When it comes to those who are accused and their right to defend themselves, it is perfectly reasonable to expect relevant evidence to be made public, and I am in favour of open justice.
In the administration of justice all proceedings shall be public and oral to the widest possible extent.
I don’t see any problem with having proceedings televised. I think it would be good for the public.
And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.
I acknowledge these are very tough jobs a judge has in determining whether or not there is an openness that is required under the Constitution.
In the justice system, we say there must be open justice where there is to be justice. The judged while trying must themselves be tried before the public.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
Court proceedings, except for certain limited situations, are open to the public. This is for the protection of the accused, to be certain to ascertain that there is a fair trial.
Everything needs to be public. The legitimacy of the courts comes from the fact that they reason openly, on the record, based on facts.
Proceeding should be televised. There is nothing secret about a trial. It should always be open. I think the Supreme Court is just a little bit stuffy about televising its proceedings.
I certainly think cameras ought to be in courtrooms.
Cameras in the courtroom is a great idea.
The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body.
I am a firm believer in open justice, and an opponent of closed justice in any normal circumstances. But I am also an opponent of legal purism, and have no time for institutionalised mythmaking - whether from the authoritarian right or the liberal left.
