Editorial: TV cameras not suitable for jurors

Monday, Dec. 2, 2002 | 8:43 a.m.

Subjecting a jury to experimental filming when a man's life is at stake would be a new low for America's courtrooms. It's already troubling that certain cases are selected for gavel-to-gavel televised coverage more for their entertainment value than for anything to do with educating the viewer. Out of the thousands of criminal cases tried every year, only a few are televised and their common thread is sex, celebrity, or ghoulish details. Now a crew from the public TV show "Frontline" is seeking permission to film jury deliberations in a Texas murder case. The defendant is 17 and faces the death penalty for an alleged carjacking in which a person was killed.

A news story in the Los Angeles Times described the filming request as an "unprecedented courtroom experiment." It became a news story because a state district judge in Houston decided to grant the film crew's request. The judge's decision is being appealed, as it should be. The request should be denied, if for no other reason, because potential jurors would be excused if they didn't want to be filmed. Should we dismiss otherwise perfectly capable jurors just because they don't want to be part of a nationally televised experiment?

There are many other reasons, of course, for jury deliberations to remain private. Many jurors who would support a guilty finding might hold back, fearing retribution by the defendant's family. It's also possible that a juror who would otherwise speak up for the defendant might fear a backlash from the public. Then there would be the grandstanders and people contemplating book deals. Justice is sacred and should not be drawn in to the reality TV genre that is proving so popular. Although "Frontline" is planning to air the segment after the trial and verdict, the next step would be "real time" filming. Do we really want to exchange justice for entertainment?