Are Trials Televised?

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since 1946. This rule states that courts cannot permit courtroom photography or broadcasting during judicial proceedings unless otherwise specified by statute or these rules. This long-standing prohibition raises the question: Are Trials Televised? The answer is complex and depends on the type of trial and the specific court.

In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States broadened the prohibition against broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs to include areas adjacent to the courtroom. This ban applied to both criminal and civil cases. Later, in 1990, a policy adopted by the Judicial Conference generally prohibited broadcasting proceedings in federal trial courts, further solidifying the restriction on televised trials.

However, the policy wasn’t absolute. It allowed exceptions for specific purposes like presenting evidence, preserving records, security, judicial administration, and pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference. This opened a narrow window for potential televised coverage under controlled circumstances.

A three-year pilot program, starting in 1991, tested the waters by permitting electronic media coverage of civil proceedings in select district and appellate courts. The results of this experiment led to concerns about the potential impact of cameras on witnesses and jurors.

Following the pilot program, the Judicial Conference in 1994 decided against expanding camera coverage in civil proceedings due to concerns about the intimidating effect of cameras on participants. Similarly, a proposed amendment to Criminal Rule 53, which would have allowed cameras in criminal proceedings under specific guidelines, was also rejected.

Despite the general prohibition, changes occurred at the appellate level. In 1996, the Judicial Conference granted each court of appeals the authority to decide on permitting photography and broadcasting of appellate arguments, subject to certain restrictions. Consequently, some Courts of Appeals adopted rules allowing camera coverage and have since livestreamed audio of appellate arguments, making them accessible to the public.

While district courts were strongly urged to uphold the ban on cameras, a glimmer of hope appeared in 2010 with a new pilot project. This project evaluated the effect of cameras in district courtrooms, specifically for civil cases, under strict conditions including the presiding judge’s approval and parties’ consent.

Fourteen courts participated in this pilot, which ran from 2011 to 2015. The goal was to gather data on the practical implications of allowing cameras in these specific circumstances. The findings of this study did not lead to immediate policy changes.

Despite the ongoing debate, the fundamental question “are trials televised?” often receives a negative answer, particularly for criminal trials at the federal level. Although limited exceptions and pilot programs have explored the possibility of expanding coverage, the concerns about fairness and the potential negative impact on trial participants have consistently outweighed the arguments for greater transparency and public access through televised proceedings.

In recent years, the focus has shifted toward audio access. A pilot project from 2020 to 2023 evaluated live audio streaming of civil and bankruptcy proceedings, demonstrating the feasibility of remote public access without the visual element of televised coverage. This approach may represent a compromise between transparency and the need to maintain the integrity of court proceedings. Even with these advancements in remote access, the question of whether trials will be televised in the future remains unanswered.