The Influence of Media in Judicial System

The Influence of Media in Judicial System How many times has there been an innocent person released after more than a decade of serving in prison? Does media frenzy have an effective role in matters like this? Does everybody believe in the saying “innocent until proven guilty?” With much variety of media’s entertainments, public interest, as expected, has been increased, and it is still increasing. Despite the fact that it is good for people to be aware of what is going on around them, there has to be a line to how much media can interfere into life of others. The presence of media in the courtroom assures that people would be informed of how the legal system works besides of being an observer of a fair and unbiased trail. But their presence in the courtroom with cameras, tapes, and other especial equipments would cause more harm than benefit. Freedom of speech in addition to people’s interest in drama of the courtroom stimulates media’s curiosity in legal matters, and sometimes this curiosity will defy the privacy of others. Media’s influence on public and especially on jury repeatedly has caused the change of the verdict, an example of this influence is a case from Capital Defense Network; “Conviction for murders, armed robbery and attempted rape with a punishment of death was reversed and remanded for retrial because juror read news accounts detailing defendant's prior assault of a woman with a hammer. Defendant's prior was excluded from trial because prejudice was found to be greater than probity with respect to this conviction.” [People v. Holloway. 790 P.2d 1327 (Cal. 1990).] Another example from Capital Defense Network that indicate how media involvement in courtroom and trails can waste time and money of the taxpayers, and more significantly change the aspect of justice for an innocent or a guilty person is, “Remand required where jury deliberations tainted by extrinsic evidence, including watching news accounts on television, awareness of publicity, and regularly bringing newspapers into jury room, and because a juror informed other jurors that defendant faced 160 years imprisonment.” [United States v. Martinez. 14 F.3d 543 (11th Cir. 1994).] Justice system is not perfect and many innocent people end up in jail because of faults and flaws in the system, which is unbearable but what makes it even more painful is, when media frenzy and prying affect and influence the decisions that changes the future and lives of people under accusations. Media has a main role within the society, as a result of human interest for more information people want to know what is going on around the world with others and to be aware of the facts and matters that affect their lives. There are both advantages and disadvantages for media being present in courtrooms. Everywhere in the world and especially in the United States people are counting on media to inform them of events going on around the world, they especially love the drama of the courtroom. Informing the public is one of the advantages of allowing media in the courtroom. “Many people may know about the concept of having an established justice system but they may not be knowledgeable of how law works. Therefore, by having media in the courtroom people will better understand the way the law works. When having media in the courtroom it allows for the public to also be able to identify different sides of various proceedings. Influencing the public has always been a way that the media has been used” (Robert Gil lll). But like everything else there are limitations for the media involvements in the law firm and in the courtrooms. “The purpose of the court is not education or ... spectacle or public entertainment, but justice,” (Gale Group) and the purpose of justice cannot be served properly with thousands or millions of people witness the proceeding. The first Amendment of the United States Formation defends the right to liberty of speech from government meddling. “Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief” (LII/Legal Information Institute). In the other hand the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets up rights for people charge in criminal cases. “The bases for denying cameras access to courtrooms have not changed much since 1965. The Judicial Conference and the federal courts still believe live television coverage distracts trial participants, unfairly affects the outcome of trials and diminishes the dignity of the courts” (Douglas Lee). In some ways these two amendments contradict each other, but freedom of speech has defiantly given the media a strong defense for their interfering in people’s life. The argument that technological progress about media/cameras in the courtroom being less interfering, and the dependence on television as the most viewers news station in the United States make media a central method of public access to the justice system. Nevertheless, many states including federal courts still have bans on presence of media in the courtroom. "Anything that informs the public about the workings of the law is helpful," said Kenneth G. Standard, president of the New York State Bar Association, of cameras in the courts. “Opponents of the effort argue that cameras can have a chilling effect on testimony and potentially influence behavior of judges, attorneys and even the outcome of cases. They also argue that cameras may violate privacy rights and can lead to an array of abuses, distorting the system” (Claude Solnik). The United States of America has more confidence on the jury system than any other country in the world hence it is very important that their concentration and focus stay on trails, and not be distracted by cameras and media. When a person enters a court (either defendant or plaintiff) the least he/she expects is that lawyers, judges, and/or juries entirely concentrate on the case so the people involve could have the best trial possible. The job of The Legislative Branch is to make sure everyone has a fair trial. Illustrate one show the states with different percentages of media coverage with different colors. In the states with more media exposure in courtrooms similar cases would acquire very different result because of the media favoring some more than others.

