Even in these enlightened times, there are still many cases where no cameras are allowed (but sketch artists are). Why is this, and what is the reason for banning cameras in the first place?
I thought it was to prevent lawyers from performing for the cameras, as well as to protect sensitive witnesses.
also a sketch artist stays in place and is quiet. photographers and videographers might be moving, standing and making noise.
I think it is sufficiently GQ to say that it is because most judges are mean, crotchety old bastards, and if it wasn’t done a certain way in 1934, then it doesn’t need to change now!
Do sketch artists have a union?
Plus, when the rule was set, back in the 1934’s, the courtroom setting was supposed to be one of decorum. Whereas, if you’ve ever seen movies of the paparazzi of the day, complete with pyrometric flashbulbs, decorum is not what comes to mind. Even today, big flashes (30-foot plus range) are distracting.
I assume due to the existing rules against flashes and cameras, the strong lighting demands of early movie and video also ruled out those cameras. It’s hot in black robes with 1000-watt lights beating down on you.
As the technology has become significantly less intrusive, so too the rules are being relaxed; but the argument is still made against cameras because the lawyers may play to them and the court of public opinion instead. (“If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”)
Finally, yes, age and stodginess and unwillingness to change play a role.
OTOH, if we’d kept cameras out of the courtrooms, would we have to still endure anything Kardashian today?
How about a factual answer?
The United States Supreme Court has held consistently that neither the media nor a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to camera coverage. The federal court ban is incorporated in Canon 3A(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct for civil proceedings, and in Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for criminal proceedings.
At the local level, the rules vary from state to state, with some allowing it as a default unless certain criteria are met. In other states (such as NY), it’s up to the discretion of each individual judge. In the vast majority of cases which I’ve followed, the defense objects on the grounds that it will prevent them from getting a fair trial.
It’s common practice that witnesses are barred from the courtroom before they testify so that they’re not influenced by other testimony. That’s harder to enforce if the trial is on TV.
Good rationale, but IIRC cameras have always been barred, and film/movies; so it’s not just live TV that was singled out.
[moderating]
Fixed typo in thread title at OP’s request (changed “on courtroom” to “in courtroom”).
[/moderating]
I have a Canon SX40, but I can’t bring that into the courtroom either.
Cameras in the courtroom lead to extreme Nancy Grace infestation. That should be avoided at all costs.
That rationale would explain banning video cameras (and I agree with it.) But it doesn’t make sense to me that still cameras are prohibited, forcing the creation of often-ridiculously-bad courtroom sketches. The flash argument doesn’t make sense, because with modern professional digital SLRs with ISOs going up into the high thousands and image-stabilized lenses that allow sharp images at slow shutter speeds, it’s eminently possible to shoot in a well-lit courtroom without flash.
I’ve allowed cameras, both still and video, into my courtroom when asked. Don’t think I’ve ever turned down a request. I agree that barring them tends to be due to some combination of:
a) Inertia/tradition
b) Not wanting lawyerly grandstanding
c) Not wanting distractions
d) Not wanting to taint prospective jurors
e) Not wanting to endanger witnesses
Usually it’s a), though.
Look Your Honor, if Blackstone did not have it, neither should we!!!
Seriously, the only objection that I can see (besides the fact that who the hell will watch that stuff) is how do you ensure that witnesses do not hear each others statements before giving their own.
Gimme all your ballpoints. If a quill pen was good enough for him, it’s good enough for you!
Slight hijack:
Why no cameras or phones when going through immigration on return to the US?
/hijack
As part of my work for the Justice department’s IT staff for my province, I spent one afternoon taking photos of the courthouse and courtrooms for the department website. We never ended up using them, but even as staffers we had to get special Judicial permission to take photos of empty courtrooms. In fact, it’s illegal to take pictures of the outside of the building too. I assume it’s a security precaution.
But it could also be the crotchety thing too 
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
… with modern professional digital SLRs with ISOs going up into the high thousands and image-stabilized lenses that allow sharp images at slow shutter speeds, it’s eminently possible to shoot in a well-lit courtroom without flash.
[/QUOTE]
It’s possible now, but realistically, these pro-grade cameras have only been available for ten years or so, and while far quieter than film SLRs, they still make noise. Ever notice all the flapping and clacking noise during a press conference on TV? That’s the noise of “quiet” professional cameras. I can’t imagine too many judges being willing to put up with much of it.
It would be too confusing and resource-consuming to have some judicial panel audition different brands and models of cameras and promote a list of approved cameras as these things get updated and replaced with new models about as fast as computers.
**Elendil’s Heir **- You appear to be a judge that does allow cameras during proceedings. What’s your opinion on photographers and the noise and distraction they may create? Ever have problems with one being too distracting?
I’m a muni court magistrate. I’ve never had a photographer or cameraman be too distracting. If he did, I’d ask him to hold still or to settle down, and if he didn’t, I’d order him to leave the courtroom.
If the photographer is standing on a public sidewalk or street, they most certainly can take pictures of the courthouse, or any other visible building.
Security guards and some police can be misinformed (or crotchety) about their authority to prevent such photography, but in reality, they can’t.
Inside the courthouse, all bets are off.