Cameras in the Courtroom

A businessman was accused of inducing farmers, through false pretenses and fraudulent representations, to buy fertilizer tanks and equipment that did not exist, and to sign mortgages on that non-existent property. The case drew massive national publicity, with eleven volumes of press clippings, and was moved to another county for trial. At a two-day pretrial hearing on his motion to ban cameras, at least twelve cameramen filled the courtroom and the hearing was carried live on television and radio. At the three-day trial, parts were videotaped and the verdict was broadcast live. He was convicted. The defence argued that televising the proceedings over his objection denied him a fair trial.