Court Opinion

ID: 9533368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:04.310318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.173679
License: Public Domain

POWELL, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Judge Brett’s opinion rendered herein on September 3, 1958. It covers the subject thoroughly in a field where, with the exception of Judge Moore’s exhaustive study (In re Hearings Concerning Canon 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, Colo., 296 P.2d 465) there are no express decisions of the courts on the . subject. General principles evolved from the consideration of constitutional and statutory provisions as applied to the field of .communications, .heretofore generally limited to the press, have been of aid.
There can be no doubt that the purpose of Canon 35 is laudable. The Hauptman trial involving the kidnapping of the Lindbergh infant turned into a prolonged circus. At least it may safely be said that the general public' eventually arrived at such conclusion, and such is not a healthful situation. We want no more of that.
*747Undoubtedly there must be decorum; no condition must be permitted that would detract from the dignity of the proceedings, or distract the attention of those engaged in the proceedings. Concededly, court proceedings must be conducted in such manner as to be conducive to the ascertainment of truth uninfluenced by extraneous matters. The trial must be fair and impartial if democratic principles are to survive.
But, overall, the effort must be made to accomplish all this while at the same time affording the general public, who after all in a democracy have the last say (for all governmental ppwer is derived from the people), opportunity to know find see how an accused is afforded due process of law. That way he will come to have a greater respect for the principles of democracy.
There was a time when mechanical and technical development had not reached that point where the requirements to meet the principles stated could be met. But a careful reading of Judge Moore’s report in the Colorado case, and the current opinion from this court, is revealing and dispels the forced maxim of Canon 35 that “the taking of photographs in the court room during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings are calculated to detract from the essential dignity of the proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied.) The rule makes such per se intolerable and forbidden without further consideration of the conditions in a particular case where the modern equipment may be such that the participants, except the judge and his bailiff and reporter, may be unaware of the fact that pictures are being made, or the conversations, questions and answers, recorded.
With the elimination of the objectionable features of various photographers and communication technicians, swarming in a court room with bidky equipment and competing, then the only thing left is the question of the rights of the public at large to see just how a trial is conducted, where the court rooms of necessity are limited as to capacity for spectators, and the employment of the citizen such as to prevent him from seeing and hearing what he would like to in order that he might more prop.erly keep abreast of the workings of one of the three branches of his government. This would constitute an educational opportunity for the citizen and enable him more truly to gain an insight into the working of the courts, not so realistically, revealed by the written word.
Too, it must be recognized that many, many of our citizens come home at night from their work tired, many are not good readers, do not comprehend the technical language of the reporter, but they can see, and as reminded in the opinion, “one picture is worth a thousand words”, according to the Chinese proverb.
As I view the matter, the public has a deep interest in the trial of criminal cases as distinguished from the participants. Except in civil cases, and particularly divorce cases, the parties should not be allowed to waive public hearings, because the community at large is vitally interested in the right to observe the administration of justice, that the presence of the public and the press as well as the modern cameraman, as limited by the opinion, is as basic as the defendant’s right to a public trial, whether such right be specifically provided in the constitution or not. And while an accused may waive his right to a public trial, I do not think that he may waive the right to the public to insist upon a public trial.1
The Kefauver Committee, investigating organized crime in the United States, permitted the proceedings to be televised, and forcefully brought to the attention of the people the seriousness and gravity of their problem. The public was abled to judge the apparent qualifications of its public servants for the jobs they were attempting to perform, see the tactics of counsel representing powerful underworld characters, politicians of a local level, ahd above all, *748observe the mannerisms, the facial expressions and countenances of the persons under investigation, or simply acting as witnesses.
Television affords the public opportunity without comment of a reporter, to judge whether a witness is attempting to be facetious or evasive, and where a dodge behind the Fifth Amendment is involved, whether the course is followed by a smirk of triumph or of honest distress, or whatever the reason may be, where discernable.
The McClelland Committee, now current, demonstrates the high plane reached by visual reporting, and is alerting the public to the perils that beset the citizenry, in a way that not long ago was not even dreamed possible.
We have in this court had experience with the television people, and such has been favorable. Where cases of notoriety have become beclouded by the conflicting reports of various newspapermen, the visual broadcasting of actual proceedings has demonstrated the due process of l'aw ,and in a light healthful and favorable.
I have nothing further to say on the other points treated in the opinion.

. See E. W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton, 100 Ohio App. 157, 125 N.E.2d 896; United Press Associations v. Valente, 308 N.Y. 71, 123 N.E.2d 777.