Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

Principals in murder trial provide eloquent argument for . . . BROADCASTING IN THE COURTROOM THE STRONGEST case yet made for radio and television access to court proceedings is now available for presentation. It is a filmed record of interviews with principals in a celebrated Denver murder trial which was covered by radio and television. The interviews add up to a unanimous endorsement of radio and tv coverage. . The trial was that of John Gilbert Graham, accused of planting a time bomb which blew up an airliner Nov. 1, 1955, killing his mother and 43 other passengers. Graham was convicted and executed last Jan. 11. After the trial the Denver Area Radio & Television Assn. made film interviews with key figures in the trial, including the judge; prosecuting and defense attorneys and the defendant's wife. All agreed that the presence of radio and television in no way interfered with justice. The NARTB now is processing the film, which runs a half hour in its original version, into a 15-minute presentation for use on the air or presentation to local bar and civic assemblies. State broadcaster associations are expected to give the film wide exposure. NARTB's Freedom of Information Committee is coordinating the campaign. It was the Denver Area Radio & Television Assn., formed in December 1955, that was largely responsible for the admission of broadcasting to the Graham trial. The association succeeded in persuading the Colorado Supreme Court to modify the American Bar Assn.'s Canon 35, which prohibits radio-tv in courtrooms. In a historic decision the state's supreme court gave to trial judges the discretion to admit broadcasting to trials [B»T, March 5, 1956]. Here is a slightly condensed transcript of the film prepared by Denver broadcasters. It was narrated by News Director Sheldon Peterson, and Jim Bennett of KLZ-AM-TV Denver. Q: The report recommending that the Supreme Court modify the canon was written by Justice O. Otto Moore. After the trial, we asked him for his reaction. Justice Moore, as the referee in the hearing of the Supreme Court of Colorado on Canon 35, would you tell us your reactions to the demonstrations of courtroom photography and radio recordings as presented to the court? SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MOORE: Frankly, I was very much surprised that courtroom photography, radio and television cameras could operate in a courtroom and create so little — practically no distraction whatever. Q: Now, Justice, the John Gilbert Graham trial provided the Denver area radio and television stations with their first opportunity to cover a trial following the modification of Canon 35. What was your reaction to that coverage? MOORE: I thought the reaction to the coverage of that trial by radio, television, newsreel and photography was very exceptional. It seemed to me to be proof conclusive that the findings which I reached as the result of our hearings up here — at the conclusion of our hearings up here — were amply justified. Q: Now, the John Gilbert Graham trial was appealed to the high court. Was the fact that the case was televised and broadcast cited as a cause for error for the trial? MOORE: No assignment of error was based upon the claim that the rights of the defendant were prejudiced in any way by photography, radio or television coverage. Q: Was such coverage mentioned at all in the appeal? MOORE: No. Q: May we ask you — do you see any educational value to the televising and broadcasting of the trial? MOORE: Yes. I have always been of the belief that the procedures in courtrooms were, as generally understood by the public, were not accurate at all and I think that some very definite benefit is to be derived from an accurate, truthful presentation of what goes on in the courtrooms of America. Q: Well, finally, Justice Moore, do you think that radio and television coverage of trials might conceivably serve as a deterrent to crime? MOORE: Well, I asked all the district judges of our state their conclusion in that behalf and received a number of answers from them. Many of them thought that it would have a definite effect upon deterring crime. Personally, I think that it would cause one about to commit some sort of an offense to hesitate and pause if he were to understand and know that crime doesn't really pay and that the culprit is very, very, very more often brought to justice than are the instances in which he escapes. I think it has and would tend to have over the years a very definite influence in the realm of deterring crime. Q: We are standing in the courtroom where the trial of John Gilbert Graham was held. With us here is Bert M. Keating, district attorney for the City and County of Denver, representing the State in the case of the people versus John Gilbert Graham. Mr. Keating, what was your reaction to the radio and television coverage of the Graham trial? PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KEATING: I think .... the best way to answer that question is by saying simply this. That I was not conscious of the cameras being in court, nor were any of the deputies that assisted in the trial, and I might further say that I have heard of no one who took part or participated in the case that even knew that the cameras were grinding during the trial. Q: Well, now, did you actually see on television and hear on radio, the films and recorded excerpts of the trial that were used? KEATING: I heard part of it. We were busy somewhat at nights preparing this case, but I heard part of it and I thought it was produced in fine fashion and there was no editorial comment by the persons putting on the program. I thought that was proper. Q: Well, now, as you went about the community while this trial was in progress, did you hear the radio and television coverage of the trial discussed publicly and if so, what did the people think of it? KEATING: Well not only did I hear it discussed publicly, but I received quite a bit of mail concerning the radio and tv coverage, and it all seemed favorable. The people seemed to think that they were entitled to this sort of coverage. Q: Well, now, let's get again to this matter of the presence of the radio and television equipment in this courtroom. Do you think that it conceivably could have proved distracting in any way to anyone here? For example, what about the possible effect on the witnesses? KEATING: Well, .... you say could it prove distracting? Yes, it could have — but the way it was handled I don't think it was. The box or the area (whatever you might call it) that contained the cameras . . . Q: The booth we have in the rear? KEATING: Yes . . . was quite a way from the witnesses and the jurors. You might recall that there wasn't a juror who objected to being photographed. I don't think it was distracting in the least. Q: Now let me ask you, too, then. Do you think the presence of this tv and radio equipment in the courtroom had any effect on the jurors? KEATING: I am sure it did not. As you know, each juror was asked whether or not he or she objected to being photographed, and there was no objection. I'm sure that the verdict arrived at by the jury was based upon the evidence and the law given by Judge McDonald without regard to cameras being in the courtroom. Q: Well, now — without belaboring this point too much, Mr. Keating, I'd like to ask you most important of all: Do you think that the presence of this equipment and the telecasting and broadcasting of this trial in any way detracted from the defendant's continued page 138 Page 136 • May 13, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting