About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

63 Judicature 14 (1979-1980)
The Story behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras

handle is hein.journals/judica63 and id is 16 raw text is: The story behind the adoption of the ban on courtroom cameras It appears that the photographers outside the Lindbergh trial-not the ones inside- caused the commotion that led to a total ban on courtroom photography by Richard B. Kielbowicz The 1935 trial of Bruno Hauptmann dis- closed a variety of free press-fair trial prob- lems, but in the wake of the trial, only a single measure, Canon 35, was brought forth by the American Bar Association as an en- forceable rule. As one of the ABA's Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon 35 was offered as a model for state bar associations. It admon- ished judges: Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photo- graphs in the courtroom, during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and should not be permitted. The canon was disturbing to the media because it prevented them from using new reportorial tools in covering the courts. But they were also upset with the manner in The author would like to thank Professor Beverly Bethune of the University of Georgia for her criticism of an earlier draft of this article. 14 Judicature/Volume 63, Number 1/June-July, 1979 which the bar association adopted Canon 35-a manner which left little hope for the prospects of future press-bar co-operation. Despite the ignoble circumstances of its birth, Canon 35 has stood virtually intact from the time of its passage to the present. Federal jurisdictions and all but three states adopted the ban in one form or another. In 1972, when the Code of Judicial Conduct supplanted the Code of Judicial Ethics, strictures against still cameras and the elec- tronic media in court were retained in sec- tion 3A(7) of the new code. And even after five years of successful experiments with cameras and broadcasting in court,1 the ABA House of Delegates declined yet anoth- er invitation to relax the rule last August2 and last February.3 1. For a survey of recent experiments with cameras in courts, see Frank White, Cameras in the Courtroom (paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, August 16, 1978). 2. House bucks trend for cameras in court, 64 A.B.A. J. 1342 (September, 1978).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most