On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a new trial, ruling that camera coverage had violated his Sixth Amendment fair-trial rights. Estes was tried and convicted again, this time without the presence of photographers. After that decision, cameras were not allowed in courtrooms for nearly a decade as technology rendered them less intrusive. The Supreme Court later ruled that the mere presence of cameras did not constitute an impediment to a fair trial. Instead, the justices ruled the defendant must prove the cameras impaired the jury's ability to decide the defendant's case fairly.
Some judges now seem to be rethinking the issue.
In Houston, state District Court Judge Mike Westergren denied permission for live coverage during the trial of Yolanda Saldivar, accused of murdering Hispanic pop singer Selena. Finding no constitutional provision allowing cameras, Westergren turned down the request from Court Television Network and Univision, the United States' largest Spanish-language network, after both the district attorney and Saldivar's attorney objected to TV coverage of the trial, slated to begin Oct. 9. And for good measure, he imposed a gag order on the lawyers. He insists the Simpson trial changes the relationship between media and trials and that some balance needs to be restored so witnesses feel safe to testify and potential jurors will not be influenced. In fact, Simpson case Judge Lance A. Ito worked with Court TV to ensure jurors' faces would not show and threatened to discontinue coverage last January when an alternate juror inadvertently leaned into camera view.