Case made for cameras in the courts

Every Illinois resident should be able to watch the Antoin "Tony" Rezko corruption trial in Chicago.

Not that they would be shocked at seeing and hearing testimony of alleged criminal deal-making to the benefit of those with clout. This is, after all, the state that keeps federal prosecutors busy busting public officials who are on the take. But they would learn a lot more about how their honestly earned tax dollars make their way from their paychecks into the pockets of the corrupt. They'd get quite an education into the inner workings of the seamy side of Illinois politics.

Unfortunately, they cannot see the trial, unless they are one of the lucky ones to get a seat in a packed courtroom. That's because federal law forbids televising federal criminal trials.

Implicit in the law is the unreasonable belief that cameras in the court would compromise justice and have lawyers behaving like Hollywood actors in the eye of the lens. For years now, cameras have been allowed in courtrooms in many state judicial circuits, and thousands of trials have been shown on Court TV (now truTV) and other broadcast outlets. And from this experience there is nothing to suggest that cameras in courtrooms have produced a pattern of defendants being denied fair trials, jurors or witnesses having their privacy and security compromised, or courtrooms having turned into community theaters.

A bill before the U.S. Senate would allow cameras in federal courtrooms. Unfortunately, it contains a caveat that could serve to greatly limit the reach of this proposal. Cameras would be legally allowed -- but only at the discretion of presiding judges. Given the lack of strong federal judicial support for such a change, we wouldn't expect many judges ruling in favor of cameras.

But judges are also expected to reject conjecture and hearsay and assure that decisions are made on the basis of fact.

And the facts are on the side of cameras in federal courts.

In 1994, the Federal Judicial Center, an education and research agency, examined the results of a pilot program in which cameras were permitted in a limited number of federal courts. Among its conclusions: "Judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage under the program generally reported observing small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice."

Court TV had also studied the effects of cameras on thousands of judicial proceedings in several states. It found no impairment in the administration of justice.

That's pretty powerful testimony on behalf of giving the public a glimpse into the judicial system -- one they do not have now -- without running the risk of a tainted verdict.

We're quite certain that if the case of cameras in courtrooms was put before a jury, the verdict would be, let them in.