Well, they have finally found a way to kill the death penalty:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1672667

Now, death penalty opponents will have endless bits of irrelevant comments to nitpick. If this happens, we will all regret it.

No matter how complete the taping,they will not show the entire tape. There will be editing. The editing will necessarily slant the program. I wouldn't bet that it would go pro death penalty.

I've just heard, the CCA has stayed this case until December 2nd. Who knows, maybe they'll keep the cameras out!

Surely it is beyond a trial judge' (even if the Judge is Poe) authority to permit a camera to record the deliberations of a criminal jury. A jury is nothing if it is not secret.

When is the last time a judge permitted an interview of his deliberative process?

Well, now it has made national news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/national/26DEAT.html

Got my TM yesterday and there's a long article by some liberal kook attacking death penalty in TX. Some great journalism. "Tx has more executions than almost any other state." Surprise! We have more people than almost any other state. "A federal judge finally stepped in and overruled the CCA." Hooray! We can always count on all federal judges to be honest and fair, whereas all state judges are crooked and mean. Kook also praised the Fair Defense Act but suggested much more legislative activism was necessary to wrest control of the legal system away from lawyers. Gimme a break!

As pointed out by a fellow prosecutor in my office, what about the right to be a juror. As originally reported, 14 jurors were excused because they indicated they would feel uncomfortable with a camera in the jury deliberation room. Why would otherwise qualified jurors be denied their right to serve because the judge wants to put the media in the jury room? Also, if you serve on a jury, are you giving up your rights to privacy and any royalties? Would "frontline" expect each serving juror to sign a release?
This whole idea is simply not good!

Seems like I read somewhere the defense bar was saying there was no law prohibiting the judge's action. What does "No person shall be permitted to be with a jury while it is deliberating," mean? Art. 36.22, C.C.P. Maybe there weren't remote TV cameras or recording devices available when that law was first enacted, but I think the Legislature's purpose and intent is still pretty clear.

I'm glad someone else thinks that article in Texas Monthly was written by a liberal kook. I tried to read it, but got so fed up with it I couldn't finish it. Why does that author think his poster boy defendant is innocent? Because the defendant says so? Apparently, if the defendant denies his guilt, that means they're not guilty. Gee, I must have a lot of innocent defendants!

I'm nervous about someone who thinks his authority is derived from the absence of any law prohibiting his action. That suggests the person is not comfortable with actually justifying the action on its own terms.

Well, Harris County isn't just sitting around--today's CCA hand-down shows that they have a live mandamus against Judge Poe. Strange order says that the motion for leave to file is stayed . . .

Sounds like a few people hate the idea of a camera in the jury room:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1036630509738

Today's Houston Chronicle says Rosenthal will not stop fighting if the court rejects his request for a mandamus:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1685777

I think this issue is important enough that a DA would be justified in refusing to proceed to trial if cameras were being forced into the jury room. Then the DA could go to the Legislature and get a clearer statute prohibiting the cameras. What do you think?

So is there "any law prohibiting" cameras during CCA deliberations? I cannot imagine the CCA would contemplate allowing cameras, but if there is a request by a defendant (along the lines of "well, the jury deliberations at my trial had a camera, so why can't I have a camera now?)I don't see any real difference. This is especially true if the courts view this as a first amendment issue.

Did anyone happen to read the "Yay" and "Nay" commentaries in the most recent issue of Texas Lawyer. Both commentators applauded Judge Poe's decision to permit cameras in the jury room, saying that there is no evidence that cameras affect court room particpants. Personally, the idea that the general public would know who I am and what I felt and expressed about the case is frightening. People act differently when they know the public is watching, whether we like to admit it or not.

Janette

Hey, why stop at the jury room? Let's have cameras follow around the defense attorney and judge from beginning to end and record his/her conversation with every person. Surely, we would learn whether a criminal defense attorney influences a defendant to change a story to fit the law or whether a judge has any secret prejudices.

I realize that this would violate the sacred attorney/client privilege and the judge's right to privacy, but from what I am hearing an educational purpose tops anything like these interests. And I am sure each defense attorney and judge would be willing to sacrifice their privacy to achieve this educational purpose.

And if the attorney or judge doesn't want to do it, then he or she shouldn't be an attorney or judge. Isn't that the approach we are taking for the juror? If you don't want a camera in the jury room, then don't be a juror, right?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

AS REPORTED IN USA TODAY ON 12/3/02
(long, but worth the read)

Keep cameras out of jury rooms
By Alcestis "Cooky" Oberg

When Houston Judge Ted Poe decided Nov. 11 that it was OK for a TV camera to tape secret jury deliberations in the case of 17-year-old Cedric Harrison for a PBS Frontline documentary, I was sure the trial would become a media circus.

