Document: 449 U.S. 560 101 S.Ct. 802 66 L.Ed.2d 740 Noel CHANDLER and Robert Granger, Appellants,v.State of FLORIDA. No. 79-1260. Argued Nov. 12, 1980. Decided Jan. 26, 1981. Syllabus The Florida Supreme Court, following a pilot program for televising judicial proceedings in the State, promulgated revised Canon 3A(7) Code Judicial Conduct. permits electronic media still photography coverage proceedings, subject to control presiding judge implementing guidelines placing on trial judges obligations protect fundamental right accused criminal case fair trial. Appellants, who were charged with crime that attracted attention, convicted after jury court over objections broadcast parts their denied them impartial District Court Appeal affirmed, finding no evidence presence television camera hampered appellants presenting case, deprived an jury, or impaired fairness review. courts did not construe Estes v. Texas, 381 532, 85 1628, 14 543, as laying down per se constitutional rule barring under all circumstances. Held : Constitution does prohibit state from experimenting such is authorized by Florida's 3A(7). Pp. 569-583. (a) This has supervisory jurisdiction courts, and, reviewing state-court judgment, confined evaluating it relation Federal Constitution. P. 570. (b) supra, announce photographic, radio, trials inherently denial due process. It stand absolute ban experimentation evolving technology, which, terms modes mass communication, was its relative infancy 1964 when decided, is, even now, continuing change. 570-574. (c) An cannot be justified simply because there danger that, some cases, conduct broadcasting process prejudicial accounts pretrial events may impair ability jurors decide issue guilt innocence uninfluenced extraneous matter. appropriate safeguard against juror prejudice defendant's demonstrate media's his case—be printed broadcast—compromised particular heard adjudicate fairly. 574-575. (d) Whatever "mischievous potentialities [of coverage] intruding upon detached atmosphere which should always surround process," at 587, 1662, present one presented empirical data sufficient establish mere courtroom adverse effect Here, have offered nothing subtly tainted coverage—let alone would so tainted. 575-580. (e) Nor shown either trial—printed jury's fairly had impact participants constitute 580-582. (f) Absent showing dimensions these appellants, reason this endorse invalidate experiment. 582. 376 So.2d 1157, affirmed. Joel Hirschhorn, Miami, Fla., appellants. Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Smith, State appellee. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question appeal whether, consistent guarantees, provide television, photographic public broadcast, notwithstanding objection accused. 2 * A. 3 Background. Over past 50 years, cases characterized "sensational" been subjected extensive news media, sometimes seriously interfering creating setting wholly inappropriate administration justice. Judges, lawyers, others soon became concerned, 1937, study, American Bar Association House Delegates adopted 35, declaring prohibited.1 In 1952, amended 35 proscribe well. 77 A.B.A.Rep. 610-611 (1952). Canon's proscription reaffirmed 1972 Conduct replaced Canons Ethics superseded 35. E. Thode, Reporter's Notes 56-59 (1973). Cf. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 53. A majority states, including Florida, substance ABA provision amendments. embodied Conduct.2 4 February 1978, Committee Fair Trial-Free Press proposed standards. These included permitting conditions established local judge, but only if carried out unobtrusively without affecting trial.3 revision endorsed ABA's Standing Standards Criminal Media, rejected 1979. 65 A.B.A.J. 304 (1979). 5 based own study matter, Conference Justices, vote 44 1, approved resolution allow highest each promulgate standards regulating other proceedings.4 6 Program. January 1975, while developments unfolding, Post-Newsweek Stations petitioned urging change April invited presentations nature rulemaking proceeding, 1976, announced experimental civil specific guidelines. Petition Stations, Inc., 327 1. initial required consent parties. developed, however, practice could obtained. then supplemented order new 1-year during permitted cover reference participants, detailed respect technology operators. re 347 402 (1977). experiment began July 1977 continued through June 1978. 7 When ended, received reviewed briefs, reports, letters comment, studies. conducted survey attorneys, witnesses, jurors, personnel Office Coordinator. separate taken Circuit Judges. also studied experience States5 had, 1979, rules relating trials, well 10 States like coverage.6 8 Following review material, concluded "that balance [was] more gained than lost coverage." 370 764, 780 view significant day-to-day lives citizenry, essential people confidence felt contribute wider acceptance understanding decisions. Ibid. Consequently, revising reflect evaluation program, Id., 781. provides: 9 "Subject times authority (i) before court, (ii) ensure decorum prevent distractions, (iii) justice pending cause, appellate shall allowed accordance Florida." specify detail kind equipment used manner use. 778-779, 783-784. For example, technician are allowed. Existing recording systems reporters broadcasters audio pickup. Where organization seeks trial, must pool coverage. No artificial lighting positioned fixed location, moved Videotaping remote courtroom. Film, videotape, lenses changed session. conferences between parties counsel, bench permitted. sole plenary discretion exclude certain filmed. discretionary power forbid whenever satisfied deleterious paramount defendant revise dictates, indeed bar courtrooms. B 11 1977, conspiracy commit burglary, grand larceny, possession burglary tools. counts covered breaking entering well-known Miami Beach restaurant. 