True, but there are plenty of judges who don't want cameras in their courtrooms. I think banning them was bad judgment in this particular case because there's so much suspicion surrounding the Durham system and the DA himself. Leaving the courtroom open to cameras would go a long way toward assuaging some of that suspicion. It's usually accepted that a judge who bans cameras does it because he is a no-nonsense judge who wants to avoid the circus atmosphere in his courtroom that the press is famous for creating. But because of the suspicions surrounding the application of the process in this case and the DA himself, banning the cameras just heightens the suspicions. But there should be ample legal reporters (lawyer-journalists) present to give the public a full report on the intricacies and nuances of what takes place as well as the legal implications of the main substance of the hearings.
How ya doin' Jezebelle? ;-)
I would think Durham will NOT allow any cameras, because they are afraid the entire world will see how stupid many of them are. They will not do well on TV, as many have already witnessed during the recent hearings.
Normally, I would agree, Jez. But would you trust the NandO and HS to be honest what with all the dealings we've had with them? IMO, not a chance...
I'm sure there will be some good reporting but I just like to see for myself. I also agree with you that they should allow cameras because of all the suspicion about this case. Maybe they will for the trial - if it gets that far - he just banned them for pre-trial hearings. I wonder if anyone in the media will file a motion for him to reconsider?