Should justice play out on camera, or does that risk turning courtrooms into a stage? Balancing Transparency with Fairness in the Courtroom

By Cayla Scott¹

With the rise in social media and instant access to live streaming, the question of whether cameras belong in courtrooms, especially during criminal trials, has generated a serious debate. Federal and state courts across the country remain divided on whether transparency outweighs the risk of transforming trials into a public spectacle.²

Impact on Victims, Defendants, and Trial Integrity.

Courtrooms are some of the most vulnerable spaces for victims and defendants. While broadcasting trials may captivate the public, the reality for those involved can be far from entertaining. For victims, the experience of testifying can already be retraumatizing – forcing them to re-live painful moments, confront their abusers, and endure intense scrutiny of their character.³ Adding cameras can amplify that trauma, making an already difficult process feel even more invasive.⁴ Survivors often face a tough choice: speak out and risk public exposure or stay silent and relinquish their chance at justice.⁵ It’s a lose-lose situation that highlights why many believe cameras have no place in criminal trials.
Allowing cameras in criminal proceedings may lead to additional social drawbacks.⁶ Jurors, aware that their decisions could be broadcast and scrutinized, may feel pressured or intimidated.⁷ This could skew their judgment, threatening the fairness of the trial.⁸ By keeping cameras out of the courtroom, courts can better protect jurors’ anonymity and shield the process from the influence of public opinion.⁹
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: How do we balance transparency with the need to protect those most affected by the judicial process? Addressing this issue is crucial not only for the integrity of the legal system but also for upholding the fundamental rights of victims.

Federal Restrictions: A Clear Stance on Cameras in the Courtroom.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 53 prohibits Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting, stating: "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”¹⁰ This bright line rule reflects the concerns that allowing cameras in the courtroom, particularly in criminal trials, may bias jurors, risk mistrials, and negatively impact witnesses, jurors, lawyers, and judges.¹¹ The courtroom, after all, is supposed to be a place of solemnity and dignity – not a stage for public entertainment.¹²

State-Level Restrictions: Tennessee’s Flexible Approach.

Tennessee has loose regulations and generally allows media coverage of public judicial proceedings with few guidelines and restrictions.¹³ Coverage refers to any recording or broadcasting of a court proceeding by the media using television, radio, photographic, or recording equipment.¹⁴ Media coverage is prohibited for any minor in a judicial proceeding (unless a minor is being tried for a criminal offense as an adult), during the jury selection process, jurors during the judicial process, juvenile court proceedings, closed court proceedings, and counsel conferences.¹⁵
One of the most notable examples came in 2014 when a high-profile death penalty case was televised. The case involved an individual who was convicted on six counts of premeditated first-degree murder for killing his brother, three other adults, and two of his brother’s minor sons, and was televised for media outlets.¹⁶ The Tennessee Supreme Court authorized one camera in the courtroom, which serves as the feed for all media outlets and the lead camera in the proceedings was approved by the Court and managed by an associated TV station.¹⁷
The absence of strict prohibition raises difficult questions about the impact on victims and their families. For victims and their families, seeing such traumatic events broadcasted can reopen old wounds, forcing them to relive painful memories for public consumption.¹⁸ Tennessee’s lenient stance on courtroom cameras highlights the delicate balance between transparency and protecting those most affected by crime.

The Constitutional Argument: Public Trial vs. Public Broadcasts.

While Tennessee grants judges the discretion to allow cameras in courtrooms, sensitive cases grounded in centuries of legal precedent call for a broader, nationwide ban. The First and Sixth Amendments are often cited by advocates for justifying cameras in the courtroom, but case law has consistently dismissed these interpretations.¹⁹
Federal Courts have clarified that while these amendments protect public access to trials, they do not guarantee the right to broadcast proceedings.²⁰ In a key Second Circuit case, the court acknowledged a “paradigm case for televising,” and held that "[t]here is a long leap, however, between a public right under the First Amendment to attend trials and a public right under the First Amendment to see a given trial televised. It is a leap not supported by history."²¹ This precedent, established in Westmoreland v. CBS (2002), remains firmly intact.²²
Similarly, arguments that banning cameras violates the Sixth Amendment have faced sharp criticism.²³ The right to a public trial, as courts have clarified, means the trial must be open for attendance, not for live streaming or recording.²⁴ The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the opportunity of members of the public and the press to attend the trial and to report what they have observed.²⁵

The Call for Tennessee to Tighten Media Coverage of Criminal Trials.

Tennessee has implemented limited safeguards to ensure transparency by allowing media coverage in court proceedings; however, stricter measures are needed.²⁶
Tennessee should consider leaning into federal procedures when it comes to limiting media coverage in criminal trials. Federal courts are much more effective at restricting broadcasts, helping to protect the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.²⁷ When cameras are allowed in the courtroom, they can distract participants, intimidate jurors and witnesses, disrupt the flow of proceedings, and even distort the facts, leading to biased outcomes.²⁸
Adopting tighter rules, similar to those in Federal Courts, could help Tennessee execute a better balance. Transparency would not dissipate, as the public and press are still able to attend, but the focus would stay on justice, not on creating headlines.
The absence of strict regulations raises the question: Does Tennessee’s leniency serve justice, or does it exploit the vulnerabilities of victims and defendants for public consumption? Ultimately, protecting the integrity of the courtroom should come before putting on a performance.

¹Cayla Scott is a second-year law student at Lincoln Memorial University – Duncan School of Law. She serves as a Staff Editor on LMU Law Review.
²Allowing Cameras and Electronic Media in the Courtroom: Hearing on S. HRG, 106-1029 Before the Subcomm. On Admin. Oversight and The Courts of the Comm. on the Judiciary United States Senate, 160th Cong. (Sept. 6, 2000) (Statement of Lynn D. Wardle, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, and Hon. Edward R. Becker)
³Tasha McAbee, Trauma by Trial, Public Health Post (March 2, 2021), https://publichealthpost.org/health-equity/trauma-by-trial/#:~:text=All but one of the,if they won their case.
⁴Id.
⁵Id.
⁶Wardle, supra note 2, at 48.
⁷United States v. Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. 183, 187 (E.D. Va. 2002).
⁸Id.
⁹Hatch, supra note 2, at 3.
¹⁰Fed. R. Crim. P. 53.
¹¹Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984).
¹²Id.
¹³Tenn. Sup. Ct. Rule 30.
¹⁴Id.
¹⁵Id.
¹⁶State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tenn. 2014).
¹⁷Id.
¹⁸Becker, supra note 2, at 15.
¹⁹Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. at 186.
²⁰United States Courts, History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Acess in Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records/access-court-proceedings/remote-public-access-proceedings/history-cameras-broadcasting-and-remote-public-access-courts.
²¹Westmoreland, 752 F.2d at 23.
²²Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. at 185.
²³United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 1983).
²⁴Id.
²⁵Id.
²⁶Tenn. Sup. Ct. 30.
²⁷Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. at 186.
²⁸Westmoreland, 752 F.2d at 14.