Abstract This paper puts forward the debate of whether allowing electronic media into courtrooms, and even into death chambers, violates constitutional rights. It discusses the issues concerning invasion of privacy, as well as examining how, living in a democracy with a free press, failing to allow the media into the courtroom violates the First Amendment and the right of U.S. citizens to free speech. It also discusses whether death penalty executions should be televised.
From the Paper "Indeed, and it is a simple one. Court proceedings have the issues of evidence and perception by jurors and other matters of procedure to grapple with, even in the face of overwhelming opinion that the First Amendment demands the presence of electronic media. (Electronic media might, indeed, be considered no more than the pens and pencils of print reporters of prior centuries, and still of this one in part.) Television executions have none of these constitutional issues. The condemned person is a condemned felon, and felons lose their civil rights, so an appeal to the right of privacy is null and void from the outset."
Abstract This paper presents the author's impression of court procedures after spending a day in court observing the courtroom process. The author talks about the cases he observed and compares his own impressions with articles he read regarding courtroom procedures. The author concludes by noting that due process is followed with a hit-or-miss attitude, that the lack of press coverage in the cases observed contributed to a lack of formality in the court, and that all courts are not alike.
From the Paper "As I entered the courtroom, one of the first things I noticed was the light contemporary environment. The room was filled with modern furniture and the ceiling had track lighting across the front, so it would light up the judge area and the witness stand. The furniture looked like it had come from an expensive furniture store and the jury box was equally impressive. While I had imagined it would be filled with dark wood tables and chairs, the reality was that the room was light and airy. It was not like any courtroom I remember seeing on television or in the movies."
Abstract This paper explains that the press has long argued for the right to bring cameras into the courtroom arguing that (1) freedom of speech and the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution and that, (2) in a truly free society, the public has a right to know what goes on inside a courtroom. However, the courts claim that the use of cameras in a court room could influence public sentiment about a trial, which, in turn, might influence the jury. The author reviews court rulings of the Lindbergh kidnapping case, "Rideau vs. the State of Louisiana", "Billie Sol Estes vs. State of Texas", "Nixon vs. Warner Communications", "United States vs. Mitchell", O. J. Simpson cases and the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco, regarding the use of cameras in these court rooms, the decisions strengthening these rulings and the current opinions of the courts. The paper concludes that the press and the courts are dependent upon each other; if there were no freedom of the press, there would be no one to make sure a defendant received a fair trial. Several long quotes.
From the Paper "The issue of cameras in the courtroom popped up again in the fiasco between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The defense sought to use illegally tapped telephone conversations against the President. In this case, the Court ruled the public right to know outweighed the President's right to privacy. President Clinton's testimony was broadcast on TV in front of millions of viewers, but the President came out looking like the winner. The prosecutor Kenneth Starr wanted to expose Clinton on television, but failed, "Instead, the camera captured a controlled and confident Clinton telling his side of the story in detail for the first time. He rebutted much of the legal case against him and launched a counterattack on the four-year, $40-million prosecution as unfair and politically driven.""
Abstract In this essay, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the book "Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in an American Criminal Courthouse" by Steve Bogira. The writer notes that "Courtroom 302" is a detailed and disturbing look into the criminal justice system in America. The writer points out that the author spent one year observing the activity in a particular courthouse in Chicago and that the result is an intimate portrayal of the people who populate the courts of America, from criminals to prosecutors and beyond. The writer concludes that the criminal justice system is failing many Americans, and that is what makes this book so troublesome and so memorable.
From the Paper "It is clear the author researched this book with depth and detail. Not only did he spend a year inside Courtroom 302, he interviewed hundreds of participants in the courtroom drama, including Judge Daniel Locallo, the presiding judge in the courtroom, numerous times. His notes on each chapter indicate he also used published sources as background for his own exhaustive research and interview process. The book is well written and compelling, but it is also well researched and defended. The author clearly understands his subject and his experience in the courtroom. He brings this understanding to the reader, to make the entire experience more interesting and enlightening."
"Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this book is the implications it holds for every courtroom across America. First, Chicago may be the busiest felony courthouse in the nation, but there are hundreds more just like it all across the country, filled with petty criminals to the worst habituals."
Abstract The paper describes the many participants in the criminal courtroom such as judges, juries, prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, and the defendant. The paper focuses on the roles and responsibilities of the judge, prosecuting attorney, and the defense attorney.
