Broadcasting Telecasting (Apr-Jun 1957)

FROM ERIE'S SHORE: RELAX CANON 35 MORE juridical voices have been raised in behalf of broadcasting's access to the courtroom. This time from Cleveland, where WSRS in that city presented a private screening of "Electronic Journalism in the Courtroom" for the judges of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County. Aftermath of the film presentation was almost unanimous opinion by 1 1 judges as well as representatives of the Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Bar Assns. that Canon 35 should at least be partially eased. Some of the judges' comments: Judge Felix T. Matia: "Anyone who thinks newspapers, cameras and even television won't be in the courtroom eventually, is just plain old-fashioned." Chief Justice Samuel H. Silbert: "I'm for relaxing Canon 35 to give me control of my courtroom." Judge Joseph H. Silbert: "I know newspaper cameras can operate silently and without distraction in a courtroom. I'm not yet sure about television. But I wish the Ohio Supreme Court would permit me to let pictures be taken where it would do no harm." Several raised the issue of "the right to privacy"; whether it is fair to witnesses and jurors under subpoena to be televised against their own wishes. A few were concerned about the possible effects of the camera on the rights of parties in court, particularly a defendant accused of a major crime, such as was John Gilbert Graham in the Denver plane-bomb case. Those attending the WSRS filming, however, went on record as saying they didn't believe Mr. Graham's rights had been prejudiced in any way and that his trial was as fair as it would have been even without any such media present. WSRS President Sam R. Sague, who arranged and moderated the showing as well as the ensuing informal discussion, declared that WSRS is preparing a formal request to Chief Justice Silbert for permission and a test case in court. Mr. Sague, noting that radio is the less conspicuous of the broadcasting media, pointed out that radio could broadcast the entire court proceedings and would be more effective than any other media dissemination. "Comments by judges at the showing," he said, "were of the opinion that the whole broadcast would be mandatory rather than clips and parts which might be interpreted by some as editorial. In view of that, WSRS believes each case should be broadcast in its entirety and is processing its request in the courts on that basis." The Cuyahoga Court, largest in Ohio, went on record more than a year ago in favor of relaxing Canon 35 of the American Bar Assn. The canon was adopted as a rule binding on all Ohio courts by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1954. AMONG those attending the WSRS presentation (1 to r) : William Weiss, representing the Cuyahoga Bar Assn.; Judges Felix Matia, Charles White, Earl Hoover, Sam Silbert (chief justice), Roy McMahon, Benjamin D. Nicola, Arthur H. Day, J. J. P. Corrigan, Joseph Silbert, William J. McDermott; WSRS President Sam R. Sague; Andrew Pangrace, executive secretary, Cleveland Bar Assn.; Kenneth S. Nash, mayor of Cleveland Heights; Judge William K. Nash, and Henry Speeth, president of the county commissioners. bomb in the trunk. He told us that he placed the dynamite into a paper sack and that in the center of the dynamite he placed the two caps and that he tied a cord around the sack and the dynamite for the purpose of holding the caps in place. He said that he then connected up the bomb to the timer and the battery, and while Mrs. King's suitcase was open in the trunk of his car, he placed this bomb into her suitcase. Q: Under the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the members of a jury were given the right of refusing photography of themselves. But at no time did any of them at the Graham trial object. At the end of the proceedings, the jury foreman, Ralph Bonar, made these comments. Mr. Bonar, I know that you were one of the first jurors through the box there, and a great number more went through. What was their reaction to television coverage of the trial? JURY FOREMAN BONAR: Well, I didn't hear a thing against it. I guess I must have seen about 280 of them go through there, and I heard not one comment against television in the court. Q: Well now, as foreman of the jury in the Graham trial, did you or any of the other jurors notice anything distracting about the radio and television coverage? BONAR: Definitely not. Frankly, I had forgotten that it was there. Q: That was after the trial was along? BONAR: It was after the trial was along, yes. Q: You were aware to begin with that . . . BONAR: I could see the booth in the back, and I could see the cameras moving around when we were moving in and out of the courtroom. But outside of that, there was no distraction. Q: No distraction at all, then. Now, do you believe that the radio-television coverage had any effect on the witnesses or any of the other participants in the trial such as the attorneys, the judge, and so on? BONAR: Well, of course, as far as the witnesses are concerned I imagine that they would be just a little nervous anyhow, but I just do not believe the attorneys, the defendant, or anyone else was conscious that the cameras were there. Q: Do you think that the coverage given by radio and television in any way jeopardized the rights of the defendant? BONAR: I can see no way how it possibly could. Q: There is nothing that it could do there to take away from any of his rights? BONAR: I cannot see. I really doubt that the defendant was aware that the camera was there. Q: Mr. Bonar, what comment did you hear following the trial — of the radio and television coverage? BONAR: Well, of course, I had no chance to hear or see anything while I was on the jury but I have had a number of friends and a number of other people that have called and they all seemed very, very happy to have been able in some way to participate in this trial. In other words, they did get a good chance to see what was going on where they wouldn't possibly have been able to do it even if they had waited in line to get into the courtroom. Q: The courtroom itself was quite crowded. They could only seat, I believe, about ninety people in the courtroom? BONAR: I believe that's right. Q: And that was a small number that would have been able to see it, compared to the number that did on radio and television. BONAR: Oh, yes. Q: Now, do you believe there is any educational benefit from the trial coverage? BONAR: Well, I think definitely there was. The fact that children, teen-agers, grownups, so many of them have never been in a courtroom. They have no idea of court procedure. You can take the people that are going to be called for jury duty — they have never been inside — they have no way of knowing what it is. I think that the medium is very, very good to educate prospective jurors in the future. Q: Here is trial judge Joseph H. McDonald. Judge McDonald, the Supreme Court of Colorado, in its decision modifying Canon 35, gave the judges the right to exercise their discretion as to whether radio Page 140 • May 13, 1957 Broadcasting • Telecasting