Were this case to proceed, as it probably will with limited seats for the public and the press, the rights of the press and public to view court proceedings in another setting would surely be curtailed if not denied. However, Justice Teresi made clear that the access right he is recognizing is not unfettered. Under those rules, which were in effect during the final phase of the period of experimental broadcasting of trials, the judge retains wide discretion to limit audio-visual coverage. New York now joins 48 states that allow some form of audio-visual coverage in the courtroom, and 37 that allow televising of trials. Mr. Grygiel had made largely the same arguments before Judge Rosen and Justice Williams that Mr. Abrams made before Justice Teresi.
Citizens look upon the system more favorably if proceedings are conducted openly.
In this case, where the location of the trial is 150 miles from the community where the alleged crime was committed, cameras are that much more necessary. He said that trials were never intended to be a source of public entertainment. Additionally, Mr. Litman said, Justice Teresi, by ruling as he did, created a ready-made issue for appeal should any or all of the officers be convicted. Mr. Culleton, however, said he is not viewing the ruling as an appealable issue, and suggested that televised coverage of the trial may be good for both his client and the public. In a way, I am happy everyone will know that.