I have always been an opponent of cameras in the courtroom.  The entire concept of broadcasting what is in reality local justice to the whole world makes no sense to me.  The arguments in favor of cameras don't convince me of their benefit.  The most often argument in favor is that is gives the common citizen a glimpse inside the court room and helps to educate them about how the justice system works.  Bullshit. 

Firstly, if people really want to know what goes on in the courts, then they can get off their asses and go to court themselves.  Hearing cases, be they civil or criminal, in a public forum (well, a forum open to the public, at least) is an essential part of democracy and a nation of laws.  Tragically, not many people seem to care about what really goes on in their local courthouse.  As an undergrad I had to do some court observation over Thanksgiving and found myself in the back row of the gallery in one of the circuit courts of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The major issue I saw argued that day involved the mental competency of a man charged with murder.  So, who was there observing?  Me and a few members of the defendant's family.  There's plenty of interesting things happening in courts across this nation.  If people really care, they'll end up there as spectators.

Second, the televised view of a particular trial does not offer a realistic account of the way justice happens.  For millions of Americans, they think that every case ends up playing out like the OJ Simpson case.  They are rarely aware of the the fact that only a handful of criminal cases actually go to court (around 10%, if I recall correctly) and that the main goal of judges and parties in most civil cases is settlement, not trial.  Even if what happened with OJ or Woodward was illustrative of how the whole process works, the trials that end up on television are almost always there because they present some sort of entertainment value.  What is really more important to the life of a Morgantown resident: whether some 17 year old killed a child in Massachusetts or whether a serial rapist is convicted in Morgantown?  If the cameras in the courtroom proponents really want to televise important and far reaching stuff, then get away from trials completely and focus on the appellate courts around the nation, where laws are interpreted (and where, in fact, law is made).  Of course that won't happen, because appellate argument is rarely as entertaining as a good cross examination.

But it is the third problem I have with the argument that cameras in the courtroom are beneficial as educational tools that the Woodward trial pointed out to me.  You see, now that trials are on TV every couch potato and recliner jockey in the country thinks that he or she gets to see everything that they jury does, and therefore can offer an intelligent and well formed opinion on the verdict.  Why, only just after the young Ms. Woodward was convicted of first degree murder, there were vocal protesters outside the courtroom demanding justice.  They were so loud that the poor CNN reporters couldn't even be heard over the din.  Their almost constant refrain: we know what the evidence was and we know the jury was wrong.  Of course, they didn't.  It's simply a delusion.

Before I get going to far on this let me say that juries do make mistakes.  In fact, it probably happens all the time.  I know it does in civil cases, because almost every case I read in Torts last year involved an appellate judge either overturning a jury verdict or reducing an award of damages.¹  And it happens in criminal cases, too.  Just what should be done to help ensure that juries don't mess up all that much is a topic for another time.

The fact is, only the judge and the jurors who viewed the entire trial can make an informed decision about guilt or innocence.  The lawyers for either side are, of course, advocates, and therefore biased before the whole show begins, and see things in a particular light.  The fact that a trial is on TV does not mean someone in the general public gets the same information as a jury.  First of all, I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere can seriously sit through all the evidence of a trial on TV.  You can't tell me that sometimes that person would not have to get up and go to the bathroom, or go pick up the kids, or just channel surf because this particular witness is boring.  Real jurors don't have that luxury.  Yes, they may tune a witness out mentally, but they are at least still there.  Secondly, even if you could watch a full trial, you would only see what the camera showed you.  Who knows if the jury in the Woodward trial saw something about the defendant while she sat at the counsel table that made them disbelieve everything that came out of her mouth?

What's the point of all this?  It's pretty simple.  We should generally give juries the benefit of the doubt.  Hell, the whole reason a case is in court is because there is a dispute about the facts.  If there wasn't there would be either a plea bargain or a settlement.  Don't be so quick to jump on a jury for not conforming with your belief of what the verdict should be.  Remember: you weren't there.

PS:  I find it to be greatly ironic that shortly after the judge did what most of these mush-headed protesters wanted and threw out the verdict, most of these same people were pissed off about how he abused his discretion on sentencing.  I guess you really can't please all the people all of the time.

1.  Unlike a criminal case, where the word of a jury carries considerable weight and can only be reviewed in very narrow circumstances (a not guilty verdict can never be overturned, for example), civil cases are reviewed under a standard that allows a judge to change a verdict if he believes that a juror after reviewing all the evidence could not have come to the conclusion that they jury did.  The most frequent modification is a reduction in damages awarded to a plaintiff.