Cameras in the courtroom? DIY.
We blogged a while back about how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was going to start experimenting (ever so modestly) with cameras in federal trial courtrooms, and how the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that effort in the California gay marriage case. But now, get this -- a couple of filmmakers are re-enacting the court proceedings of that trial. Since the court banned video, the transcripts of the case are being used to produce YouTube videos played by professional actors.
There are stories about it here and here. The videos can be viewed here. But don't expect fireworks. A reader who's been following this reports, "I watched a couple of minutes of both hour-long videos. They amazed me, since this seem to be the real trial (i.e., mostly boring)." And it seems they've only got the first day digested so far, whereas the trial went on for 12 days.
| Posted at 8:20 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (4)
The Beagley faith healing trial (in state court) was filmed in its entirety for later broadcast, with play by play Nancy Grace-style, on TruTV, formerly Court TV.
Posted by none | February 3, 2010 9:09 AM
I've seen some the re-enactments of the O.J. trial.
Everyone is always excited about the IDEA of cameras in a courtroom because they expect a non-stop run of Law & Order style excitement. Once folks realize its a tedious process of evidence presentation with no real shocks, no one is interested.
That said, I'm still not sure why the Courts are so opposed to cameras. Put them in, let them run, and then let everyone ignore them in about 2.5 seconds.
Posted by Chris | February 3, 2010 10:04 AM
This is like what they did with the Michael Jackson trial in Cali. Pretty lame TV considering.
Posted by Steve | February 3, 2010 1:33 PM
They wont let the camera's in for the same reason everyone is afraid of camera's,you might get caught doing something stupid and won't be able to cover it up!
I think this is a great idea, True TV might be interested!
Posted by al m | February 3, 2010 2:54 PM