From the Paper " They do this by (1.) emphasizing the absence of evidence, (2.) discrediting the importance of physical evidence, or (3.) by impugning the testimony or integrity of the prosecution's witnesses. Defense is also allowed to present witnesses, including expert witnesses. Each side is allowed to make closing arguments. The prosecution emphasizes the evidence against the defendant and the defense highlights the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. The judge instructs the jury to carefully weigh the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence. The judge also instructs the jury concerning the degree of proof necessary for a finding of guilt and the associated punishment for such a finding. "
Abstract This paper explains that, although courtroom drama in all its formats are among the most popular entertainment outlets, rarely does this type of entertainment depict reality. Legal scholars and practicing lawyers, the author stresses, criticize the genre for contributing to the public's misconceptions about the legal process. The paper describes and analyzes the commonalities of several examples of courtroom drama including Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee's play and films "Inherit the Wind", Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird", the movie "Suspect" and R. Rose's "Twelve Angry Men".
From the Paper "There have been several television and movie remakes of "12 Angry Men", but recently, a 2007 movie entitled "12" surrounded a more contemporaneous theme - a Russian youth is put on trial for the murder of his adoptive father. The 12 jurors are divided by racism and politics, but, like in "12 Angry Men", finally the ideas of redemption and temperance overcome the innate prejudices. Unlike some of the more popularized versions of crime drama though, this foreign film is rife with additional sub-plots, illustrative symbolism about a system in decay, and more than anything, the idea that bias and prejudice are human, not national, traits."
Tags: mason, fictionalized account, commonalities grisham, moral conflict
Abstract This paper addresses an issue that is central to America's constitutional foundations, that is, the ongoing conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment. It focuses on the current controversy about video cameras in the courtroom and the impact they might have on the free press/fair trial debate.
From the Paper "The print press currently has legal reasoning that supports the coverage of courtroom proceedings. One of those reasons is that the public has a right to know what is going on in the cases, and the press is the only way they can find out about it. The Supreme Court has made it clear that cameras in the courtroom can be constitutionally permitted, because the presence of a camera does not make a trial unfair."
Abstract This paper explains that an ethnographic analysis of an event and its presentation should consider the nature of the event itself, the nature of the targeted audience, and the characteristics of the commentary that becomes part of the presentation as well as how the different elements interact. The author points out that televising this hearing alone suggests certain cultural forces at work. The paper relates that "tabloid celebrity" characterizes the culture that kept track of Smith's activities and influenced the way this hearing was covered by all the news media. The paper relates that the popularity of reality-television influenced the news outlets to use the hearing to attract a large audience. The paper further relates that the courtroom has its own culture embedded within the larger culture and that when courtroom proceedings are telecast on television, the two cultures come together and may conflict. The paper concludes that the court often claims not to be influenced by the circus outside, but in this case, the circus outside was greatly influenced by the circus inside.
From the Paper "The final day of the hearing was February 23, 2007, by which time the prevailing view of the proceedings was that it was a circus. Judge Larry Seidlin of Broward County was the judge for the proceedings, and he set the tone to a great degree. His behavior became the target of critics who saw his folksy mode of speaking and his informality as drawbacks, but many observers found some of his statements bizarre. The public is familiar with the general methods and tone of a courtroom from other courtroom transmissions, and the style of this hearing differed."
Abstract This paper provides an extensive review of the literature on odontology in the courtroom and shows how it has been misused to sway juries against factual evidence and to gain a conviction in capital murder cases. The paper clearly illustrates how this expert identification process is ineffective in locking up dangerous criminals and has even been used to convict innocent individuals resulting in these individuals being sentenced to death row. The paper recommends that forensic dentistry organizations immediately reassess the use of bitemark identification in the courtroom and how that identification information is to be used.
Outline:
Introduction
Background of Study
Literature Review
Summary and Conclusion
Recommendations
From the Paper "Forensic evidence in the courtroom relating to bitemark evidence has been used to effectively imprison many individuals for crimes of murder however, the problem is that bitemark evidence is not reliable and has in fact been accredited for being the primary evidence used to convict innocent individuals on capital murder cases resulting in these individuals being sentenced to death row. In recent years as DNA evidence technology has increased and can test smaller samples of DNA evidence taken from crime scenes many of these individual wrongly convicted and imprisoned are being set free and many after serving decades for something they were innocent of doing."
Abstract This paper examines the controversy surrounding the Ten Commandments in the U.S. courtrooms within the larger picture of religious freedom in the country in a post-911 era.
