Tune in Monday. It may be your last chance to glimpse O.J. Simpson and his team of attorneys huddled at the defense table.
Judge Lance Ito angrily threatened to pull television's plug almost two months ago and ordered Monday's hearing. At issue is whether the presence of courtroom cameras endangers Simpson's right to a fair trial for the knife murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.If Ito orders a blackout, the hearing will provide the last televised Simpson trial proceeding.
Led by attorney Kelli Sager, 15 news organizations have filed documents as thick as city phone books to try to persuade Ito to keep a TV camera in his courtroom.
"The strongest issue is that in order for the public and the press to have real access in this day and age, you need to have camera coverage," Sager said. "That's print journalists and TV journalists alike."
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief asserting the public's right to be informed about Simpson's trial.
Gavel-to-gavel coverage and cable networks such as Court TV, which is devoted to nothing but the legal system, have changed the face of trial coverage.
Nonstop coverage of William Kennedy Smith's 1991 rape trial, followed by the 1992 state trial of four Los Angeles police officers charged with beating motorist Rodney King, proved that American viewers will indeed watch every tedious moment of the judicial process.
During the former football star's preliminary hearing this summer, millions of viewers revolted when live coverage was dumped in favor of soap operas. On July 6, for example, ABC lost nearly a third of its audience when the network switched from Simpson's hearing to "One Life to Live."
"It has the makings of being one of the most fascinating trials of the century," CNN spokesman Howard Polskin said. "And there's no indication that viewer interest has changed."
Under state law, Ito may banish all cameras and electronic media from his courtroom to protect the sanctity of its proceedings.
Federal courts do not allow cameras, and that ban was upheld in September by U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
"To us, this is a First Amendment issue," said KCBS-TV news director Larry Perret. "We have a right to be in the courtroom ."
Ito's ire was not set off by the in-court pool camera, which supplies video images to all news stations. Instead, he was angered by an erroneous report about physical evidence, twice broadcast in September by KNBC-TV. The station has since retracted the story, which said Nicole Simpson's blood was detected on a sock found at her ex-husband's home after the murders. KNBC said its reports were based on source information, some of which ultimately proved false.
Ito has allowed TV coverage of evidence hearings. Cameras have been absent from jury selection, which began Sept. 26. Twelve jurors were sworn in Thursday, and the search for 15 alternates begins Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, TV coverage would resume after jury selection is completed.
Neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors asked Ito for a courtroom camera ban.
Simpson lawyer Robert Shapiro, quoted in a court documents, said, "The public has a right to see the real evidence from the witness stand, and the only way that can be accomplished firsthand is either to have the trial in the (Los Angeles) Coliseum or on television."
The most vocal opposition has come in the mail, from people who have nothing to do with the case. More than 1,000 letters were sent to Ito after syndicated columnist Mike Royko urged readers in September to protest media "overexposure," a response that contradicts the trial's TV ratings.
"Please, please exercise the power you have to cut off all TV coverage of the O.J. Simpson case. It really serves no good purpose," pleaded Jane F. Finley of Oak Brook, Ill.
"My guess is he's probably going to allow the cameras to stay, but reserve the right to change his mind," said Paul Bergman, a professor of evidence and trial advocacy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
"He wants to make sure he gives both sides a fair trial," Bergman said, "and in this case that has to be decided on a day-by-day basis."