SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

PUNO, J.:

On March 13, 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, thru its President, Mr. Ruperto S. Nicdao, Jr., wrote to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., to be allowed the privileged (sic) of covering the anticipated trials in the Sandiganbayan of the plunder cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada. On April 3, 2001, the Court, among others, required Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan to comment on the request.

On April 5, 2001, Mr. Cesar N. Sarino wrote a similar letter to the Chief Justice requesting x x x the Supreme Court to allow live television coverage of the trial of former President Estrada. On April 16, 2001, Senator Renato Cayetano also prayed for the live coverage by media of the said trial subject to the conditions that the Supreme Court may impose. On the same date, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thru its President, Arthur D. Lim, opposed the live radio-TV coverage of said trial.

On April 17, 2001, Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Perez also filed a petition for live radio and television coverage of the said cases subject to whatever guidelines the Honorable Supreme Court may provide under the premises. The petition carried the conformity of the Honorable Aniano A. Desierto, Ombudsman. On April 24, 2001, the same request for live media coverage was made by a group of businessmen led by Atty. Ricardo Romulo of the Makati Business Club.

On April 30, 2001, Presiding Justice Garchitorena submitted his Comment. He informed the Court that he sought the opinion of the other members of the Sandiganbayan. He stated that six (6) of the Justices of the Sandiganbayan were against the radio-TV coverage while eight (8) were in favor. He submitted their varying views for the consideration of this Court.

On May 4, 2001, the Court required former President Estrada to comment on the petition of the Secretary of Justice. On May 21, 2001 former President Estrada, thru counsel, opposed the petition for live radio-TV coverage of his trials in the Sandiganbayan. He cited the need to preserve the rule of law and warned that radio and television as media can be easily manipulated for propaganda purposes. He alleged that the communicative effect of live TV and radio coverage is much greater than print coverage and the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded in newspaper and print media. The opposition was fortified by a Supplemental Comment filed on May 30, 2001.

The Courts en banc resolution of October 22, 1991 absolutely prohibits live TV and radio coverage of court hearings. Its rationale is explained, thus:

While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibits the presence of television cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated.

Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the broadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same privilege, as the news reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing press into the courtroom.

In Estes vs. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that television coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights of a criminal defendant. Voting 5-4, the Court through Mr. Justice Clark, identified four (4) areas of potential prejudice which might arise from the impact of the cameras on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. The decision in part pertinently stated:

Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might affect their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial judges responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may as well affect his own performance. Judges are human beings also and are subject to the same psychological reactions as laymen. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts him from the effective presentation of his defense.

The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.

Representatives of the press have no special standing to apply for a writ of mandate (sic) to compel a court to permit them to attend a trial, since within the courtroom a reporters constitutional rights are no greater than those of any other member of the public. Massive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trial itself can so alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary judicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements of impartiality imposed by due process of law are denied the defendant and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not be forced to run a gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves the courtroom.

Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper. (emphasis supplied)

In banning live radio and television coverage of criminal proceedings, the Court stressed that it weighed the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, the right of the public to information and the right to public trial on one hand, and on the other hand, the due process rights of the defendant and the inherent and constitutional power of the courts to control their proceedings in order to permit the fair and impartial administration of justice. It also considered the nature of media, particularly television and its role in society and of the impact of new technologies on law.

After the lapse of ten (10) years, I respectfully submit that the 1991 resolution of this Court absolutely banning live radio and television coverage of criminal proceedings should be re-examined to re-adjust the balance between a free press and a fair trial in light of the continuing progress in communications technology and to expand the right of access of the press and the public to information without, however, impairing the right of an accused to due process.

I.

Estes case has been modified by subsequent cases

Estes vs. Texas , ¹ the linchpin of this Courts 1991 resolution is a 1965 decision where the US Supreme Court first resolved the prejudicial effects of in-court camera to the right of an accused to due process of law. In a 5-4 decision, the conviction of the accused Estes was set aside in light of the factual finding that television coverage infringed his right to fair trial. It found that during the preliminary hearing, cables and wires were snaked across the courtroom floor, three microphones were on the judges bench and others were beamed at the jury box and the counsels table. ² The Court considered the circus-like atmosphere created by media as incongruous to the due process right of the accused. The Estes decision resulted in most of the states completely banning cameras in the courtroom but a few others experimented with the cameras and subjected their use to strict guidelines. Among the states that experimented was Florida. ³cräläwvirtualibräry

