From the WSJ Opinion Archives
LEISURE & ARTS
Peering at the Jury
Broadcasting deliberations would be of value
"Frontline" welcomes last week's decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to seek further briefings and oral arguments in the case involving our efforts to film jury deliberations in a capital case. Our filming was halted when the district attorney of Harris County asked the court to overturn Judge Ted Poe's order permitting us to cover the case. The judge's order has provoked national controversy over the sanctity of the jury room and what impact cameras may have on the deliberative process. In issuing his order allowing "Frontline" unique access, Judge Poe, a 20-year veteran on the bench in Harris County and a former prosecutor, has shown his faith in the American jury system and the educational value in opening up the process for the nation to see.
Because the case involves the death penalty, filming the Texas jury would make television history, but it would not be the first time jury deliberations have been filmed. PBS, CBS and ABC have all filmed jury deliberations in criminal trials, including murder trials. When interviewed after those broadcasts, jurors, judges and attorneys reported that cameras had no discernible impact on the jurors' deliberations or their verdicts. Based on this experience, "Frontline" is confident that fear of the camera's impact is unwarranted.
A bit of background. "Frontline" first went to Harris County more than two years ago in search of a revealing way to understand the growing controversy about the death penalty--not only in Texas but across the nation. Our ambition was to examine, in-depth, what happens in a single death case, through each phase of the process, told through the multiple perspectives of those who do the work themselves. However impassioned the arguments may be over capital punishment, or whether jury deliberations should remain secret by custom or law, most of us stand far removed from the very real process of capital justice.
As the project unfolded, and after months of legal research, "Frontline" concluded that Texas law clearly gives a trial judge the legal authority and discretion to permit the filming of jury deliberations. "Frontline" decided it would ask Judge Poe for permission to film the first appropriate capital trial assigned to his court. When the case of 17-year-old Cedric Harrison--accused of the carjacking and murder of 35-year-old Felix Sabio--moved forward to trial, we asked the judge for a court order and he issued one.
Before filming could begin, Judge Poe insisted that Mr. Harrison, along with his defense lawyers, had to consent to the filming of deliberations and had to agree to waive the issue of filming in any post-conviction appeal. Eventually, the defendant consented, his lawyer consented, and his mother consented. The cameras rolled.
In the jury-selection process to date, only 14 of the 110 called expressed reservations about the filming in their initial questionnaire, and those folks were excused, by agreement, and without objection from either the prosecution or the defense. Individual questioning of the remaining potential jurors began and the first eight told the judge in open court that cameras would not affect their deliberations or their verdicts. Jury selection was progressing, without incident, until the Harris County District Attorney, Charles Rosenthal, petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals to block the filming.
Our entire criminal justice system is based on a fundamental trust in jurors. We trust jurors to be fair and impartial, that they will ignore inadmissible evidence, discount improper testimony, and listen to a judge's instructions. In short, we trust they will follow the law. Why, then, does the district attorney, in this case, discount jurors when they say their deliberations and verdicts will not be compromised by cameras? Why does he ignore the experience of jurors, judges and prosecutors in the jury deliberations filmed in other jurisdictions? His apparent distrust of Harris County jurors and in the jury system itself is difficult to understand.
In Judge Poe's permission to "Frontline," he took great pains to ensure that the jury deliberations in this case would remain private while they are actually happening. The taped deliberations will be sealed daily by the court and not released until after the verdict. Nobody will be in the room or in a position to influence the discussions or the verdict.
Arguably, one of the critical tests of any democratic society is how its judicial system decides whether a defendant should live or die. And just this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that only juries--not judges--should have the power to make these decisions. Now more than ever is the time to examine the capital justice system and the role that citizens may be called upon to play. In Texas the jurors have agreed to be filmed, and Judge Poe has designed a careful set of rules for "Frontline" to follow. For 20 years we have been broadcasting awarding-winning documentaries on PBS. We are ready to do our job. We trust the Texas Court of Appeals will reject the district attorney's unfounded fears and let us proceed.
Mr. Wiley is executive editor of "Frontline."