12 details alleged relevant us, several aspects distinguish routine burglary. At time arrest, policemen. State's principal witness John Sion, amateur radio operator who, sheer chance, overheard recorded conversations police walkie-talkie radios Not surprisingly, novel factors attention media. 13 By motion, counsel sought declared unconstitutional face applied. relief certified However, declined question, ground directly charges 352 175 After additional fruitless attempts selected. voir dire, appellants' asked prospective whether he she able "fair impartial" despite some, all, Each selected responded affect her consideration any way. dire. 15 defense motion sequester judge. instructed watch read anything about suggested "avoid national television." App. 13. Subsequently, requested witnesses testimony give instruction, "no witness' [being] reported televised [on evening news] way." 14. 16 place entire afternoon, chief witness.7 presentation part defense. returned closing arguments. Only minutes 55 seconds below broadcast—and those depicted prosecution's side case. 17 guilty verdict counts. Appellants claiming coverage, they tendered. 18 affirmed convictions. discuss facial validity 3A(7); reasoned having decided permit basis, implicitly determined violate Constitutions. Nonetheless, agree certify constitutionality found record indicate jury. 19 review, holding appeal, limited challenge 3A(7), moot decision 764 (1979), rendered shortly Appeal. II 20 outset, important note promulgating pointedly federal access photographers televise electronically thereafter disseminate proceedings. carefully framed follows: 21 "While we clause se, same token reject argument [Post-Newsweek stations] first sixth amendments United mandate entry into proceedings." 774. 22 relied our Nixon Warner Communications, 435 589, 98 1306, 570 (1978), where said: 23 "In place, . [live witness] broadcast. Second, guarantee words Mr. Black, 'a attempt employ instruments persecution,' confers special benefit press. Sixth Amendment require trial—or it—be live tape public. requirement opportunity members press attend report what observed." 610, S.Ct., 1318 (citations omitted). 24 predicated imperative. Hence, us Court's courts. 25 III 26 rely chiefly 543 (1965), Warren's concurring They argue process, announcing effect. 27 opinion, joined Justices Douglas Goldberg, provides support position: 28 I join desire express views why so. doing this, wish emphasize condemnation generalities abstract fears. presents vivid illustration inherent supports conclusion make definitive appraisal courtroom." 552, 1637. 29 If reading correct, obliged apply reverse judgment 30 six opinions examined evaluate claim represents forbidding Warren Goldberg Clark's thereby plurality. Harlan provided fifth necessary judgment. concurrence: 31 "I concur subject, reservations extent indicated opinion." 1662. 32 careful analysis Harlan's therefore ultimate Estes. 33 observing permissibility fraught unusual difficulty: 34 "Permitting undeniably mischievous Forbidding innovation, doubtless impinge valued attributes federalism preventing states pursuing course procedural experimentation. My courtroom, least notorious one, considerations allowing far outweigh countervailing advanced done infringed assured Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment." (emphasis added). He proceeded catalog perceived dangers trials. 36 context intense interest, certainly strong possibility timid reluctant witness, whom appearance traditional best harrowing affair, will become finds appearing 'hidden audience' unknown large dimensions. There 'cocky' thirst limelight influence television. And can say gratified chosen front-line ambitious prosecutor, publicity-minded attorney, conscientious stray, albeit unconsciously, 'comes naturally' pluming themselves satisfactory 'performance'?" 591, 1664. 37 faced squarely reality possibilities carry "grave distorting integrity although distortions produce telltale signs, "their effects pervasive physical disruptions concede vitiate conviction." 592, "countervailing factors" alluded were, here, educational informational value 38 STEWART, BLACK, BRENNAN, WHITE dissent, Estes' rights violated. While expressing unlike Warren, dissent expressed unwillingness "escalate personal rule." 601, 1669. four dissenters disagreed both plurality Clark "the circumstances [that] led [Estes'] rights." 39 Parsing Estes, left sense doubt precisely how much in, supported by, Harlan. area nuances, perhaps expected. viewed proposition "what Amendment," id., 1662 added), went on: 40 "At juncture conclude possess capabilities constitutionally banned." 