Courtroom Cameras: A Commentary
by Jeffrey Alan Goldenberg
Click thumbnails for larger
view |
Some weeks before the verdict in the OJ Simpson
trial was in, a Harvard law professor, in an editorial published
by the Los Angeles Times, lauded the potential educational advantages
of a televised trial to the citizenry and concluded that it is "safe
to say that the cameras are here to stay." Then in the week following
the Simpson trial the judge in the Menendez double murder trial
banned television cameras from his courtroom.
In truth, the only thing "safe to say" is that
the debate continues. Yet, having read and heard from numerous
commentators on the subject of cameras in the courtroom, one important
aspect of courtroom coverage seems to have been ignored. The crucial
question camera professionals need to ask during the infancy of
courtroom broadcasting is whether cameras may fairly portray the
essence of the trial.
When Court TV first hit the airwaves, it covered
the date rape trial of William Kennedy Smith. For privacy reasons,
when Smith's accuser took the stand, her face was digitally blocked
out by what looked like a blue blob. Unfortunately, because her
facial expressions were obliterated, no one in the television audience
could evaluate the full impact of her testimony. One of the most
important jobs a juror has is to assess what "weight" should be
given to the evidence. Often this simply means whether or not a
witness was exaggerating, had a faulty memory or, in the worst
of cases, was telling an outright lie. While the television public
may differ from jurors in several aspects, the goals of both are
the same in watching a witness: jurors and the public both want
to learn the facts of the case.
In the best of worlds, television coverage of
trials is a civic service that may help the public better understand
and appreciate our legal system. This may, it has been argued,
lead to greater public acceptance of court rulings and jury verdicts.
Unfortunately, experience has proven otherwise. Viewers who reach
their own conclusions based on television coverage are likely to
become dismayed, even angered, by contrary results in the real
world of the courtroom. Such was the case when the police officers
who used excessive force in subduing Rodney King were acquitted
in their first trial. Such was the case when OJ Simpson walked
out of the courtroom a free man. In high profile cases, in which
the public is bombarded constantly with instant trial analysis
and commentary, everyone seems to become a Monday morning quarterback
when jury verdicts are reached.
Before one criticizes the actions of a jury,
one important question begs to be asked: did the jury and the television
audience see the same trial, the same evidence? During the Simpson
trial, the answer clearly was no. While the public saw countless
hours of attorneys bickering over countless evidentiary motions,
the jurors were stuck in their hotel rooms, unaware of any of the
issues before the judge. On the other hand, when the jury saw graphic
photos of the brutally slain victims, the public saw only the attorney
presenting the evidence. Is it then surprising that jurors interviewed
after the trial had different notions of the weight of the evidence
from the public?
One fundamental problem in courtroom coverage
is the use of a single camera. Mounted high on a wall behind the
jury box, the remotely-operated courtroom camera in the Simpson
trial was limited to one continuous shot of the courtroom. Although
the camera could pan, tilt, and zoom in and out, it could only
provide coverage from one angle. While a single camera may suffice
for the majority of news stories, a trial is more like a sporting
event: there are clearly two sides and more cameras are necessary
to accurately portray the most important aspects of a trial.
First, trials constantly involve dialogues, usually
between a lawyer and a judge or between a lawyer and a witness.
Under current coverage standards, typically one party is shown
on video for an extended period of time while only the voice of
the other is heard. This presents a unbalanced portrayal of the
trial, especially in relation to witness testimony. Juries must
pay attention to the demeanor of both the questioning lawyer and
the answering witness. If it is important that the public understand
a jury verdict, the public must be able to do the same.
Second, the courtroom camera sees everything
from a single vantage point. All participants are seen in profile,
rarely the best coverage. And although prosecutors and the defendant
are shown from the same angle, the type of shots used differ greatly,
creating inequities. For example, during the Simpson trial, the
prosecutors always were seen in a high-angle wide shot showing
a paper-strewn desk in front of them, while the faces of defendant
and his team of lawyers always filled the screen in a long shot,
the long focal length of the lens compressing their faces together.
Simply put, the shots did not match. At times, from the nature
of the shots, the prosecutors looked disorganized and harried,
while the defense looked focused and concerned.
Third, as presently shown, visually a televised
trial is boring to the point of tears. There are no reaction shots.
There is no editing. There are no inserts. Only constant panning
and zooming. A more dynamic style is necessary to maintain viewer
interest.
A better, though admittedly more costly, idea
would be to have more than one remote camera in the courtroom.
Perhaps one camera could be mounted behind the judge to show the
lawyers while another could be mounted behind the lawyers to show
the judge and the witness. With two such mounted remotes, the public
could be provided with frontal views of all the key participants
and would be able to see both sides of testimony and argument.
This would require on-air switching, and possibly a short time
delay, but would enable the producer to show a shot of a lawyer
asking a crucial question, then cut immediately to the witness
for the answer, allowing the viewers to evaluate the demeanor of
both.
Admittedly, courtroom media will never be able
to provide the public with a duplicate of the jury's experience.
Perhaps that should not be the ultimate goal in trial coverage.
But, assuming that cameras will remain in many courtrooms throughout
the United States, it is important that the gap in jury and television
viewer perceptions be narrowed.
Jeffrey Alan Goldenberg is an associate member
of the SOC. He is actively working as a camera assistant and
also practices law in Los Angeles.
|
