header-logo header-logo

A candid camera

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll