Court Opinion

ID: 9423076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:05:49.638988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:42.165598
License: Public Domain

*631Mr. Justice Brennan.
I write merely to emphasize that only four of the five Justices voting to reverse rest on the proposition that televised criminal trials are constitutionally infirm, whatever the circumstances. Although the opinion announced by my Brother Clark purports to be an “opinion of the Court,” my Brother Harlan subscribes to a significantly less sweeping proposition. He states:
“The Estes trial was a heavily publicized and highly sensational affair. I therefore put aside all other types of cases .... The resolution of those further questions should await an appropriate case; the Court should proceed only step by step in this un-plowed field. The opinion of the Court necessarily goes no farther, for only the four members of the majority who unreservedly join the Court’s opinion would resolve those questions now.” Ante, pp. 590-591. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus today’s decision is not a blanket constitutional prohibition against the televising of state criminal trials.
While I join the dissents of my Brothers Stewart and White, I do so on the understanding that their use of the expressions “the Court’s opinion” or “the opinion of the Court” refers only to those views of our four Brethren which my Brother Harlan explicitly states he shares.