I was a trial lawyer for twenty-two years, representing clients in both civil and criminal cases, in federal and state courts. Charles Stuart, as you may remember, was alleged to have killed his pregnant wife. I have been a judge for six years. I would like to address two broad areas today. First, public proceedings in the twenty-first century necessarily mean televised proceedings.
Television is the means by which most people get their news.
Moreover, at a time when polls suggest that the public is woefully misinformed about the justice system, more information, and relatively unmediated information, is better than less information. Second, the concerns raised by the opponents of this bill are, to a degree, misplaced. In any event, the disadvantages do not compensate for the advantages. There is concern that the participants in televised trials somehow skew their presentation because of the gaze of the cameras. The fact that most of the televised trials are high-profile cases, where the participants are already acutely aware of the publicity surrounding them, and the fact that televised trials, particularly in federal courts, are a relative novelty.