596, 1666 41 turns, defining scope holding; circumstances.8 1964, IV 42 Since turn consideration, matter impression, suggestion now rule. 43 Any generates great deal publicity risks compromise Trial especially vigilant guard impairment solely law. developed range curative devices infecting deliberations. See, e. g., Nebraska Assn. Stuart, 427 539, 563-565, 96 2791, 2804, 2805, 49 683 (1976). risk justify media; warrant attracts high level intrinsic interest reporting event. publication See Part IV-D, infra. 45 As noted earlier, concern very cameras inescapably gives rise psychological general prejudice, allegedly different particularized problem discussed earlier. demonstrated knowledge event invariably uniformly affected fairness, task simple; prohibition required. 46 confronting difficult sensitive potential associated aided amici briefs submitted various officers involved law enforcement, Attorneys General States9 embarked College Lawyers, bar10 representing essentially 47 unimportant position asserted since 1962, tried. urged, presented,11 many negative cumbersome equipment, cables, distracting lighting, numerous technicians—are less substantial today time. 48 safeguards built programs avoid most egregious problems envisioned admonishes take pains witnesses—for children, victims sex crimes, informants, party—from glare tensions being "on camera." So.2d, 779. positive Canon, few accused, raises states. Inherent awareness contemplated adversely yet leave trial's affected. Given danger, requires considered court. Green 377 193, 201 (Fla.App.1979). addition providing hearing enables advance basis allows define steps minimize eliminate Experiments here increase number appeals adding claims reverse, preliminary evidentiary show injury. reveal generalized allegations prejudice. clear particularly defendant, sharp debate—as Lawyers opposition demonstrate. concerns see III, borne actual experience. Comprehensive available—at problem. brief concedes: 51 "The interests harassed concentrate confer effectively attorney crucial reactions available indicates possible regulate weigh heavily defendant. Particular paid continues." Brief Attorney Alabama et al. Amici Curiae 52 status emphasized amicus Justices: 53 "Examination reexamination, in-court vel non, exercise reserved federalism." Amicus 2. 54 U.S., n. 11, supra. infra.12 Where, automatically results activity state, admonition Brandeis, dissenting New Ice Co. Liebmann, 285 262, 311, 371, 386, 76 L.Ed. 747 (1932), relevant: 56 "To stay things social economic grave responsibility. Denial serious consequences Nation. happy incidents system single courageous may, citizens choose, serve laboratory; try experiments rest country. We strike statute embodies measure arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable. But power, ever guard, lest erect prejudices legal principles. guide light reason, let minds bold." (Footnote omitted.) concept federalism, echoed favoring experiment, decision. C 57 bar, 10, vigorously contend displaying itself California Public Defenders 5-10. source select "singles defendants subjects experienced others." 565, 1644 (Warren, C. J., concurring). Selection inevitably made governed victim; titillate rather educate inform. unanswered bring humiliation randomness evoke "unusual way struck lightning" "unusual." Furman Georgia, 408 238, 309, 92 2726, 2762, 346 (1972) (STEWART, Societies political systems, time, put "Yankee Stadium" "show trials" tell decent justice—with every citizen receiving 58 viewing potentially form punishment itself—a guilt. trivial. But, will, practice, equivalent setting—which likened pillory long abandoned barbaric perversion await D 59 To fact accorded protections case—printed him Alternatively, might Neither 60 something attract broadcasters. Murphy 421 794, 800, 95 2031, 2036, 589 (1975). aware thought Jurors, forbidden broadcasts, knowing fleeting proceeding reproduced. attempted specificity prospect 61 Although holding, consider answered considering merits. 8-12. 13-14, do violated instruction. participant cameras. short, compromised V 62 ignore discount Dangers lurk experiments, unless prohibited Constitution, free empowered oversee harness experimentation; action infringes guarantees intervene. assume alert 63 evolutional nature; project guidance canons application arise. Nothing "Roman circus" atmosphere, prevailed nor unsequestered exposed Sheppard Maxwell, 384 333, 86 1507, 600 (1966). defendants, 64 setting, violation. hold Affirmed. STEVENS took 67 result. 68 think convictions overruling 543. 69 believe believed then, "prohibits progress." 614, 1676; also, 615, 1676 (WHITE, dissenting). Accordingly, seems me unsuccessful effort decision, flatly overrule it. 70 technological improvements day render obtrusive, restrictions significantly set limitations placed trial: 71 "A booth constructed back painted blend permanent structure room. aperture lens unrestricted All newsreel restricted shooting film telecasting. 