Court Opinion

ID: 9609136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:22:57.712934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:07.760103
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Justice ROSS.
The United States Supreme Court has concluded that Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965), did not announce a constitutional rule that all photographic, radio, and television coverage of criminal trials is inherently a denial of due process. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981). However, because no rule-making authority in Texas has expressly authorized such coverage in criminal cases, trial courts should not permit it in those proceedings. As pointed out by the majority, Tex.R. Civ. P. 18c provides for such coverage in civil cases, and Tex.R.App. P. 14.1 and 14.2 likewise authorize such coverage. But, these rules provide specific guidelines governing such coverage in those respective proceedings. We have no corresponding guidelines governing photographic, radio, and television coverage of criminal trials, and in the absence of such, trial courts should not allow it, especially over a party’s objection, as in this case.3
Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court stated in Chandler:
[A] defendant has the right on review to show that the media’s coverage of his case — printed or broadcast — compromised the ability of the jury to judge him fairly. Alternatively, a defendant might show that broadcast coverage of his particular case had an adverse impact on the trial participants sufficient to constitute a denial of due process.
Chandler, 449 U.S. at 581, 101 S.Ct. 802.
As no such showing was made in Chandler, neither was there in this case. For this reason, I concur in the result.

. In Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held another civil rule of procedure applicable to criminal cases. If the same application is made of Tex.R. Civ. P. 18c, the televising of the proceeding in this case was error because that rule requires the consent of the parties for such televising and Graham clearly did not consent.