In 1981 , the Florida rules allowing television coverage of criminal trials were challenged in Chandler v. Florida. ⁴ The case involved a charge of burglary against two police officers of Miami Beach. Over objections of the two accused, their trial was televised and they were convicted. On appeal, they contended that the TV coverage infringed their right to fair trial. The US Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Burger, affirmed their conviction. It held that the appellants did not present empirical data sufficient to establish that the mere presence of the broadcast media inherently has an adverse effect on that process. ⁵ It ruled that appellants failed to prove specific prejudice. Chief Justice Burger observed that since the Estes case, technological progress had allowed media to minimize the disruptive effects of cameras in the courtroom. The Court concluded:

An absolute constitutional ban on broadcast coverage of trials cannot be justified simply because there is a danger that, in some cases, prejudicial broadcast accounts of pre-trial and trial events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced by extraneous matter. The risk of juror prejudice in some cases does not justify an absolute ban on news coverage of trials by the printed media; so also the risk of such prejudice does not warrant an absolute constitutional ban on all broadcast coverage. The appropriate safeguard against such prejudice is the defendants right to demonstrate that the medias coverage of his case be it printed or broadcast compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly.⁶ (emphasis supplied)

After Estes , the US Supreme Court in a series of landmark cases also struck the proper balance between freedom of the press and restrictions on medias access to courtrooms vis-a-vis the right of an accused to fair trial. The first significant case is the 1976 case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stewart. ⁷ In this case, the accused was charged with six (6) counts of murder. The Nebraska state trial judge issued an order restraining the press from reporting, inter alia, on the following subjects: the existence and contents of the accuseds confession; the nature of his statements to other persons; and the contents of a note written by the accused on the night of the crime. Reviewing the order, the US Supreme Court held that when imposing a prior restraint on publication, a trial judge must examine (a) the nature and extent of pre-trial news coverage; (b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pre-trial publicity; and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger. ⁸ It held that pre-trial publicity even pervasive, adverse publicity does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial. ⁹ It affirmed the right of the press to publish information concerning court proceedings even as it held that trial judges have the major responsibility to protect the accuseds right to a fair trial. ¹⁰cräläwvirtualibräry

In 1980, the US Supreme Court decided Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, ¹¹ a murder case where the accuseds motion that the courtroom be closed to the public was granted by the trial judge. Richmond Newspapers moved to vacate the order but its motion was denied both by the trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court. On certiorari , the US Supreme Court reversed. Writing the plurality opinion, Chief Justice Burger held that criminal trials were historically open; that there is an implicit right of access to criminal trials under the first amendment guarantees of free press, free speech and freedom of assembly and the right to publish would be negated if the press was denied access to a trial . He also opined that for the justice system to work, the system must satisfy the appearance of justice, which is best provided by allowing people to observe the judicial process . ¹² Be that as it may, he stressed that medias right of access is not absolute but subject to limitations . ¹³cräläwvirtualibräry

In 1982 came the case of Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, ¹⁴ where the US Supreme Court reviewed a Massachusetts law that required trial judges to exclude the press and the public from the courtroom during the testimony of a minor victim of certain sexual offenses. Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan voided the law on the ground that it violated the first amendment. Again, the court emphasized that criminal trials have been historically open to the public and that access to trial allows for public scrutiny of the judicial process, which in turn enhances the integrity of the fact-finding process . ¹⁵ The Court again stressed that the right of access is not absolute. ¹⁶

II.

Objection as to ill effect on dignity and decorum has long receded

The Court resolution of 1991 absolutely banning televised trial was also premised on the disruptive effect of cameras on the dignity and decorum in the courtroom. It should be noted, however, that this debasement of dignity and decorum argument relied upon in Estes was due to the intolerable physical disturbances caused by annoying equipment, cables, lighting and unsophisticated technicians in the decade of the sixties. With the quantum leap in communications technology in the last twenty (20) years, TV cameras are now less intrusive and disruptive. Indeed, various states have imposed rules successfully regulating whatever interference cameras may have on the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings. Maryland, for example, has clear rules setting down the technical requirements for television and still cameras and photographers, types of microphones to be used, noise limitations, placement in courtroom and restrictions on movement of personnel and equipment. ¹⁷ More progress in audio-visual technology can be expected in the immediate future and this objection that TV cameras in the courtroom will create chaos in judicial proceedings will just be a part of the museum of history. ¹⁸

III.

