The question of whether to permit television coverage of court proceedings in the United States has evolved from the tension created by conflicting rights in the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. Among its several guarantees, the First Amendment tells us the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. In the Sixth Amendment, citizens accused of committing a crime are granted the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of their peers drawn from the state and district where the crime has taken place. Additionally, the accused is to be informed of the basis for the accusation, allowed to be confronted by any witnesses testifying against her/him, has the right to secure witnesses on their behalf, and have the assistance of legal representation to counsel the defendant's case.

At first examination, these rights may not appear to clash. However, the sensational press coverage practiced by the tabloids during the late 1800s combined with the flash camera's development in the early 1900s and led to the inevitable legal test of these competing rights. Most legal historians refer to the Lindbergh kidnapping trial in 1935 as initiating the hostility to cameras in the courts. Bruno Hauptmann was accused of kidnapping and killing the 18-month-old son of aviation hero, Charles Lindbergh. While only a small number of cameras were actually permitted inside the courtroom and photographers generally followed the court order prohibiting taking pictures while court was in session, a few years after the trial's conclusion the American Bar Association passed Canon 35 of the association's Canons of Professional and Judicial Ethics recommending cameras be banned from trials. Although Canon 35 did not have the weight of law, such ABA recommendations are often consulted by state legislatures, state bar associations, and judges writing case opinions. Radio was similarly barred by the ABA in 1941, and television cameras were added to the list in 1963.

As television became a part of life in the United States in the 1950s and early 1960s, most states continued to prohibit any form of camera coverage in their courts. By 1962, only a couple of states permitted television coverage of courtroom trials. In Texas that year, the pre-trial hearing of accused scam artist Billie So Estes played to live television and radio coverage. Broadcast equipment jammed the courtroom to the degree that, by the time Estes' actual trial began, the judge restricted television cameras to a booth in the back of the courtroom. Live coverage was allowed only periodically, and most trial coverage was done during news reports. Despite these precautions, Estes appealed his conviction claiming his Sixth Amendment rights had been denied him because of the broadcast coverage. In 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Estes' favor. On retrial, Estes was again convicted.

In Estes v. Texas (1965) the court majority ruled the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a fair trial was paramount over the press's right to cover the proceeding. Four of the five majority justices wrote they believed the Sixth Amendment was violated simply by the presence of the television cameras. The majority stated cameras caused a distraction, had a negative impact on testimony, presented mental and physical distress for defendants, placed additional burdens on judges, and allowed judges to utilize televised trials for political purposes.

Many of these concerns were evident to the justices the following year when the Supreme Court addressed the negative influence of media coverage in Sheppard v. Maxwell(1966). This was the celebrated case in which Dr. Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife in their suburban Cleveland, Ohio home. Sheppard maintained his innocence throughout, claiming he had wrestled in the bedroom with a shadowy intruder who knocked the doctor unconscious. According to Sheppard, when he awoke his wife was already dead, bludgeoned to death on the bed. The case, and the ensuing nationwide publicity it received later provided the basis for the popular television series The Fugitive.

Sheppard was arrested and "tried in the press" even before the coroner's inquest, which was held in a high school gymnasium in front of live broadcast microphones to accommodate media coverage and public interest. The Supreme Court ruled that during both the inquest and trial proceedings, the coroner and judge failed to insure Dr. Sheppard's Sixth Amendment rights by their inability to control the media, jurors, and court officers as well as by allowing the release of information to the press during the actual trial. The judge, who was campaigning for re-election, was also rebuked for failing to shield jurors from pre-trial publicity. While live television coverage of the trial itself was prohibited, the labyrinth of cable and extra lighting needed to cover the trial snaked throughout the courthouse and contributed to the case's "carnival atmosphere."

While the Sheppard courtroom was not affected by television coverage to the degree seen in the Estes case, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Clark, was explicit when it came to setting forth guidelines judges should follow to ensure a fair trial. These instructions provided the foundation for states and their courts to follow in the future to insure proper use of television cameras in courtrooms. As specified by Justice Clark, judges sitting on highly-publicized cases in the future were instructed to adopt strict rules governing courtroom use by the media by considering the following: (1) The number of reporters in the courtroom itself should be limited at the first sign that their presence would disrupt the trial. (2) The court should insulate prospective witnesses from the news media. (3) The court should make some effort to control the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by proscribing extra-judicial statements by police, counsel for both sides, witnesses, and officers of the court. (4) The judge could continue the case or transfer it to another county whenever "there is reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial." (5) The judge should discuss with counsel the feasibility of sequestering the jury. In the end, the United States Supreme Court ruled Dr. Sheppard deserved a retrial. He was eventually found not guilty. In the years following Sheppard, television technology improved dramatically as cameras became more portable and required less light to obtain broadcast-quality pictures. While these improvements were being implemented and refined, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1980 in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia that members of the public and the media have a constitutionally guaranteed right to attend criminal trials. This opinion reflected an ongoing trend in the states to open their courts by experimenting with television coverage. By December 1980, twenty-two states allowed cameras into their court systems to some degree, with twelve more studying such implementation.

