CAMERAS IN COURTROOMS: THE TIME HAS ARRIVED

One of the cornerstones of the U.S. justice system since the founding of the nation has been the right to a public trial when anyone is accused of a crime. The founding fathers, no doubt, were sensitive to the darker aspects of any government that is allowed to charge, try and convict suspected criminals in secrecy.

In this age of immediate communications, the traditional methods used by the news media to report on courtroom activities have been sorely lacking, particularly in Missouri where courtrooms have been closed to cameras, both newspaper photographers and television video cameras. Missouri is one of three states that bar cameras in courtrooms.

But that could change in the very near future. Under an experiment that began in 1992, cameras have been permitted in some selected courtroom as a test. This experiment has been monitored and reviewed by a 17-member task force whose chairman is Maurice Graham, a Fredericktown lawyer. The experiment is slated to end this year, but the task force is recommending that all courtrooms be opened to cameras, subject to restrictions that could be imposed by judges in order to preserve the rights of defendants to a fair trial.

Lawyers and judges in Missouri are divided on the issue, as could be expected. Hesitant judges worry that photographers lugging around equipment in the courtroom would distract the proceedings. There also is a concern that judges, lawyers and witnesses might be unduly uncomfortable knowing they are being photographed, or, as provided in the current experiment, tape recorded for future use by a radio or TV station.

These are legitimate concerns, and the purpose of the experiment has been to determine the practical effects of allowing cameras in courtrooms while providing time to establish ground rules and guidelines.

It is time to allow cameras in courtrooms. Because of technology, communication has become visual, even in newspapers and magazines. Television's purpose, naturally, is to show viewers what is happening during newscasts. Even radio's coverage of trials is enhanced when the recording of what lawyers, judges and witnesses say is permitted.

Any responsible news organization understands the need for guidelines, however. For example, the use of flashes by print photographers or bright lights by TV cameras could be disruptive in courtrooms. Again, technology permits most cameras to function without extraordinary lighting. Designating an area of a courtroom for photographers is another consideration. Judges aren't likely to want photographers roaming around their courtrooms while court is in session. And in some high-interest cases, it may even be necessary for judges to limit the number of photographers or designate a pool photographer for the news media.

The 2-year experiment has shown that the public's interest in trials is well served by allowing cameras in the courtroom. The experiment also has allowed news organizations and court officers to get a feel for having cameras nearby. Overall, the impact has been positive.

It is up to the Missouri Supreme Court to establish the rules for courtroom proceedings. A move to make cameras in courtrooms a part of those proceedings would be a major step in the right direction.