Chandler v. Florida: The Supreme Court's reluctance to endorse televised trials

Susanna Barber
{"title":"Chandler v. Florida: The Supreme Court's reluctance to endorse televised trials","authors":"Susanna Barber","doi":"10.1080/10417948309372575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In CHANDLER V. FLORIDA (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may experiment with camera coverage of trials over defendants’ objections. However, the Court refused to ENDORSE televised trials or give broadcasters an UNEQUIVOCAL right to televise trials. In reaching its decision, the Court reviewed empirical research to determine the impacts of NEWS cameras in courtrooms. The bulk of evidence examined by the Court showed no significant correlation between the presence of cameras at trials and perceived prejudicial behavior or attitudes on the part of judges, witnesses, jurors or attorneys. But the Court relied on the relevant research only to a limited degree, frequently circumscribing its decision with reservations about the scientific nature of the data, the validity of its conclusions, and the pervasiveness of its implications. The more apparent rationales for the Court's decision lie in support of federalism, the ability of state judges to protect due process, and the notion of parity between...","PeriodicalId":234061,"journal":{"name":"Southern Speech Communication Journal","volume":"15 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Speech Communication Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948309372575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In CHANDLER V. FLORIDA (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may experiment with camera coverage of trials over defendants’ objections. However, the Court refused to ENDORSE televised trials or give broadcasters an UNEQUIVOCAL right to televise trials. In reaching its decision, the Court reviewed empirical research to determine the impacts of NEWS cameras in courtrooms. The bulk of evidence examined by the Court showed no significant correlation between the presence of cameras at trials and perceived prejudicial behavior or attitudes on the part of judges, witnesses, jurors or attorneys. But the Court relied on the relevant research only to a limited degree, frequently circumscribing its decision with reservations about the scientific nature of the data, the validity of its conclusions, and the pervasiveness of its implications. The more apparent rationales for the Court's decision lie in support of federalism, the ability of state judges to protect due process, and the notion of parity between...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钱德勒诉佛罗里达案:最高法院不愿支持电视审判
在1981年的钱德勒诉佛罗里达案中,美国最高法院裁定,各州可以不顾被告的反对,尝试对审判进行摄像报道。然而,法院拒绝批准电视审判或给予广播公司电视审判的明确权利。在作出裁决时,最高法院审查了实证研究,以确定新闻摄像机在法庭上的影响。法院审查的大部分证据表明,在审判中安装摄像机与法官、证人、陪审员或律师的偏见行为或态度之间没有显著的相关性。但是,最高法院只是在有限的程度上依赖有关的研究,经常对数据的科学性、结论的有效性及其影响的普遍性作出保留,从而限制其裁决。最高法院做出这一决定的更明显的理由在于支持联邦制,州法官保护正当程序的能力,以及……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Whither applied interpersonal communication research: A practical perspective for practicing practitioners The importance of context in applied communication research Relational communication in applied contexts: Current status and future directions Differences in how physicians and patients perceive physicians’ relational communication Privacy in marital relationships
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1