An overwhelming majority of the states now allow radio-TV coverage of criminal trials.

The absolute ban against radio-TV coverage of criminal trial has now been lifted in majority of the states in the United States . After the 1965 decision in Estes, and for eleven (11) years, all ¹⁹ the states prohibited TV coverage of criminal trials. ²⁰ By 1978 , however, six (6) states --- Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, New Hampshire, Texas and Washington allowed televised trials; twelve (12) states - - - Alaska, California, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennesee, West Virginia and Wisconsin - - - permitted televised trial on an experimental basis. ²¹ After the decision in Chandler, forty-seven (47) states now allow television coverage . ²² Only three (3) states ban cameras in the courtroom - - - New York, South Dakota and Mississippi . ²³cräläwvirtualibräry

Television is today ²⁴ arguably the most powerful medium of communication. Its communicative influence is qualitatively different and is distinctively unique. For this reason and more, there is clear growing body of literature from known legal scholars postulating that an absolute ban on televised trials constitutes a violation of the press and public right of access. ²⁵cräläwvirtualibräry

The principal arguments favoring televised trial are well laid out and can hardly be refuted.

Firstly , an open trial has a great value. In Press Enterprise v. Superior Court, ²⁶ it was underscored:

The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known. Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system. (emphasis supplied)

In Richmond Newspaper, ²⁷ it was rightly out that openness is more important in the trial of high profile cases because of its prophylactic effect , viz:

When a shocking crime occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows . . . Thereafter, the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility and emotion. Without an awareness that societys responses to criminal conduct are underway, natural human reactions of outrage and protest are frustrated and may manifest themselves in some form of vengeful self help, as indeed they did regularly in the activities of vigilante committees on our frontiers. . . It is not enough to say that results will alone will satiate the natural community desire for satisfaction. A result considered untoward may undermine public confidence, and where trial has been concealed from public view an unexpected outcome can cause a reaction that the system at best has failed and at worst has been corrupted. To work effectively, it is important that societys criminal process satisfy the appearance of justice . . . and the appearance of justice can best be provided by allowing people to observe it. (emphasis supplied)

Without doubt, television can convey more completely and accurately the substance and subtleties of judicial proceedings to the public. As pointedly observed by Gardner, unlike the print medium, television has the capability to cover a trial in its entirety - every word, every sentence and every gesture. ²⁸ Thus, it has been perceptively opined that the pervasiveness of television makes it a superior device to disseminate information about a trial. ²⁹cräläwvirtualibräry

Second. It is a truism that an educated, enlightened and vigilant citizenry makes democracy works. The need for the citizenry to comprehend how its government fulfills its task of efficiently serving the people cannot be overemphasized. Again, Richmond emphasized the educative effect of televised trials to the people, viz:

When a criminal trial is conducted in the open, there is at least an opportunity both for understanding the system in general and its workings in a particular case. The educative effect of public attendance is a material advantage. Not only is respect for the law increased and intelligent acquaintance acquired with the methods of government, but a strong confidence on judicial remedies is secured which could never have been inspired by a system of secrecy.³⁰ (emphasis supplied)

Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the least known to the public because its nature does not allow total transparency. Thus, testimonies which can compromise national security are given in closed sessions, court deliberations are traditionally not open to the public, etc. Public, open trials of criminal cases under regulated conditions furnish rare opportunities for the people to understand and appreciate the business of the courts. In the same vein, they give the courts the chance to gain the peoples faith and confidence on the system of justice. As well put by Justice Frankfurter, the public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the publics perception of it, and that perception necessarily hinges on the medias portrayal of the legal system. ³¹cräläwvirtualibräry

Third . In a very informative article, Lassiter has revealed that empirical studies show that cameras in the courtroom do not have any negative effect on judicial proceedings, viz: ³²cräläwvirtualibräry

Several states have conducted studies on the potential impact of electronic media coverage on courtroom proceedings, particularly focusing on the effect cameras have upon courtroom decorum and upon witnesses, jurors, attorneys and judges. In all of these states, the courts permitted electronic media coverage in both civil and criminal proceedings, although the majority of coverage was in criminal cases. The results from the state studies were unanimous: the impact of electronic media coverage of courtroom proceedings, whether civil or criminal, shows few side effects.

