On June 30, 1997, the State of New York became one of the nation\u27s few states which does not permit audio-visual coverage of court proceedings. There are several potent arguments in the determination of whether cameras should be permitted in courtroom proceedings. This article will briefly summarize the history of the use of cameras in New York State courts, and then, set out the arguments for and against their use in the state\u27s judicial system. The article is prompted by the book entitled “An Open Courtroom: Cameras in New York Courts” which was published in 1997 by the New York State Committee to Review Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings
Though the Supreme Court allows public attendance and print media coverage of argument sessions, Sup...
Why is it important to televise coverage in trials? The basic answer is that our judicial system nee...
For several years there has been an ongoing dispute between members of the media and members of the ...
On June 30, 1997, the State of New York became one of the nation\u27s few states which does not perm...
Article published in the Michigan State University School of Law Student Scholarship Collection
In spite of a communications revolution that has given the public access to new media in new places,...
It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. ...
With in-person hearings limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts pivoted to proceedings hel...
The Illinois Supreme Court recently authorized the use of television cameras and other recording de...
From the introduction: News media, legal blogs, and law reviews routinely cite a panoply of reasons ...
This paper explains why electronic broadcasting devices, including both video and audio, shoul...
On July 1, 1992, Virginia joined forty other states by allowing cameras into state courtrooms on a p...
The allowance of cameras in the courtroom and televised trials have seemed to cause a debate within ...
This article discusses Florida\u27s experiment with cameras in state courtrooms in the context of th...
The United States Supreme Court has held that the public has a constitutional right of access to cri...
Though the Supreme Court allows public attendance and print media coverage of argument sessions, Sup...
Why is it important to televise coverage in trials? The basic answer is that our judicial system nee...
For several years there has been an ongoing dispute between members of the media and members of the ...
On June 30, 1997, the State of New York became one of the nation\u27s few states which does not perm...
Article published in the Michigan State University School of Law Student Scholarship Collection
In spite of a communications revolution that has given the public access to new media in new places,...
It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. ...
With in-person hearings limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts pivoted to proceedings hel...
The Illinois Supreme Court recently authorized the use of television cameras and other recording de...
From the introduction: News media, legal blogs, and law reviews routinely cite a panoply of reasons ...
This paper explains why electronic broadcasting devices, including both video and audio, shoul...
On July 1, 1992, Virginia joined forty other states by allowing cameras into state courtrooms on a p...
The allowance of cameras in the courtroom and televised trials have seemed to cause a debate within ...
This article discusses Florida\u27s experiment with cameras in state courtrooms in the context of th...
The United States Supreme Court has held that the public has a constitutional right of access to cri...
Though the Supreme Court allows public attendance and print media coverage of argument sessions, Sup...
Why is it important to televise coverage in trials? The basic answer is that our judicial system nee...
For several years there has been an ongoing dispute between members of the media and members of the ...