In 1976, Florida had led the way by attempting to allow camera coverage of civil and criminal trials. The initial guidelines necessitated agreement from all trial participants, however, and this requirement stifled television coverage in most instances. In July 1977, Florida's State Supreme Court began a one-year study that placed responsibility for opening a trial to television coverage solely on the presiding judge. The state guidelines specified the type of equipment to be used. Additionally, no more than one television camera and camera operator were permitted, and broadcasters could only use a courtroom's existing audio recording system for sound pickup. Broadcast equipment was to remain stationary, no extra lighting beyond existing light in the courtroom was allowed, and film, videotape, and lenses could not be changed while court was in session. The lone camera was to serve as a pool camera if more than one television station desired footage.

After the year-long program was completed, a study discovered that the presence of a television camera was generally not a problem. This conclusion, and the state's guidelines, were challenged by two Miami Beach police officers who had been found guilty of conspiring to burglarize an area restaurant.

Because the case involved two local law enforcement officers who were caught by luck when a local amateur radio operator accidentally overheard them planning the heist, the case drew above-average media attention. The officers' attorney requested Florida's new courtroom rules [Canon 3A(7)] be declared unconstitutional, but the state Supreme Court declined to decide on grounds the rules were not directly relevant to the criminal charges against the officers. Eventually the trial was held and the defendants found guilty. An appeal was filed claiming the officers had been denied a fair trial because of the trial's television coverage. They were denied appeal throughout the Florida system, but the case was scheduled for hearing by the United States Supreme Court. In Chandler v. Florida (1981), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote ". . .the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with the program authorized by revised Canon 3A(7)." The Florida procedures provided restrictions on television coverage that paired with technological advances to ensure defendants a fair trial and, since the United States Supreme Court found no Constitutional issues threatened by Florida's guidelines, the request for a new trial was found lacking.

Shortly following the Chandler decision, the majority of states decided to allow camera coverage of some levels of their court systems. By mid-1993, only three states and the District of Columbia still banned any camera coverage of their courts. Those states allowing coverage have proceeded to address the question of what contexts establish that a camera's presence violates a defendant's rights, especially since this issue was not clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Estes or Chandler.

Broadcast journalists gained entry to most state courts as a result of the latter decision, but still faced closed doors to the federal court system. On 12 March 1996 the Judicial Conference of the United States voted 14 to 12 to allow cameras to cover federal appeals court cases. The decision allowed each of the thirteen federal appellate circuits to determine whether or not to admit coverage. At the same time the conference voted not to open federal district courtrooms to television. The change of heart by the conference allowed for television coverage of civil cases, but left broadcast journalists uncertain whether or not they could gain access to federal criminal cases.

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Chandler came at a time when cable television entered a phenomenal growth phase. As the 1980s progressed, cable television networks were created to serve an increasing variety of programming niches. By the decade's conclusion many cable systems looked like the electronic equivalent of a well-stocked magazine rack providing special interest material on almost any imaginable subject. Such special interest programming was evident in the July 1991 launch of the Courtroom Television Network (Court TV). The brainchild of Steven Brill, legal journalist and editor of The American Lawyer, the channel initially programmed its day emphasizing two or three courtroom trials from around the country. During evening prime time, Court TV's schedule provided a summary of the day's court cases and various original material. During the weekend, trial highlights from the preceding week were paired with special programming oriented specifically for lawyers. Criticized by some for its "play-by-play" commentary by the channel's legal experts during trial coverage, the service has developed a reputation for aggressive trial reporting while fulfilling its mission of demystifying the national court system for the public.

While Court TV has established itself as the channel for law buffs, it has yet to reach the number of homes covered by Ted Turner's Cable News Network (CNN). During the 1980s, CNN pioneered cable network presence in well-publicized trials ranging from the case of murder suspect Claus von Bulow and the William Kennedy Smith rape trial to the network's lengthy presentation of the O.J. Simpson case. Taking its cue from the program's creation and popularity during the Simpson coverage, CNN added the legal issues discussion show, Burden of Proof, to its schedule of specialty news-related fare. The Simpson case also provided an opportunity for other "specialized" channels to follow courtroom proceedings. One of the most notable of these was coverage of the trial by E! The Entertainment Channel. E!'s approach to the Simpson trial began with a slightly ironic, at times comic approach, but quickly developed into serious analysis. It was also highlighted by viewer call-ins and fax messages which gave the channel a more participatory profile.

The rise of Court TV, CNN's live coverage of trials, and use of courtroom footage by local and network television news organizations has brought up issues beyond the Constitutional ones posed by the First and Sixth Amendments. Many judges and attorneys still question the effect a television camera's presence has on witnesses, jury members, and counsel during a trial and how these often-subtle nuances contribute to the trial's outcome. Others are concerned that television coverage of cases may be incomplete and contribute to rioting or public misperception and trivialization of crucial issues affecting a case rather than positively informing viewers about the court system. At the same time, court journalists point out their cameras often act as the public's representative at a trial, while helping the news media provide oversight of the nation's judicial system.

-Rob Craig