Harrison, who could face the death penalty, is accused of shooting and killing Felix Sabio II, 35, in front of his apartment during a violent carjacking, which ended in a fiery crash. Frontline wished to give the public "a unique glimpse" into the life-and-death decisions made in a jury room by putting an unmanned camera on the ceiling to record everything.

Prosecutors strongly objected, arguing to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that retaliation against jurors, the "fear" factor and inhibited candor are all possible when cameras are taping deliberations in this emotionally charged case. The appeals court stopped jury selection and is considering Poe's reasons for his decision to allow a camera to film in the jury deliberation room.

In the meantime, the circus began. Lawyers for Poe and for Frontline bombarded the media, arguing that the camera would provide an "educational" benefit. The PBS attorneys pointed out that jurors who didn't want to be videotaped were excused from service. Judge Poe's attorney argued that jurors tend to forget about the cameras in courtrooms, and that there's no "empirical" evidence their candor would be influenced by them.

Some secrets needed

Although I'm a journalist and normally cheer for opening up government processes to public scrutiny, there is an enormous danger in allowing television to dictate jury selection and inhibit the candor of jury deliberations. Some things in our democracy were made secret by the Founding Fathers and should remain so. Our ballots are secret so that our votes are truthful, safe from coercion and free of potential retaliation. Likewise, jury deliberation requires secrecy - for the sake of complete candor and truthfulness, along with the protection against coercion and retribution.

How can we guarantee that such an important freedom will remain intact when we let television into the last refuge of civic life? Let's look at what's happened already.

In Poe's court, jury selection has been egregiously torn apart by television. Fourteen jurors have already been dismissed due to their unwillingness to be videotaped - no other reason. Television, which is not a party to the lawsuit and doesn't have any constitutional right to disqualify jurors, already has exerted a veto of jurors who may have made an important contribution to justice in this case. It's true that jurors are free to speak publicly after deliberations are over and that some jurors do rush to the microphones for their "15 minutes of fame" after a high-profile trial. But most just go home.

Best may not serve

The impact from this process is that "perfect" jurors - citizens with no self-serving interest in the case who want to discuss their judgments with total candor and leave the courthouse with nothing more to say - may be disqualified because they want to protect their privacy.

There also is the danger that jury deliberations will fall victim to the laws of broadcast journalism. When the Frontline producers sit down to put their program together, they will have to abbreviate, to edit, to image-manipulate, to "script" a story to fit a format and a time slot. No matter how conscientiously they do their job, judgment choices are always being made in the editing and selection of the images to show, the themes to enunciate, the sound bites of jurors and attorneys to use.

Tale may twist as retold

Which leads to my even greater worry: What might the national and international media do with the story afterward? Highly biased pressure groups can use snippets to twist and distort an individual juror's position, jurors can be hectored and victimized by losing attorneys who go on the lecture circuit, and talk-show babblers can ratchet up the emotional volume to endanger the jurors' lives and harm their reputations.

The O.J. Simpson murder trial should be a cautionary tale to us all. Remember how witnesses were persecuted and maligned just because they stated the facts as they knew them? What monstrous havoc might publicity wreak on Poe's jurors for merely stating their own views?

Finally, Poe's core argument that someone "forgets" a television camera and can speak candidly in front of one is just plain ridiculous. When I was a television producer, I saw plenty of "empirical" evidence that people put on a public persona for the camera. There was always a chilling influence on candor when the television cameras went on, a reflexive editing of speech and a tendency to either play to the camera or be suppressed by it. Off-camera remarks were much different: far more truthful and direct.

It's easy to talk about the "educational" benefits of televising all aspects of this trial. But we must reflect on the way our justice system was set up by the Founding Fathers long ago, and how well it has served us.

Television did not exist then, but coercion and public persecution most certainly did. American justice rested on the foundation of 12 citizens, good and true, who were willing to serve on a jury, listen to all of the evidence with an open mind, discuss each of the points with absolute candor and truthfulness and then render a pure judgment, without any thought of personal gain, personal retribution or public persecution.

It's a good system. Let's not louse it up.

Alcestis "Cooky" Oberg, a freelance science and technology writer in Houston, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Thanks for posting that article. This user group just gets better and better. I hope everyone continues to contribute.

And now they begin to argue about whether the defendant should waive his right (if he has any) to use the contents of the videotape during an appeal:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/1692683

I have to think that the defense is interested in this because they hope that the State will cave on death in order to keep the thing off tv.