Cameras in court undermine right to a fair trial, says Michael Jackson’s ex-lawyer

MICHAEL Jackson’s ex-lawyer has warned that letting TV cameras into courtrooms in the US has made it difficult to get a fair trial.

Mark Geragos was commenting on the first British TV broadcast of a judge’s sentencing live from the Old Bailey in London.

Speaking to Mark Dolan on GB News on Friday, Mr Geragos said: “I have argued for many years that the US has imported from the UK, a kind of a tabloid-isation, if you will, of the criminal law.

“Well, the one of the things that we did not import from the UK was your Contempt of Court Act, which basically is a counterbalance to doing the massive publicity that you normally get in criminal cases.

“Obviously, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was an exception. That was incredible, though, by the time it was done, I almost felt like it was a criminal case.

“The fact remains that one of the problems is it offers transparency. It offers, presumably, at least in theory, an educational vehicle for the public.

“But on the downside, it’s very difficult to get a fair trial. There is a kind of a gladiatorial aspect to it.”

He said: “The only [US] courts that are televised are state courts. The federal courts do not televise trials, which is one of the reasons you didn’t see delay [Ghislaine] Maxwell’s trial because that was in the federal court.

“The US Supreme Court, which is a federal court, does audio streaming, meaning that you can’t see it but you can hear it, the proceedings of the US Supreme Court but other than that, it’s only at the state level as of right now, where we televised trials.”

Asked if televising courts might actually increase crime, he told GB News: “A lot of people who made the argument I think there’s a compelling nature to it, that part of the school shooting problem is that you find predominantly it’s white males of a very young age.

“That the publicity attended to it ends up kind of attracting that – I don’t know that I buy into all of that.

“But yes, it does cheapen the system and a lot of ways people get a what I think is a skewed view of what lawyering and judging is all about, but I think I would be more judicious, pun intended, in the use of which cases get televise.

“But when you have it generally, the televised trials are what I have affectionately or not so affectionately called the supersised trials.

“It’s difficult enough to get a fair trial in a case that has that much attention, then you throw this gasoline on the fire, so to speak, it makes it even more difficult.

“It operates the same way as the internet does, you know, you get online clicks, so what is trying to be done is maximise eyeballs.

“It’s one of the reasons you don’t see a whole lot of televised probate cases or unlawful eviction cases.

“I think that all the added attention makes it more difficult generally for famous or celebrity people to get fair trials. For infamous people who are known for their notoriety it works in the opposite way.”