Opinion ID: 1810757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Physical disruption.

Text: After sifting through the voluminous arguments, comments, survey results, and concessions of the opponents, [46] it is apparent that through application and enforcement of the standards imposed by the Court during the pilot program, physical disturbance was so minimal as not to be an arguable factor. [47] Technological advancements have so reduced size, noise, and light levels of the electronic equipment available that cameras can be employed in courtrooms unobtrusively. The standards adopted by the Court vested in the chief judges the means to position electronic media representatives in locations which would be least obtrusive while permitting reasonable access to coverage. Furthermore, the standards with respect to pooling and resolution of media disputes appear to have proved workable during the pilot period. Comments received indicate that while disputes arose from time to time, the burden was properly shifted to media representatives to resolve those disputes without involving the trial judge as arbitrator. In a number of instances the media, both with and without participation of the court, established protocols to anticipate and deal with problem areas. [48] A related issue is whether the very presence of electronic media in the courtroom detracts from the decorum of the proceedings. The attitudes of all participants surveyed clearly indicate that there is no such discernible effect. [49]