The D.A. s Office contended that televising the trial would reveal bomb-making secrets, endanger witnesses such as Hearst and impair Olson s right to a fair trial. Alonzo Wickers, an attorney representing Court TV, insists the D.A. s concerns were baseless. This case is undeniably a part of L.A. s history. And there is substantial interest by the public in hearing that history, says Wickers, of Davis Wright Tremaine, which also represents L.A. Weekly . The public s interest and the public s faith in the fairness of the system will be best served by viewing the actual trial, rather than depending on abbreviated accounts by journalists in newspapers.
Wickers says the bomb-making technology is nearly three decades old, and available on the Internet.
Moreover, he takes issue with the privacy concerns. Patty Hearst has already talked about her kidnapping and subsequent involvement in the SLA bank robbery on television and in print interviews, he says. In fact, Olson has contended that televising her trial is the only way she can be sure of getting a fair trial. Cooley s opposition to the cameras seemed to contradict statements he made during a debate with Gil Garcetti last summer. When Garcetti remarked that he now vehemently opposed televising trials, Cooley responded, As a matter of principle, cameras should probably be in the courtroom.