When I read this, “…the arguments against having a camera in the courtroom for the James Holmes trial could outweigh the arguments in favor.” in NBC’s 9News.com story about the trial of the accused Aurora, Colorado, movie theater killer, I wondered about how often that appears to be the case — or at least those who argue against cameras so often seem to have the most weighted arguments.
Will cameras be allowed in theater shooting trial?
9News.com writer Chris Vanderveen is predicting that will be the case this time, too.
“There will be the potential of a witness grandstanding for the cameras. There’s a potential of problems with jurors, problems with witnesses,” Vanderveen quotes 9New legal analyst Scott Robinson as saying.
Given that there are some 3,500 potential witnesses, according to Robinson, possible contamination might present a problem. But grandstanding? That poor excuse of a reason is frequently trotted out by anti-camera factions. But really, given all the high-profile trials that have included camera access, how often has that happened? Has it happened in accused Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman’s trial? Defense attorney Don West perhaps, but any of the witnesses who have been questioned so far? And even if that were a possibility, doesn’t the trial judge have the duty and authority to stop it in its tracks?