449 U.S. 560 (1981)
In January 1975, the Post-Newsweek Stations of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to change Canon 3A(7) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which had prohibited broadcasting and televising of courtroom proceedings.1 After a rulemaking proceeding and an initial experimental program requiring party consent, the Florida Supreme Court established a one-year pilot program in 1977 allowing electronic media coverage of all judicial proceedings without participant consent, subject to detailed guidelines on technology and conduct.2 The pilot ran from July 1977 through June 1978, after which the court reviewed surveys, briefs, and experiences from other states before promulgating a revised Canon 3A(7) in 1979 permitting such coverage under the presiding judge's control.3
In July 1977, appellants, two Miami Beach policemen, were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools arising from the break-in of a Miami Beach restaurant.4 The state's key witness was John Sion, an amateur radio operator who had recorded conversations between the appellants on their police radios during the incident.5 These circumstances drew media attention to the case.6
Prior to trial, appellants moved to have the experimental Canon 3A(7) declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied, but the trial court denied relief.7 The Florida Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutional question at that stage.8 During jury selection, each prospective juror was asked about the impact of television coverage and responded that it would not affect their impartiality.9 A television camera recorded the voir dire proceedings.10
At trial, a television camera was present for one afternoon during the testimony of the state's chief witness and returned for closing arguments, though only two minutes and fifty-five seconds of the proceedings were actually broadcast, showing only the prosecution's case.11 The trial court denied a defense motion to sequester the jury and instructed jurors not to watch media coverage of the case.12 Appellants were convicted on all counts, after which they moved for a new trial citing the television coverage but presented no evidence of specific prejudice.13
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding no indication that the camera had hampered the defense or deprived appellants of an impartial jury, and certified the facial constitutionality question to the Florida Supreme Court.14 The Florida Supreme Court denied review, deeming the appeal moot in light of its earlier decision upholding the revised Canon.15
Whether the Constitution prohibits a state from permitting radio, television, and still photographic coverage of a criminal trial for public broadcast over the objection of the accused?16
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit states from allowing electronic media coverage of criminal trials under controlled conditions established by state supreme court rules.17 This Court possesses no supervisory authority over state courts and intervenes only when state action infringes fundamental guarantees of fairness.18 States retain latitude to experiment with procedural innovations provided defendants retain the opportunity to demonstrate actual prejudice in a specific case.19
No. In January 1975 the Post-Newsweek Stations of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to change Canon 3A(7) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which had prohibited broadcasting and televising of courtroom proceedings. After a rulemaking proceeding and an initial experimental program requiring party consent, the Florida Supreme Court established a one-year pilot program in 1977 allowing electronic media coverage of all judicial proceedings without participant consent, subject to detailed guidelines on technology and conduct. The pilot ran from July 1977 through June 1978, after which the court reviewed surveys, briefs, and experiences from other states before promulgating a revised Canon 3A(7) in 1979 permitting such coverage under the presiding judge's control.
In July 1977 appellants, two Miami Beach policemen, were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools arising from the break-in of a Miami Beach restaurant. The state's key witness was John Sion, an amateur radio operator who had recorded conversations between the appellants on their police radios during the incident. These circumstances drew media attention to the case.
Prior to trial appellants moved to have the experimental Canon 3A(7) declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied, but the trial court denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutional question at that stage. During jury selection each prospective juror was asked about the impact of television coverage and responded that it would not affect their impartiality. A television camera recorded the voir dire proceedings.
