a witness could be (by the defenses standards). How one racist cops out of hundreds at the scene was out to get O.J and how a goofy tenant did not know what he was talking about seeing O.J. run on the side of his home, but lets not forget the most notorious of the evidence the glove, if it could not fit we must acquit. The frenzy began t-shirts were made and society put him on trial in our living rooms. Did due process play into this scenario, did the media consider his Amendment Rights or were they concerned with what to put on the six o’clock news?
Additionally we are finding media in the courtroom changing venues and altogether changing the verdict this is a case in fact. In 1965, the United States Supreme Court held that Texas financier Bill Sol Estes had been denied his right to a fair trial because the court proceedings were televised. Journalists and their equipment had packed the courtroom. Legal scholars debated the scope of the Supreme Court’s opinion. Some contended the court had ruled that the mere presence in the courtroom of broadcast cameras and equipment automatically amounted to a denial of due process of law to a criminal defendant. Others, including some members of the court, suggested that the requirements of due process might not be offended as camera technology improved. The legal debate continued for years, during which broadcast reporters and newspaper photographers were generally unable to use cameras, microphones, and recorders to cover court proceedings. (www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/Forum/.../History.doc)
Media can argue their amendment rights but, in a democratic society, the supreme court has noted, the press fulfills the important function of informing the public about the judicial process consequently, the media carry the ethical obligation not to impair criminal trial proceedings deliberately Ultimately, the responsibility to ensure fairness rests with the trial court (Roshwalb 1994). The purpose of this is not only to protect a defendant but to protect a system that has been under scrutiny for centuries. As you can see due process is imperative to our justice system.
Finally in my opinion we have to ask ourselves why we need to know what is happening in someone else’s home? Does the media need to fill a void for our own morbid curiosity? Are they saying that our needs need to be fulfilled more so than those on trial? Are they willing to let a cold blooded murderer walk free to hurt again? After watching the news on a local murder here in my hometown of Modesto, Scott Peterson was well known here in town he murdered his wife and unborn child. Everyone here knew he had done it, a lot of us saw him on the phone laughing and carrying on while they searched for his missing pregnant wife. What I thought to myself at the time was no matter the outcome I would not read or involve myself into the case, I did not want to take the chance of being put onto that case and failing our system. After carefully viewing the information in regards to setting criminals free by allowing society to make the rules, I hope you too can see how detrimental it is to allow society to dictate the outcome of a trial. There is a system in place that ensures the accused the right to due process and a fair trial by his peers. We must stand strong against those who want to sabotage a system that has been in place for many centuries. Societies rights are not at issue in our courtrooms, a defendants rights are!

Citations and References

Websites: (www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm) (www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/Forum/.../History.doc)

Author citations: (Roshwalb 1994).