Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride announced on Jan. 24 that the Supreme Court has approved a policy for a pilot project to allow news cameras and electronic news recording in Illinois trial courtrooms for the first time.
Since 1983 Illinois had allowed news cameras in the Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court . But until now, Illinois has been one of only 14 states where cameras in trial courtrooms were either disallowed or allowed on such a restrictive basis that they were hardly utilized.
This issue has a long history in the U.S. and Illinois, as an old 1981 article, "Cameras in the courtroom: Will Illinois be next?" by Mike Strand a legislative correspondent, describes.
He points out several sensational court cases that lead to generally recognized reluctance to have broadcast media present in the trial court room. The trial of Bruno Hauptmann in 1935 for abduction and murder of the Charles Lindberghs' infant child, lead to a "circus like courtroom atmosphere creteatd by media".
Nearly 40 years later, a case involving media coverage of a trial for a multiple murder which had attracted widespread news coverage, cited the Huptmann case in its opinion :
"The excesses of press and radio and lack of responsibility of those in authority in the Hauptmann case and others of that era led to efforts to develop voluntary guidelines for courts, lawyers, press, and broadcasters. See generally J. Lofton, Justice and the Press 117-130 (1966). 3 The effort was renewed in 1965 when the American Bar Association embarked on a project to develop standards for all aspects of criminal justice, including guidelines to accommodate the right to a fair trial and the rights of a free press. See Powell, The Right to a Fair Trial, 51 A.B.A.J. 534 (1965). The resulting standards, approved by the Association in 1968, received support from most of the legal profession..."
[ NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, v. Hugh STUART, Judge, District Court of Lincoln County, Nebraska, et al. Argued: April 19, 1976. Decided: June 30, 1976. 427 U.S. 539 ]
Another high profile case in 1965, Billie Sol ESTES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS, also lead to a negative perception of media in the trial court room.
"As has been said, the chief function of our judicial machinery is to ascertain the truth. The use of television, however, cannot be said to contribute materially to this objective. Rather its use amounts to the injection of an irrelevant factor into court proceedings. In addition experience teaches that there are numerous situations in which it might cause actual unfairness—some so subtle as to defy detection by the accused or control by the judge"
[ Billie Sol ESTES, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS. Argued: April 1, 1965. Decided: June 7, 1965. 381 U.S. 532 ]
It was not till an opinion in Noel CHANDLER and Robert Granger, Appellants, v. State of FLORIDA , provided an opening for reconsidering the widepread ABA sanctioned prohibition of broadcasting in the courtroom.
" An absolute constitutional ban on broadcast coverage of trials cannot be justified simply because there is a danger that, in some cases, conduct of the broadcasting process or prejudicial broadcast accounts of pretrial and trial events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced by extraneous matter. The appropriate safeguard against juror prejudice is the defendant's right to demonstrate that the media's coverage of his case—be it printed or broadcast—compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly."
[ Noel CHANDLER and Robert Granger, Appellants, v. State of FLORIDA. Decided: Jan. 26, 1981. 449 U.S. 560 ]
But as author, Mike Strand, relates, the attempt by the Fair Trial-Free Press Committee of the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), shortly after this opinion, to request an experiment with cameras and microphones for a one-year test period at the trial and appellate court levels, was turned down.
Apparently, even a better behaved media and a Supreme court decision recognizing that a universal ban was not consitutional, did not change many minds regarding the appropriateness and advisability of permitting broadcast media in the trial courtroom. So it is not a surprise that it has taken this long for the policy announcement by the Illinois Supreme Court.
The courts will retain complete control even under the new more open policy. "The Illinois policy gives absolute discretion to the trial judge on whether to allow extended media coverage of a proceeding, notwithstanding a request by the news media." Additional restrictions include :
* the chief judge of each circuit will have to apply to the high court for permission to allow cameras in the courtrooms.
* Witnesses and parties in a suit can object to a request.
* No more than two video cameras and no more than two still photographers are allowed. So media organizations must agree on pooling arangement to share the coverage.
* Certain types of cases such as sexual abuse, police informants, juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody, are exempt from coverage.
* Coverage of jury selection, the jury and individual jurors also is prohibited under the policy.
"Court spokesman Joe Tybor said the new rules for cameras will be on a limited and experimental basis to determine whether media access and fair trials can co-exist." The Media will have a chance to behave in a fashion that will persuade judges and the bar that the balance can be maintained.