Cameras in the Courtroom Essay

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

Camera footage is a very important aspect of the Criminal Justice system because it plays a big role in how the case plays out. In Canadian courts, cameras are generally not allowed, whereas in the American court it is aloud (How the Canadian Legal System Differs from the American). Cameras in the courtroom, most importantly television cameras can negatively affect a courtroom in

The importance of show-trials is proving what you are doing looks good, and that is law-abiding. It is important to make everyone happy. (Bach pg.193) A show-trial is a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice. These show trials resonate deeply with the citizenry. The media world is outrageously popular for captivating the public audience’s attention for court room related cases. An example would be TV. We’ve all came across episodes of “Law and Order.” It appears out to be “how” people think American Justice is. (Bach pg.195) The public attention of media is ranked highly and known as best.

I attended the District Court at 201 West Picacho Ave on March 7, 2011. I sat in on judge Mike Murphy's court. Judge Murphy started court promptly at 9:00 a.m. but before I got into the court I had to wait in a long line of about 30 people. then when I finally got to the court house door I had to go through a metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. Then I asked one of the officers working the metal dictator how I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on this morning. She then directed me to court room four. I asked the bailiff if it was ok for me to sit in on court today for my criminal justice class, and if the case where criminal matters. The bailiff then told me that

The Constitution states that a person has the right to publish or print any news or opinions that they deem worthy. Yet today some laws prohibit this freedom, by creating laws in order to protect the individual’s privacy, we are limiting ones ability to report facts. Furthermore many records previously available for the public to view are now sealed. On the opposite end of the spectrum new freedoms are being allowed. In a court case, “Justice Joseph Teresi has struck an important blow for constitutional rights and an open judicial process by allowing cameras to televise the murder trial.”[3] By allowing a camera into the courtroom people are better able to get a grasp on our judicial system in the United States. This decision also allows citizens to view first hand news in action, without any biases created by reporters. As some of our freedoms are revoked other are being ratified. These changes

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

In closing the aspect of using better presentation of evidence in court rooms today help with understanding the perspective of the defendant and of the victims in question to the crime itself. Showing the case in a detail way was not possible years ago brings about the question of whether the jurors' had a full understanding of what was being asked of them to decide on the fate of the persons in question. Advance visual evidence should be the primary goal of any case preceding to bring about a

2008 1L Moot Court Tournament at the Liberty University School of Law, White V. Gibbs CA# -8776-CV285.

In Virginia State, Jay Lentz was convicted by a jury in July 2003 for the kidnapping and murder of his wife. The jury recommended that Mr. Lentz spend life in prison; however, the United

Everyone has heard of the OJ Simpson court case – a rich and famous man is accused of murdering his ex wife and despite an overwhelming amount of evidence presented against him, he somehow manages to be found not guilty. Many people find themselves wondering how that could possibly happen. Was his defense team simply that good? Were there mistakes made? Was he actually innocent? Simpson’s case is not the only one that has yielded such a strange outcome because of his status and stellar defense team, and certainly not the only court case to cause such an uproar in the media. Martha Stewart’s 2001 case, Scott Peterson’s 2004 case, and Lorena Bobbitt’s 1994 case are all examples of court trials that sparked interest in the eye of America.

On Friday, April, 4, 2014, I observed the Vanderburgh County Superior Court to observe different family law cases. The cases I heard involved contempt of court for failing to pay child support, failure to appear for a court appointed drug test, birth certificate affidavit, request for contest hearing time, and an issue of paternity case. Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Corcoran was presiding over the family court hearings. When entering the courthouse, I was greeted by security and advised to remove any cell phones, and/or, any other items that would trigger a metal detector. After this, I proceeded straight to look for the family courtroom. After roaming around mindlessly for a couple minutes, I decided to ask the courthouse officer monitoring

The proponents of cameras in the courtroom also believe that televised trials would educate the public on courtroom procedure and rules of the court. The media believes that as the viewers watch real trials on television, they would become more aware of the rules of the court and they would become more aware of the basic procedures courts have to follow. An example of how cameras in the courtroom would educate the public would be the all famous O.J. Simpson trial. The O.J. Simpson trial educated the public on rules of evidence with the “bloody glove” display, the cross-examination of key witnesses with the examination of Mark Furman, and what role the judge plays in the process. The media believes that if cameras where not allowed inside O.J. Simpson trial, then the public for the most part would still not understand the true workings of the court system. Kimberlianne Podlas note that televised trials will educate the public by giving them a reference for what the court system is, “its fairness, and who the arbiters of justice are” (Podlas, 2001). Podlas also explains that the O.J. Simpson trial lead more people to watch and gain a understanding and respect for the judicial system as well as gaining knowledge of the legal concepts and burdens of the system (Podlas, 2001).

ON 09-03-2016 at 0930 hours, I was notified by Sgt Kelley of an aggravated battery which occurred at 2111 Roanoke Springs Drive. I was advised to respond to St. Joseph’s Hospital (South) at 6901 Simmons Loop in Riverview. Upon my arrival, I met with Sgt. Kelley, Deputy Karpenske # 249578 and Crime Scene Tech Dewitt. There was a black 2013 Nissan Maxima bearing Florida tag, DGV F36, parked in the emergency room parking bay. I learned the suspect, Joanna Lebrea Lewis had driven the car to the hospital for treatment of the injuries sustained during the offense. It was learned that verbal consent had been obtained from both the victim and suspect to search their residence and vehicle. It was also learned the victim, Marieio Denod Spradley,

For my observation, I chose to observe a civil case that had to do with a divorce. I did some research on the cases, and chose one that was similar to an experience I went through. My parents are currently separated, and my father simply refused to pay child support. He lives outside of the state, so it was hard for my mother to have face to face confrontation with him. She got tired of raising three kids on her own, and finally decided to take him to court. I was required to serve as a witness. This took place in 2009, so I was thirteen years old and didn’t really understand much of what was going on. I timidly walked to the stand and was sworn in. I then answered the questions the attorney asked me.

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their