In September 1990, the Judicial Conference of the United States implemented what was to be a three year pilot program that permitted electronic media coverage in civil proceedings in six federal district courts and two circuit courts. The Federal Evaluation indicated, among other things, that:

overall, attitudes of judges towards electronic media were neutral and became more favorable after experience under the experimental program.

generally, judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage reported observing small or no effects on camera presence on proceedings participants, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice;

overall, judges and court personnel reported that the media were very cooperative and complied with program guidelines and other restrictions that were imposed.

Indeed, the Federal Judicial Centers Summary of Findings concluded that no negative impact resulted from having cameras in the courtroom. In 1994, the Federal Judicial Center specifically found that results from state court evaluations of the effects of electronic media on jurors and witnesses indicate that most respondents believe electronic media presence has minimal or no detrimental effects on jurors or witnesses. As with the handful of state surveys, the federal survey found that [m]ost participants [say] electronic media presence has no or minimal detrimental effects on jurors or witnesses. (emphasis supplied)

Fourth . Televised trial helps the press fulfill its role of exposing miscarriage of justice. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, ³³ the Court acknowledged this checking power of the press when it held that the press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.

It should, however, be stressed that televising trial is still not without its danger to the constitutional right of an accused to fair trial. Today, the greatest of these remaining dangers is its adverse effect on the right of the accused to have access to evidence, a right firmly anchored on the constitutional rights to compulsory process and due process. Doubtless, the presence of television in the courtroom can affect a witness. The accuracy of his testimony may be compromised. His physical demeanor, so important to trial judges to determine his credibility, may become less natural under the klieglight. More importantly, the fear of too much public exposure may cause reticent witnesses not to testify. Any of these circumstances will prejudice the right of an accused to a fair trial just as it will frustrate the discovery of truth which is the objective of judicial trial. But these probable dangers are not insurmountable as other jurisdictions have demonstrated that they can be minimized if not avoided by appropriate rules regulating televised trials. An example will be a rule which will not compel the televised testimony of any witness for the accused upon his objection thereto. Such a rule will also meet the objection that cameras in the courtroom cause psychological intimidation to witnesses.

IV.

On a case to case basis, televising criminal trials should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Live radio-TV coverage of a criminal trial cannot be demanded as a matter of right but its absolute denial is also constitutionally suspect. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the matter of whether or not the proceedings in a criminal trial should be televised, totally or partially, should be addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge on a case to case basis. The exercise of this discretion will depend on the facts of each case and will involve the delicate balancing of the constitutional right of the accused to fair trial and due process of law, the press and the public right of access to trials in criminal cases, the right of the state to prosecute crimes effectively and the duty of courts to ensure the fair and orderly administration of justice. To be able to reasonably exercise his discretion, the trial judge has to hear a partys motion seeking to televise the proceedings or any portion thereof to determine, among others, the standing of the movant, the factual and legal bases of his asserted right and the opposition thereto. No witness, especially a witness for the accused, upon his written objection, should be compelled to have his testimony televised. In balancing the above rights, the judge should deny the motion to televise trial upon specific proof of prejudice and of reasonable likelihood that the right to fair trial of the accused will be endangered.

Additionally , it shall be the duty of the trial judge to provide and impose the necessary rules and regulations to assure that the televised trial will not detract from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court. Among others, the rules and regulations should insure that: (1) the television cameras and related equipments must be unobtrusive, must not produce distracting sounds and shall not in any manner interfere with the proceedings; (2) the media representatives shall present a neat appearance in keeping with the dignity of the proceedings and should not move unnecessarily about the court while it is in session; (3) no film, videotape, photography and audio reproductions may be used for advertising or commercial purpose; (4) only a single fixed camera set-up shall be installed in the courtroom and the audio-video output of the fixed set-up will be fed only to broadcast stations to avoid too many photographers and TV camera crew in the courtroom; and (5) that radio-television broadcasters should give a balanced coverage of the prosecution and the defense. The trial judge should be given the power at any time to terminate the televised proceedings upon a showing that the right to a fair trial of the accused is being prejudiced by its continuance.

EPILOGUE

With due respect, the majority has struck the balance between free press and fair trial much too much to the prejudice of the press and public right to information. It has unduly sustained former President Estradas generalized grievance that cameras in the courtroom will bring about the collapse of the rule of law and the hypothetical fear that they will psychologically intimidate witnesses. It is all too obvious that the fear is a mere figment of imagination for former President Estrada has not named any witness with a phobia against publicity. Indeed, the myth that television intimidates witnesses has long been shattered to smithereens by empirical studies. For not even requiring former President Estrada to show actual prejudice to his right to fair trial, the majority has modified our ruling case law on the matter. The unjustified change to favor the former President will cause undeserved damage to values we revere. It will, to a large degree, throttle the right of the press to access to information and choke the flow of knowledge to the people. It is the people who govern in a democracy and they can only govern well if they are fully informed. A people kept in the dark by the blindfold of ignorance will only govern with mistakes. Let it be stressed that the right of the people to know is strongest in times of turbulence for it is when the stakes to the State are high that they cannot afford to err due to ignorance.

