The only person in the courtroom that objected to Judge Poe putting a camera in the jury deliberation room was a prosecutor. So, congratulations are in order for the Harris County DA's office and Chuck Rosenthal for doing what was right.

I am proud to work in a profession that seeks justice and protects the right of jurors to work in private. Way to go, Harris County DA's office.

In addition, thanks go to TDCAA for being a supportive organization. TDCAA filed an amicus brief that did a great job of setting out the law. And the court followed that law, reading the Code of Criminal Procedure to mean what it say: No persons other than jurors may be present during deliberations.

Hey, John:

If I didn't know better, I would think that you were afraid of the revelations of jury misconduct which might come to light if their deliberations were made public. (Yes, it's a very small smile.)

Probably one of the hardest appellate issues to prove is jury misconduct. A camera in the jury room would document any such misconduct. Prosecutors -- and judges -- can't afford that kind of actual evidence.

Having said that, I agree that a camera in the jury room might skew the deliberations. However, is it not just as likely that the jury might adhere to their instructions and convictions, as it is that they might "grandstand" for the prosecution? That is, who can say which way the jury might "jump?"

I guess the real question is, Which side -- State or Defense -- is more afraid of the outcome?

Apparently, the Court of Criminal Appeals stands to lose the most face. And, since the Court's alignment with the prosecution, I guess we know why they ruled like they did... (another small grin).

I assume then, that you would be willing to put a camera in your office and in your bedroom. The justification is the same as for a criminal trial -- educational and to make sure everyone is following the law.

Would your client be less likely to lie to you if he knew he was being videotaped for a TV program?

Would your wife be more sensitive and attentive to your opinions if she was being videotaped in her home?

What both of these ridiculous suggestions reveal is that privacy can't be invaded in the name of education. It's really about nothing more than voyeurism masquerading as professional curiosity.

Sure, we would catch some mistakes. Both for and against the state. But the net result of such an approach would be the destruction of the very process that is the best darn way to hear disputes that mankind has invented.

That is why the Rules of Evidence already prohibit the admission of evidence obtained from jury deliberations. No one could survive the type of scrutiny that comes from constant surveillance.