72 "[L]ive telecasting portion opening arguments return receipt sound. videotapes sound, operated intermittently, portions regularly scheduled newscasts later evening. request petitioner, kind, summations jury." 537, 1630 (footnote 73 remarked setting: 74 "Some observations order: agree, am sure, worst, capable deprive fairness. Cables, kleig lights, interviews commentary performances, 'commercials' frequent intervals, wearing apparel makeup participants—certainly conduce sound acceptable standard. us. find relatively unobtrustive, contained 588, 75 violation not, therefore, stem disruption disappear advances equipment. inhered, rather, hypothesis accused.1 542-550, 1632-1636 (opinion Court). sounded central theme here: "Courtroom introduces element professional 'showmanship,' whose subtle capacities mischief sort underestimated lawyer elusive imponderables arena." accurately Americans familiar medium communication. follow, "subtle mischief" diminished, "imponderables arena" elusive. necessarily2 relies begins noting "to [the ]. ." Ante, 571 disregards concession limitation meaningful.3 admitted "it appear workable distinction drawn type involved, [in 'run-of-the-mill' case], though severe, nonetheless proportions." 590, 1663. Finally, stated unambiguously "by means prepared ultimately involved." Ibid.4 78 admittedly unobtrusive prejudicial, thus violative Today reaches opposite conclusion. trouble agreeing today, acknowledge square departure precedent. 79 WHITE, 80 rule, controlled conditions, challenged facially invalid unfair trial; applied falls within (1965).* claims. 81 reasons STEWART concurrence establishing objects. So understood, overruled affirm below. 82 arguable, narrowly, widely publicized sensational Harlan, concurred "criminal notoriety." recognized defense, 1664, argued "in one." 83 Whether broadly overruled. remain unwilling proof marshaled date properly conditions. should, course, ample convince him, absent convinced conviction obtained overturned refused have, position, accumulated further undermined assumptions rested 84 contends eviscerates exception otherwise complied with. 774 (Fla.1979). Thus, referred overrides objections. contention publicity, need shown. affirming below, sustained narrower longer authoritative. Moreover, reads merely facts trial—i. e., all. expressly "isolatable" "actual" shown, 542-543, 1632, 1633, necessity "specific" "like 593, 1665. telling "[a]bsent defendants," overturn aside reducing proceed caution, underestimate real develop understand it, suggest hazard courtrooms 87 1134-1135 (1937). September 30, read: "Proceedings fitting dignity decorum. taking photographs sessions recesses sessions, calculated detract degrade create misconceptions thereto mind permitted." originally provided: broadcasting, televising, recording, areas immediately adjacent except authorize: "(a) use evidence, perpetuation record, purposes administration; "(b) photographing investitive, ceremonial, naturalization proceedings; "(c) reproduction conditions; "(i) distract "(ii) consented, reproduction; "(iii) exhibited until direct exhausted; "(iv) instructional institutions." Proposed Standard 8-3.6(a) Project Justice, Free (Tent. Draft 1978). Resolution I, Television, Radio, Photographic Coverage Proceedings, Thirtieth Annual Meeting Burlington, Vt., Aug. 2, Alabama, Colorado, Hampshire, Washington. grown larger October 1980, only, studying issue. Radio Television News Directors Curiae. On November Maryland Appeals 18-month U.S.L.W. 2335 (1980). point Sion's testimony, interrupted examination admonished cameraman discontinue movement apparently distracting. 15. Otherwise, prescribed procedures followed, untoward occurred. Our subsequent 352, 1516, (1966), instance "totality circumstances" 798, 2035, (1975), described "a utterly corrupted And, 2799, (1976), lacking volume judge's failure telecast itself" prevented sober search truth. result instant restates banning overlooks critical importance true "sounded note" violates Clause. Post, 585. "note" alters explicit concurrence. rule; emphasizing five majority] rest[ed] infirm, whatever circumstances." 617, 1677. Today, concedes, post, 585-586, 3, purported limit subclass cases. come commonplace affair daily life average person dissipate reasonable likelihood disparage process." 595, That statement makes text, "utterly corrupted" "overrule" "holding" never Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Mexico, York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin Association, Defender, Los Angeles County Courts Defender Considerable devoted surveys dealing himself. collected postprogram participants. assembled cause optimism inhere conceded "limited," 781 "non-scientific," 768. Still, noteworthy circumstances, creates trials—at uniquely opposed forms Further research picture. moment, unimpeachable thesis ipso facto, interferes Other examine Bradley 470 F.2d 785 (CA5 1972); Bell Patterson, 279 F.Supp. 760 (Colo.), aff'd, 394 (CA10 1968), cert. denied, 403 955, 91 2279, 865 (1971); Gonzales People, 165 Colo. 322, 438 P.2d 686 (1968). hand, supporting finally resolved. Certain easier threat sequestered night, ended. Aside court-monitored election returns, contrast, programs—and look glimpse watching replays evidence. concedes pointed trials"; objected announcement ante, 570, 572. disregard description suggests "notorious" community. notes "several [and] [n]ot media." 567. Indeed, account confirms wisdom workable. declare unconstitutional, claimed "received amount publicity" "[a]s substantially harm Defendant's 4. merits, "not 'notorious' [but] 'more routine' " extend 10. run-of-the-mill trial—of suit quiet title, "routine burglary" charge example—would hardly token, serves "heavily publicized" one.

Category: 0