header-logo header-logo

10 December 2010 / Paul Lambert
Issue: 7445 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

A candid camera

Television courtroom broadcasting remains controversial...

Eye tracking technology could transform courtroom broadcasting, says Paul Lambert

Television courtroom broadcasting remains controversial. There have been attempts to expand it to federal courts and indeed the US Supreme Court. An initial federal pilot programme was discontinued in 1994, partly because only brief snippets were used on television. There are already calls in the UK for the expansion of the camera experiment in the new Supreme Court to other courts.

Effects

Yet, what do we know about the effects of such broadcasting? Still relatively little. The US Supreme Court challenge for a sustained body of empirical effects research has not been properly addressed. This challenge occurred in the seminal cases of Estes, Chandler and more recently this year in Hollingsworth.

The recent announcement by Judge Sentelle that the US federal courts are planning a second experimental period is fortuitous. If properly planned, it will allow for sustained empirical research to begin addressing the US Supreme Court challenge. Admittedly, while there have been studies, the vast majority are inadequate

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll