Opinion ID: 1262796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Exclude Video Cameras

Text: At the time of the trial, the Circuit Court of Bedford County had been designated as an experimental court for the use of electronic media under the provisions of Code § 19.2-266. Before trial, Stewart objected to electronic media coverage of his trial upon the ground that it presents such probability of prejudice that it inherently lacks due process. Without pointing to any specific prejudice caused by the use of cameras in his trial, Stewart merely cites Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965), and contends that his constitutional rights were violated. We do not agree. As the Supreme Court said in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 574, 101 S.Ct. 802, 809, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), Estes did not announce a constitutional rule that all photographic or broadcast coverage of criminal trials is inherently a denial of due process. Rather, in the absence of a showing that a criminal trial is compromised by television coverage, its use is not unconstitutional. Id. at 581-82, 101 S.Ct. at 813. Stewart has not shown that the presence of video cameras influenced the outcome of these cases in any way and, therefore, he does not demonstrate that his due process rights have been violated. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to exclude the use of video cameras from the trial.