Illustrate 1, Cameras in the Court: A State-By-State Guide, from the Association of Electronic Journalists, Freedom of Information. http://www.rtndf.org/foi/scc.shtml# Nowadays with the variety of media sources, and the competition to selling more papers than the others, the right to freedom to speech becomes little complicated. Many times with murder cases or the cases that involve children, the media coverage is extreme, and the public interest is sharp. Many times the media had shaped this interest the way they wanted, and their coverage affected not only the public but the impending jurors. “Although television cameras may be appropriate in some cases under the Sixth Amendment rationale, judges should exercise caution. They must avoid situations where media exposure becomes less of a defensive force against injustice and more of an offensive force causing injustice by /intimidating witnesses and jurors, distracting the lawyers, and distorting the unfolding drama of the trial” (Gale Group). Despite of this, a defendant’s right for a fair trial and that press can influence jury’s decision has made it difficult for them to reach that goal. There should be limitations of how far we as a civilization, allow ourselves to be involve emotionally and psychologically in the lives of others. Media distractions in the courtrooms and its attention to some cases have caused an innocent person to pay for what he/she has not done (the saying of someone has to pay,) or in some other cases the guilty person has not punished for what he/she has done because of fame, wealth, etc. The idea of media and its equipments in the courtrooms during trials, gives one the image of Hollywood and production scene. “After the turn of the century, ‘social justice’ writers often cast lawyers as shysters and tools of big business. The courtroom in turn could seem a biased, unfair place” (David Ray Papke). People who believe the right to freedom of speech gives the media right to interfere in others life in the name of informing the public, should be aware that the destructive presence of media in the courtroom are on the rise. “The challenges faced by the justice system are more complex than a lack of public awareness and a continued focus on cameras in court as a tool to improve public trust and confidence seems misdirected” (Wendy Pgorzelski and Thomas W. Brewer, from the university library). The New York Committee to Review Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceeding performed a survey with 351 judges about different issues involving television coverage of court proceeding, which show in Illustrate two;

-52% of surveyed judges disagreed with the statement "Television coverage has enhanced public understanding of New York's judicial system." -59% of surveyed judges disagreed with the statement "Television coverage has had a positive effect on New York's criminal justice system." Only 25% of judges think television coverage has had a positive effect on New York's criminal justice system. -80% of judges agreed that television coverage is more likely to serve as a source of entertainment than education for the viewing public. -80% of judges are concerned about the commercial exploitation of judicial proceedings by the television industry. -87% of judges agreed that television coverage transforms sensational criminal trials into mass-marketed commercial products (The New York Committee to Review Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceeding). One of the most infectious cases covered by the press was the trail of John Albert Gardner. He was accused of kidnapping, and murdering two teenage girls, and assault with intent to commit rape of a third woman. The search for Amber Dubois deepened after John Gardner was charge for Chelsea King’s murder. Public interest was aroused with all the media coverage and the vast of police search. “There are 115 non-family child abductions a year in the United States – an average of more than two a week,” (CBS News, Department of Justice figures (1999) by Elliot Spagat.) But only a few find the interest that went behind the loss of Chelsea King. Who is to decide, which missing person deserve all this attention? Why do media favor some cases more than the others? Wouldn’t all this attention to some cases effect the decision of the jury about the defense case? “Prosecutors have a hard enough time getting witnesses to attend court. Cameras would dramatically decrease the number of cooperative witnesses” (Connecticut Law Tribune (2007) from the university library). It is not just the attention or the distraction that makes one disagree with the idea of media in the courtroom, but the effect it has on the decision makers such as judges and juries. “Criminal defense lawyers are always concerned about the ability to obtain a fair trial given the pretrial prejudicial publicity in a high-profile case. The greater the exposure, the more likely the prejudice” (Connecticut Law Tribune (2007) from the university library). It seems that the justice system in the United States is up against overpowering complications as media and people keep on denigrating it. The defendant would be in the straight line of any adversity that may outcome from a telecast trail, and cameras in the courtroom could risk the right to a just trail and an unbiased jury. Preserving true justice despite of such multifarious system of presumption and viewpoint develops into unruly task that needs a major action. The gap of public rights to comprehend, considering trails, could bridge with the help of legal system and media in a way that would not take or unfairly add to anybody’s right.

References:

Media Influence, (2008). Capdefnet.org Retrieved July 21, 2010 from, http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/contents/constitutional_issues/jury_misconduct/media_influence4.htm
Gil. R. (2009). Media in the Courtroom in the United States. Retrieved July 21, 2010 from, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2013854/media_in_the_courtroom_in_the_united.html?cat=17
Badger. E. G. &Lee (2010). Camera in the Courtroom. Gale Group Corporation Company. Retrieved July 21, 2010 from, Cameras in the courtroom? A fair trial is at stake. - Free Online
Solnik.C (2005). Big media backs cameras in NY court case. Retrieved from EBSCO in the University Library on August 04, 2010 Long Island Business News (Ronkonkoma, NY)
Pogorzelski, W., & Brewer, T.. (2007). Cameras in court: How television news media use courtroom footage. Judicature, 91(3), 124-134. Retrieved August 4, 2010, from the university library ProQuest. (Document ID: 1410792711).
CBS News, (2009). Retrieved August 02, 2010 from, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/national/main6276303.shtml Connecticut Law Tribune (2007). “Too Much 'Sunshine' A Bad Idea.". General OneFile. Web. 5 Aug. 2010. Retrieved from the university library, Power search on August 05, 2010 http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-