Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- back in session on the docket today a ban on courtroom cameras.
In a case that has captured the attention of the nation.
A judge deciding to ban cameras during next Monday's court appearance for the Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes and possibly -- after.
That is -- formal charges on Monday are expected to be filed against the man accused of shooting 71 people killing twelve.
The judge says that he made the decision based on the objections by the suspect's attorney -- they don't want him to be found that now he won't be.
He would not get into the specifics of why.
Now there are questions about what this could mean for the trial for the victims.
And the American public.
Who have taken an interest in this case for obvious reasons one woman who survived the ordeal says she wants the cameras and.
He wanted the attention so I think he should get every bit of it especially the bad attention and he's getting.
And I think the people should be able to see.
His reaction to that.
Naming every victim.
I just want him to realize is -- think.
He's not so -- anymore.
Former defense starting out now former prosecutor now defense attorney mark I -- and -- people who is a defense attorney.
You tell -- mark Mark -- this in your view is the right decision.
Well personally I don't -- legally I think the judge might be on solid legal footing here.
He needs to be able to show -- -- to keep the cameras at a courtroom that there's a substantial likelihood that it would interfere with -- defendant's right to a fair trial.
I think that's probably is weakest argument the strongest argument he'll probably hang his hat on would be it would interfere with the decorum and dignity of the court.
And he -- again point to numerous.
-- public trials where you've got you know the frenzy going on.
And the third one -- like a -- -- it's kind of like any unique adverse effects from it.
He could -- to potential.
Copycat killers who would wanna watch every detail who would hear from the defendants -- and -- want to copy that.
I just think that you know this is gonna end in conviction and the judge probably wants to minimize the issues on appeal.
You know -- can be cathartic for the the surviving victims for their family members not that not all of them can.
Travel to the court house and wait in the security lines and so on and not all of them want to be in the same room with this defendant.
To watch justice.
As it's served.
If that's the argument on the other side not to mention the nation's interest in this case.
Maybe you're right.
This massacre unlike other crimes impacts everybody in the country this is not just a crime against these families.
This impacts everybody.
And all not only the families and relatives of of the victims but you meet mark we -- we all have children with single parent.
And a six year old girl there was a six year old girl killed in the movie theater.
We no longer have an expectation of safety in a movie theatre we all now have a right though to confront this homes by watching him in court.
And I I think this is a patently wrong ruling and I think people are angry they're grieving and that this would be a conduit.
To allow people nationwide.
To work through their anger and grief to watch this trial to work through -- to deprive all of us of this I think is very insensitive.
What is was a very capricious rule what.
The rationale mark what's going to happen on Monday and what -- the rationale for allowing cameras in.
Last -- this week and letting us see him.
This defendant with his crazy colored hair it is strange demeanor.
But then not letting us see him actually answer to the charges as they're brought against him.
Only the judge knows on purely speculating but maybe the judge said all right I'll try out this camera thing it's the -- -- how it goes.
And perhaps you didn't like the frenzy that surrounded it.
Perhaps he feels that you know it's going to adversely affect.
This on appeal again that's where it's headed Megan this guy if he gets death which seems to be likely know what's gonna buy this insanity defense.
So he's going to be bouncing around the appellate court for twenty to thirty years and the judge either lessons or eliminates one of the main arguments that is that the adverse publicity affected his right to a fair trial.
Now judges don't.
Depends on the -- reference but judges don't have the light cameras in the courtroom because it can lead to grandstanding.
It needs to armchair quarterbacking by people at home -- And we all remember the OJ case and judge Alito who ruined it for a lot of courtroom cameras.
We're right I beg your erected generally speaking judges don't like cameras out here California and hardly any judges -- -- probably because of the OJ Simpson -- again this is unique case and I'm mark will agree with us.
Jury trials as they are our low stage drama so I don't see how this is gonna impact the decorum of a courtroom I mean we train witnesses -- how to testify how to dress.
That that this really is no different by having a camera -- a courtroom people are already in the lower growth coming out acting.
Got -- You know Megan.
We're talking about and Brian raise an interesting argument I agree it's what the victims want.
But here's what they might not know I've been doing this twenty years the system bends over backwards to protect the defendant.
About his rights it -- anger them more than they possibly could now.
Is this going to be his camera so far I think it's just covering Monday's hearing right is this a ruling for the rest of the case mark.
I don't believe that he's ruled that they will be out forever I think that would suggest all you like -- an -- -- -- this is it suggesting likely.
And he's gonna LaSalle on Monday with the odds -- -- gonna let us rule come in on trial.
I agree and quite frankly the founding fathers wanted.
Open courts right the -- simply give us extra finance and that leads me to my next point which is that gag order that's been put in place.
On the attorneys in this case Brian we're not busted no word I would not -- to hear from the lawyers what what -- this I mean.
What how was all of that going to -- these guys -- we hear from lawyers all the time that's what -- -- of the jury pool is -- it at.
That weed out those who have an inherent bias that they cannot get beyond.
Let your right mark and mark does raise a good point about you know the founding father and wanna protect defendants wanna preserve appeals you know enough is enough really.
-- this is the most unique massacre ever does is arguably the biggest -- -- ever.
-- entire country everybody in this country -- a right to see what's going on everybody wants to know what's going on.
Take off our lawyer hats and when I heard the news this -- in my initial reaction was -- man you kidding me.
I wanna -- see what's going on as a father of a little girl I wanna know what's going on.
People across this country should be deprived of that I encourage people and write letters to this judge write letters put we all want to and allow -- to become a hammer.
Well listen lets not pull up the pitchforks you know we all want to this process to be done fairly so we don't have to repeated again -- 1020.
However many years of god forbid there's some appellate court that finds that something was done improperly.
So that's something to consider we don't want to go through this ever again.
That's true Tim -- we'll see we'll see how how he handles that I go forward basis generally good debate thank you so much.
Filter by section