From the Paper "When white settlers, slave-traders, and plantation-owners brought black African captives over to the United States, swapping them like livestock or store-bought goods, one of the consequences was the loss of the transplanted slaves' religion. Forced upon them were the religious beliefs of their masters and stolen from them were their traditional ways of faith. In more modern times, an era of post-9/11 fear and dismay, United States citizens are afraid of Muslim residents and immigrants, worried that they may trigger more terrorist attacks. Because of this fear, stricter regulations have been placed upon to whom they may donate their hard-earned money and fear has run rampant through their mosques, with threats of violence, arson, or vandalism fresh in their minds."
Abstract The paper explains that expert witnesses are professionals qualified to help people in the courtroom with their search for the truth. The paper relates that they offer knowledge and information about a subject of their expertise and they also help the fact-finder in drawing informed inferences from available facts. The paper refers to the Daubert case of 1993.
From the Paper "It is however the trial judge who decided whether the expert witness is qualified enough to offer help. In many cases, there has been an influx of "junk science" in the courtrooms, which led to the famous Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ruling in 1993 where it was decided that extreme caution must be exercised when permitting evidence in a courtroom. According to Brown et al. (2005), expert witness is someone "who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate opinion or deducting correct conclusions'."
Abstract In this article, the writer notes that the issue of judicial discretion in relation to the media has long been a source of debate. The writer points out that judges that have the power to allow media in the courtroom also have the power of impacting society, defendants' lives and the manner in which society views the judicial system. These factors are both positive and negative elements in regard to the issue; however, they also lead to one critical conclusion. The writer maintains that when one person has the ultimate authority to adversely impact anyone in society simply because he or she chooses to do so, that person has gained too much control over his or her community. This is because the determining factor in the decision is not weighed by law, nor is it guided by measured personal ethical standards - it is simply made based on an individual opinion. The writer argues that in the United States personal opinions may be allowed, but at no time should they be supported in arbitrarily harming others.
From the Paper "Pattenden suggests, however, the when judges have the discretion of allowing media into the courtroom for reporting or television coverage there is a risk that may be too significant to overlook. This risk is that through the media coverage the defendant may be condemned before the trial is ever concluded. This is because the media has the ability not only to broadcast images to the public of the trial, but to create commentary on the proceedings as well. That commentary may not ultimately have an affect on the verdict, but it may lead to the public's determination of guilt or innocence of a person. Regardless of the verdict, therefore, that person may be subject to public scrutiny long after the trial has ended, and despite the innocence that has been determined by the jury. When the judge has the sole power to determine whether or not the media should be allowed in a trial that judge is then creating a situation for a secondary trial to exist between the defendant and the public. And it is a trial that may never end."
Abstract In this article, the writer demonstrates through the literature reviewed that racial disparity in sentencing in today's courtrooms is a very real issue that must necessarily be proactively addressed especially since one in every 15 black men in America is incarcerated compared to one out of every one hundred white men. The writer discusses that racial disparity in sentencing is present in every aspect of today's judicial system and is so integrally interwoven into the system that the very structure of the sentencing phase of a case must be changed fundamentally if racial disparity in sentencing is to be eliminated. The writer maintains that this will clearly take a focused effort of criminal defense attorneys, the judicial system at all levels, prosecutors, and laws and legislation relating to sentencing and sentencing guidelines. The writer concludes that the elimination of racial disparity in sentencing will not be possible unless that elimination is intentional and proactive as well as fundamental, which will require the focused efforts of all stakeholders and participants in the judicial process of sentencing.
Outline:
Introduction
Racial Disparity in Sentencing confirmed by Research
Why Racial Disparity in Sentencing Exists
What Can Be Done to Correct Racial Disparity in Sentencing
Discussion
From the Paper "Steps that are suggested by The Sentencing Project as those which the Judiciary can take is one of a leadership role in attempting to assure that minority defendants are not treated disparately at the time of their arrest or during the bail and release decisions as well as in the assignment of a defense attorney and in decisions regarding diversion. Finally, Judiciary should assure that racial disparity does not take place during the time of the plea negotiation process as well as in court docket management and at sentencing. Additionally, The Sentencing Project states that the court can work toward elimination of racial disparity in sentencing through institution training ..."
A research paper which proves that criminal law in America has failed to provide a defense that adequately protects women suffering from Battered Women's Syndrome.
2,900 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 5 sources, 2002, $ 106.95
Abstract Battered Women's Syndrome, or BWS, is a very complex psychological problem facing criminal courts today and has caused great debate on whether or not it should even be allowed in the courtroom. United States courtrooms, instead of protecting battered women, have put these women on trial and found them guilty of murder.