At trial a television camera was present for one afternoon during the testimony of the state's chief witness and returned for closing arguments, though only two minutes and fifty-five seconds of the proceedings were actually broadcast, showing only the prosecution's case. The trial court denied a defense motion to sequester the jury and instructed jurors not to watch media coverage of the case. Appellants were convicted on all counts, after which they moved for a new trial citing the television coverage but presented no evidence of specific prejudice. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding no indication that the camera had hampered the defense or deprived appellants of an impartial jury, and certified the facial constitutionality question to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court denied review, deeming the appeal moot in light of its earlier decision upholding the revised Canon. The Florida program therefore satisfies constitutional requirements because the state acted within its authority to experiment and no showing of prejudice was made.20
The Constitution does not prohibit Florida from permitting the electronic coverage of the appellants' trial over their objection.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment.22 He stated that the constitutional protection of the freedom of the press does not require that the electronic media be given a right of access to the courtroom superior to that of the public generally.23 The right of access to criminal trials is not absolute and must be balanced against the defendant's right to a fair trial.24
In this case the presence of the cameras did not deprive the petitioners of a fair trial.25 The Florida rule is a reasonable accommodation of the competing interests involved.26
Whether Estes v. Texas announced a per se constitutional rule barring all electronic coverage of criminal trials?27
Estes v. Texas does not announce a per se constitutional rule forbidding all electronic coverage of criminal trials.28 The holding in Estes turned on the specific circumstances of that notorious trial and the technology then in use.29 Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, which supplied the fifth vote, expressly limited the holding to cases like Estes and left open the possibility of future experimentation once technology improved.30
No. The six separate opinions in Estes must be examined carefully.31 Chief Justice Warren and Justices Douglas and Goldberg joined Justice Clark's opinion announcing the judgment, creating only a plurality.32 Justice Harlan provided the fifth vote but pointedly limited his concurrence to the proposition that what was done in that case infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial.33 He further stated that at the present juncture televised trials at least in cases like that one possess such capabilities for interfering with the judicial process that they are constitutionally banned.34
The Court therefore concludes that Estes is not to be read as announcing a constitutional rule barring still photographic, radio, and television coverage in all cases and under all circumstances.35 The Florida rule contains safeguards that address the concerns expressed in Estes, and technological advances have reduced the intrusive nature of the equipment.36
Estes v. Texas did not announce a per se constitutional rule barring all electronic coverage of criminal trials.37
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart concurred in the result but could not join the opinion of the Court because he believed the convictions could not be affirmed without overruling Estes v. Texas.38 He read Estes as announcing a per se rule that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all television cameras from a state courtroom whenever a criminal trial is in progress.39 Rather than join an effort to distinguish that decision, he would flatly overrule it.40
He noted that the restrictions on television in the Estes trial were not significantly different from those in the present case.41 The constitutional violation perceived in Estes inhered in the hypothesis that the mere presence of cameras might have a prejudicial effect on trial participants.42
Justice White concurred in the judgment.43 He agreed with Justice Stewart that Estes is fairly read as establishing a per se constitutional rule against televising any criminal trial if the defendant objects.44 So understood, Estes must be overruled to affirm the judgment below.45
He remained unwilling to assume without more proof that televising criminal trials is inherently prejudicial even when carried out under properly controlled conditions.46 A defendant should have ample opportunity to convince a judge that televising the trial would be unfair, but absent some showing of prejudice the conviction should not be overturned simply because cameras were allowed.47
Whether the presence of cameras during the appellants' trial had an adverse impact on the proceedings or the jury's impartiality?48
A defendant has the right on review to show that media coverage compromised the ability of the jury to judge the case fairly. Alternatively, a defendant may show that broadcast coverage of his particular case had an adverse impact on the trial participants sufficient to constitute a denial of due process.49 Generalized allegations of prejudice are insufficient.50 The appropriate safeguard remains the due process requirement of a fair trial, and each case must be judged on its own merits.51
No. At voir dire each prospective juror affirmed that the presence of a television camera would not affect his or her consideration of the case.52 The trial court instructed the jury not to watch or read anything about the case in the media.53 Only two minutes and fifty-five seconds of the trial were broadcast, depicting only the prosecution's side.54 No evidence of specific prejudice was tendered in the motion for a new trial.55
The Florida District Court of Appeal found no indication that the camera had hampered the defense or deprived appellants of an impartial jury.56 The record therefore contains no showing that the trial was compromised by television coverage.57
The presence of cameras during the appellants' trial did not have an adverse impact on the proceedings or the jury's impartiality.58