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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll