When it comes to those who are accused and their right to defend themselves, it is perfectly reasonable to expect relevant evidence to be made public, and I am in favour of open justice.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Court proceedings, except for certain limited situations, are open to the public. This is for the protection of the accused, to be certain to ascertain that there is a fair trial.
Everything needs to be public. The legitimacy of the courts comes from the fact that they reason openly, on the record, based on facts.
And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.
If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.
Most criminal defendants do not get adequate representation because there are not enough public defenders to represent them. There is a lot that is wrong.
One of the risks of a public trial is a public verdict.
Everybody has a right to be defended, and every lawyer has a duty to defend people accused. And my office is to defend him, to discuss the accusation point by point, as I think this is a normal step in a democracy.
The Court's objection to cameras may be much more a product of history and process than an unwillingness to be placed in the public spotlight.
It's extremely damaging to a fair trial to have people reaching judgment about the case in the newspapers and on the radio before the facts are heard in a case.
It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.