Re: [Leica] WAS: [w/Leica!] LEGAL STUFF - warning, long, long post.

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 10:59 AM 9/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Those who feel differently might want to re-view that classic film, INHERIT
>THE WIND, to see the negative role photography played in the Scopes Trial.

That piece of left-wing propaganda? That movie was hardly an exemplar of 
historical accuracy. And was hardly an accurate example of cameras in the 
courtroom. It was bad with the flash pan in the back of the room, but Marc, 
that was a microphone next to the judge's bench, not a speed graphic!

What killed cameras in the courtroom in the US for so many years was at the 
Lindburg baby kidnapping trial when a photographer jumped over the bar to 
photograph someone on the stand crying. Typical legal overreaction to its 
watchdog. Get rid of the watchdog, and see what shenanigans they get away 
with. If they could get the writers out of the courtroom too, they would. 
It's just that people outside my profession don't realize the value of 
photography is equal to writing and in some ways is superior, or they would 
never ban cameras from the courtroom. Take a picture of a prisoner with 
bumps on his head and black eyes, and questions are raised.

As media coordinator (officer of the court) for the fifth judicial circuit 
here in St. Joseph, MO., and one of the participants appointed by the 
Missouri Supreme Court (one of which is Rush Limbaugh's cousin) I think I 
can speak with some authority on this subject. There is no problem with 
cameras in the courtroom. The conservative supreme court here accepted it 
after two-year experiment after extremely few problems arose, non of which 
hurt a single trial. (Growing pains is all). And in the much more liberal 
(with the rules controlling cameras) state of Oregon, there has never been 
a problem there.

Why? Because the judge can always stop coverage if the case is being 
disturbed by the coverage, and can prevent coverage on a case-by-case 
basis, as long as he has a legitimate reason for doing it. The judge is in 
total control. Most cases, the attorneys don't even notice the cameras 
after a while. And if they do, it's more a problem they have with it than 
any real experience.

The fact is, when cameras are in the courtroom, there's a lot less mess 
outside the courtroom door trying to get pictures because they weren't 
inside. Everyone just had to act civilized. Why is it most of the problems 
I have with cameras in the courts are generally the red-neck families of 
child molesters, trailer-trash who take the law into their own hands and 
attorneys? I like the latter group of people for the most part. But their 
understanding of the facts here is nothing short of appalling. They are 
right to protect their clients to the greatest extent possible. But this is 
one war they didn't win in 47 States, for good reason. Democracy has a price.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO

http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.