The Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed to decide whether there should be cameras taping jury deliberations:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/1698187

When the case is argued on the 15th, perhaps some of what George says should be included by Rosenthal. At least it makes practical sense to me.

I just finished an appeal where one of the issues concerned a juror testifying at a MNT hearing about her deliberations. She claimed she did not understand the instructions and , had she understood them (like the defense attorney explained them to her after the trial) she would have convicted defendant of a lesser. We objected to her testimony under 606(b). In writing the brief and researching the history of the rule, it appears Courts have gone to great length to protect the "open and free flow of discussion during deliberations" Rule 606(b) is a great example where a juror CANNOT testify as to the deliberative process for fear of a chilling effect on the deliberations themselves. How can cameras in the jury room be reconciled with the likes of rule 606(b)? If the prospect of testifying at a Motion for New Trial is believed to have a chilling effect on deliberations, certainly a camera in the jury room would do the same

FYI, Sen. Lindsay (R-Houston) has just pre-filed Senate Bill 164 to ban the recording of any jury deliberations in civil or criminal trials. TDCAA will keep track of this bill on our Legislative page.

We should make sure that the language of the bill makes sure that it applies to all cases, regardless whether they existed before the effective date of the bill. I would think that would help Rosenthal's case if it hasn't been decided before the conclusion of the session.

Arguments will be held at the UT Law School Connally Center for Justice at 9AM on January 15th. There will be overflow capacity if the auditorium is full.

Cameras will not be allowed.

quote:

---

Cameras will not be allowed.

---

The irony is beautiful.

It seems incredibly, given how obviously the presence of cameras effects the behavior of lawyers and judges, that anyone could argue juries wouldn't likewise be affected. People want other people to think well of them, typically, and don't want to be thought of as hard or mean. Would be good for the defense in a normal criminal case, unless the facts of the crime were particularly heinous or the victim particularly sympathetic, then would skew the other way. But the point is that it would influence deliberations.

It also seems objectionable that a criminal case where -- depending on what side your on -- to peace of mind of the victim and the freedom of the defendant is on the line -- should be served up as entertainment in so blatant a manner.

The whole question of cameras in the jury room reminds me of the classic film "Twelve Angry Men." I saw it long ago before law school, and recently saw it again. The second time around, it shocked me that what was being presented to the public at large as a typical criminal jury deliberation included all kinds of improper stuff--outside influences in the form of a knife, similar to the murder weapon, that juror Henry Fonda bought at a pawn shop; juror experiments concerning the time it would have taken an old man to run down a hall; etc.
I think this raises a critical issue for criminal jurisprudence in this country--either we are comfortable letting the jury do what they will during deliberations and should continue our "don't ask, don't tell" policy, including "don't film, don't tape" what actually happens in the jury room; or, we should bring the whole matter to light and find some meaningful way to force jurors to comply with their oath and cut out all the improprieties that actually go on behind closed doors.

There is no set way to carry out deliberations. I think that for the most part, things move along pretty well without our help. The fact that eleven jurors may use vigorous persuasion to get the twelfth to change his vote is not wrong. It is how debate is done. Cameras would stifle candid, lively discussion.

From the summary of oral arguments posted on the home page, it sounds like the State made some pretty persuasive arguments. Here's hoping the Court quickly issues a writ of mandamus.

Well, the Court of Criminal Appeals shut down cameras in the courtroom, and now the Senate has agreed by passing an even more specific prohibition against cameras in the jury room.

Note: Rep. Ron Wilson has a bill that would do the opposite.