Order in the court

Wednesday, February 1, 1995

Order in the court

Court TV has brought the current O.J. Simpson murder trial, with all its drama, suspense and grandeur, into every home in America. Has the line between entertainment and news been crossed?

By Gaby Mora

Daily Bruin Staff

As Court TV begins its fourth year on the air, instead of announcing the achievements the network has made, spokesperson and supervising producer Cynthia Glozier went before pool reporters Jan. 24 to apologize for an incident which resulted in the latest media uproar in the "People vs. O.J. Simpson" case.

The network, which runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, covering trials, live and taped, has been placed in charge of controlling the courtroom camera in the widely publicized trial. But after a shot of an alternate juror aired, Judge Lance Ito adjourned court and threatened to pull the plug. The juror's face appeared for less than a second and, though inadvertent, the incident went against rules granting jurors' anonymity.

Court TV anchor Jan Rostal, a former public defender, called the incident an unfortunate mistake, but says "we paid for it, and frankly I was happy to be a part of an organization that owned up to it." Ito accepted Court TV's apology, and allowed televised coverage to continue ­ under stricter rules and a static camera to ensure a juror would not be caught on tape again.

John Wiley understands Ito's concern for a juror's right to privacy. The UCLA law professor and former federal prosecutor describes the impact of the camera on jury duty as complicated.

"Televising jurors puts a face on them, and that has the potential for making jury duty much more of an intrusion than civic duty used to present," he says.

But just as the controversy over cameras in the courtroom didn't start with the O.J. Simpson trial, it doesn't end in the Los Angeles Criminal Court building either.

United States courts have always been open to the public and to the media. "Courtrooms are public places whether lawyers and judges want them to be or not," says Karen Nikos, a former trial reporter now working for the UCLA law school. "All the camera is is an eye into that public place."

In 1977 the state of Florida began an experiment with TV cameras, and since then 47 states now permit TV coverage of state trials. Federal courts still do not allow cameras, though on July 1, 1991, coincidentally the same day Court TV was launched, a landmark test of cameras began for several federal civil trials.

The law governs that the use of cameras within a state's courts are made by that state, which is why in some states the jury can be shown, while in California they may not. The one consistent rule is that the video and audio equipment must be as unobtrusive as possible.

But though the camera is not supposed to interfere with trial proceedings, the impact of the media on the O.J. Simpson trial is undeniable, prompting veteran Associated Press reporter Linda Deutsch to describe the case as being tried in two courts, "the court of justice and the court of public opinion."

Cynics of the 24-hour court room cable channel didn't think the public would be interested. But despite a recent Associated Press poll that reported the majority of the public believes O.J. Simpson is probably guilty and doesn't care about the trial anymore, the ratings boost Court TV and CNN received during the preliminary statements demonstrated that cameras in the courtroom not only grasp the public's attention, but also a profit.

"It's just a mystifying trial," says Rostal, "and it's one of things people don't want to admit, but once they turn the television on they just can't turn it off."

The 100 or so worldwide news stations enrolled in the so-called "Camp O.J." outside the Criminal Courts building are further proof of the interest in high profile trials. Every day the trial is turned into more of an unbelievable Hollywood drama than a judicial process that will determine the fate of one man.

But if the fate of cameras in the courtroom is to be a positive one, now is a monumental time for Court TV to establish its place as an educational, and not just entertaining, cable network. Having covered over 300 trials, Court TV brings this county's legal system into the living rooms of its 15.2 million subscribers in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

The cable channel claims to choose trials with a few determining factors in mind: importance and interest, notoriety and newsworthiness of both the case and the people involved, the quality of the story, educational value, and expected duration of the trial. Usually one or two cases are covered live in a day with a taped case or two ready to be televised.

"There exists a deep controversy of what the purpose of cameras in the court room is, especially with the view that TV is strictly entertainment," says Wiley. "But that's also an elitist view, because it doesn't give people credit for being able to choose what they want to see."

"We just try and keep within the trial itself, keeping our coverage realistic," says Rostal. "We try not to add things, or take anything away. If a certain witness is important, we let our viewers know, and even if it is boring, we still emphasize its importance."

But because the camera inevitably covers people in a trial both inside and out of the courtroom, the effect of trial publicity also impacts trial participants as well as the public.

"One thing, certainly," says Wiley, "is that people always act differently in front of the camera. Its not necessarily good or bad, just complex. In some ways (TV) serves as an on-line civics lesson, and it also restrains otherwise arbitrary judges who think they have ultimate power; one can contrast the extremely judicious on camera."

Nikos says that in her years covering federal and state courts she never found a difference in televised and nontelevised trials, as long as the judge was controlling. And while the line of a controlling or passive judge can be arbitrary, the role of the lawyers is becoming increasingly visible in the realm of public opinion.

"The willingness of lawyers to speak to the media is a factor," says Wiley. "California is a state with a laxness of ethical regulations ... (defense attorney) Robert Shapiro is a good example, he wrote an article called 'Using the Media to Your Advantage,' not your client's, but yours."

Nikos agrees. "In the past, very rarely did you quote lawyers because you knew that they were just pontificating. But there are just no rules anymore, and almost all of the rules that do exist have been broken. Because when lawyers don't follow rules of ethics, neither do the reporters, who are already in feverish competition."

Rostal says Court TV curbs itself from becoming a pulpit for media hungry lawyers. Even though the cable channel has featured guests such as defense attorney F. Lee Bailey (before he represented Simpson), Rostal says the purpose is to, "have lawyers as commentators, not to dissect other lawyers' performance but to explain what's going on."

Nikos praises Court TV for explaining court proceedings to the public. "As a starting reporter," she says, "I relied on editors and peers to help me understand what was going on. Court can be very confusing, and its very formal, almost like church where the judge is a priest like figure. Having the different people's functions and the procedures explained is very helpful."

"Watchers of Court TV," concludes Wiley, "have a more real idea of what lawyers and trials are like, than the people who watch 'L.A. Law' or 'Perry Mason.'"