I note below the circumstances that differentiate the instant mo-tion from that of RNN. 5. First, circumstances have been radically altered since Judge Williams' decision on the RNN application, in a way that directly relates to the ultimate relief sought here. The effect of the Appellate Division's decision last month, a determination that defendants' could receive a fair trial in this Court, was to remove any claim that could be made that the mere televising of the trial in this case presents risks to the defendants' fair trial rights or otherwise would impair the administration of justice or the dignity of the Court. Judge Williams also emphasized in her prior decision that citizens would be able, as the Court conceded is their constitutional right, to physically attend the trial. Thus, the request to televise the trial is rendered that much more appropriate given current circumstances.
Court TV is a national television network.
It seeks here to vindicate both the federal and State consti-tutional rights of all of the public. RNN, on the other hand, is a local news organization that, on its motion before Judge Wil-liams, sought vindication of its rights under the Constitution of this State only. Documents Appended Hereto 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Richard B. Kielbowicz, The Story Behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras, Judica-ture, Vol. Annexed hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Report of the California Task Force, dated on or about May 10, 1996.