Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson

Chapter 7. Getting the Picture

Chapter 7 Getting the Picture    Six months afterSimpson’s acquittal,U.S.Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter testified at a Congressional committee hearing about courtroom electronic media coverage. “The day you see a camera come into our courtroom,” he said, in a line now famous,“it’s going to roll over my dead body.”1 LosAngeles Superior Court Judge John J.Cheroske expressed similar sentiments at a meeting in Compton, where he was supervising judge following the Simpson verdicts.He said he didn’t understand why any judge would ever allow a camera in the courtroom. Souter and Cheroske voice the view of vast numbers of judges in the United States and abroad. Camera access has long sparked heated debates ranging from “the media just use trials to entertain,” to “the media use only sound bites,”to“televising an entire trial is boring,”to“cameras sensationalize ,” to“cameras are no more than a silent eye.” The impact of cameras in the Simpson trial, however, changed the course of camera-access history for more than a decade afterward. Camera coverage is singled out as the biggest contributor to the derailment of that trial and the negative public perception of it and its participants.That set the stage for the future of camera access in federal and state courts across the country. When prosecutors filed murder charges against Simpson in 1994,cameras had been a presence in California courts for more than a dozen years, and a limited three-year experiment of cameras recording federal civil cases was 71 wrapping up with encouraging results.2 By the end of the Simpson trial,federal officials had decided not to continue the pilot program3 and then– California governor Pete Wilson was calling for an end of cameras in his state’s courts.4 Although a total ban didn’t ensue, the California Judicial Council revised the rule that regulates electronic-media coverage in courtrooms so judges could have complete discretion over whether to permit cameras in their courtrooms.5 One of the most significant effects the Simpson trial had on the judicial system was the resounding bang of courtroom doors slamming shut against camera coverage in jurisdictions where it previously had been much more the rule than the exception. The cable television network Court TV, which got its start in 1991 and relied almost solely on being able to televise trials, felt the pinch most severely. “The O.J.case was a disaster for Court TV access,”says Fred Graham,who served as that network’s senior editor until 2008, when Court TV became truTV,“especially in California but also in Texas, Virginia, Connecticut, the federal system and with individual judges elsewhere.”6 Nowhere was that more apparent than in Los Angeles County. One of the first casualties was the retrial of the Menendez brothers in Van Nuys. With jury selection beginning in August 1995 and opening statements in October coming on the heels of the Simpson verdicts, Judge Stanley Weisberg, who had allowed television coverage of the first Menendez trial, banned it for the retrial. Cameras had been permitted in California courtrooms since the approval of a temporary rule in 1981 that became permanent in 1984. Yet even some judges who had allowed cameras before Simpson became opponents afterward , saying that the Simpson trial indicated that cameras do, in fact, affect participants’behavior,particularly that of witnesses and lawyers.Arguments rage on both sides, but little, if any, concrete data exists. I can say, though, from my vantage point in the Simpson trial,some of the lawyers appeared to be at least aware of the cameras, however subliminally. That was generally manifested in subtle gestures, such as a glance up as the wall-mounted camera moved, sitting a little straighter, fingering a necktie, or lifting the chin slightly. But whether that factored into the outcome of the trial in any way may remain forever an unanswered question. The impact of cameras in tri72 Anatomy of a Trial als, however, is a concern that continues to be voiced by judges and lawyers in this country and others.As recently as September 2007, the Simpson trial was still being cited by other states and even Canada as a consideration in courtroom-camera-coverage decisions.7 Souter and Cheroske have what they no doubt believe are compelling reasons to bar cameras from their courtrooms. So far as the Simpson case is concerned, though...