The majority refuses to see that the revolution on communications technology is still going on. We have radio, TV, telephones, cables, satellites, computers, wireless communications, faxes, the internet, etc. Even our rules of court now allow certain witnesses to testify in and off the court via video teleconferencing. By outlawing television in the trial of former President Estrada, the majority has denied our people the opportunity to know completely and accurately whether or not his trial will be fair and impartial. All these because the majority has persisted in the primitive belief that the courtroom is limited to the pad and pencil reporters. The majority will bring about new Rip Van Winkles in this age of electronic media --- We. I dissent.

IN VIEW WHEREOF , I respectfully submit that the absolute ban on televising criminal trials be lifted and the petitions of the Secretary of Justice, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Mr. Cesar Sario, Atty. Ricardo Romulo, et al., and Senator Renato Cayetano, to televise the trial of the plunder cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada as well as the oppositions of former President Estrada and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines thereto, be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition in accordance with the suggested guidelines set forth above.

---

Endnotes:

¹ 381 US 532 (1965).

² Id. at 544.

³ Colorado was the first state to allow televised trial after Estes.

⁴ 449 US 560 (1981).

⁵ Id. at 578-579.

⁶ Id. at 574-575.

⁷ 427 US 539 (1976).

⁸ Id. at 562.

⁹ Id. at 554.

¹⁰ Id. at 555.

¹¹ 448 US 555 (1980).

¹² Id. at 571.

¹³ Id. at 581.

¹⁴ 457 US 596 (1982).

¹⁵ Id. at 605.

¹⁶ Id. at 606.

¹⁷ See Md. R. Ct. Admin. 1209, Md. Ann. Code (1985).

¹⁸ See In re Hearings Concerning Canon 35, 296 P.2d 465, 468 (Colo. 1956) where following demonstrations of camera equipment, the Court held that prohibition of cameras in the courtroom is no longer required to maintain dignity and decorum.

¹⁹ Except Colorado.

²⁰ See McCall, Cameras in the Criminal Courtroom: A Sixth Amendment Analysis, Vol. 85 Col. Law Rev, 1546, 1549 (1985).

²¹ Lassiter, TV or Not TV That is the Question, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 928, 1940 Vol. 86, No.3 (1996).

²² 69 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1519 citing Radio-Television News Directors Assn., News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A Survey of the States i-iii (1994). Federal courts, however, have maintained the ban. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides that the taking of photographs in the courtroom during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom shall not be permitted by the court.

²³ Cameras in Court Judge Lets the Light Shine In, Syracuse Herald-Journal, January 27, 2000, p. A10.

²⁴ Statistics show that as of 1985, television was the principal source of news for 64% of the American public and the sole source of news for nearly half of the countrys population. Lassiter, op cit., p. 913.

²⁵ Lassiter, op cit., p. 959 citing among others; Reimer, supra, Krigier, The 13^th Juror: Electronic Medias Struggle to Enter State and Federal Courtrooms, 3 Comm. Law Conspectus 71 (1995); Lively, Modern Media and the First Amendment: Rediscovering Freedom of the Press, 67 Wash. L. Rev. 599 (1992); Katsh, The First Amendment and Technological Change: The New Media Have a Message, 57 Geo Wash L Rev 1459 (1989); Frank, Cameras in the Courtroom: A First Amendment Right of Access, T.V., 9 Hasting Comm. and Ent. LJ. 749 (1987); Gardner, Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials, 84 Mich L Rev 475 (1985).

²⁶ 478 US 1 (1984).

²⁷ Op cit. at 571-572.

²⁸ Reimer, supra, at p. 1299.

²⁹ Gardner, supra, at p. 493.

³⁰ Op cit at p. 572. This is an echo of Justice Clarks opinion in Estes that television is capable of performing an educational function by acquainting the public with the judicial process in action. Estes, supra at p. 589.

³¹ Lassiter, op cit at p. 963.

³² Ibid, pp. 964-965.

³³ 384 US 333, 350 (1966).