By Molly Calo
Roughly 34% of podcast listeners listen to true crime podcasts.[1] True crime podcasts make up, on average, one fourth of the top 300 podcasts.[2] One of the top ten television shows in the United States on Netflix is labeled “true crime”.[3] Netflix has both “Crime Docuseries,” “Courtroom Documentaries,” “Binge-worthy True Crime TV Shows,” and “True Crime Docuseries” categories for customers to search through.[4]
With the rise of the popularity of true crime and the internet, viewers and listeners are given more opportunity to connect and interact with cases than ever before[5]. Due to this illusion of closeness to cases and new level of interaction, there have been calls to make all court proceedings live streamed. Today, with the growing technological capabilities of cell phones, it would be easier than it has ever been to live stream a court proceeding and get millions of views. But, does having a trial or proceeding live streamed or live broadcasted violate the Constitutional rights of the person charged? Or is it a way to ensure that the Sixth Amendment right to a fair, public trial of an accused person is guaranteed?
The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”[6] Generally, this is seen as the right to a “fair” trial. People have asked if the broadcasting of trials is a violation of the constitutional rights that the Sixth Amendment affords the accused.[7] Initially, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of trials not being broadcast.[8] Almost two decades later, the Court revisited the issue- holding that trials can be broadcast without violating the constitutional rights of the parties at play in a case.[9]
Federal Approach to Broadcasting Court Proceedings
Since there could be constitutional broadcasts of trials, the federal and state governments were able to shape for themselves how their courts would handle the broadcasting of trials.[10] Federal courts are more strict when it comes to cameras being in the federal criminal courtroom. In the 1988 the Federal Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom was formed.[11] However, when we were launched into the pandemic, courts had to quickly adapt and give cameras access to places they had not been allowed before.[12] While cameras are not allowed in Federal Criminal Courtrooms, now the judges in federal appeals courts and bankruptcy courts get to exercise discretion in deciding to allow video cameras in the courtroom.[13] Yet, there has been no action regarding live streaming trials on social media.[14]
State Approach to Broadcasting Court Proceedings
The states took varying approaches to the issue of broadcasting court proceedings.[15] In Virginia, courts are allowed to broadcast only certain types of court proceedings- excluding “juvenile proceedings…proceedings for the hearing of motions to suppress evidence, proceedings involving trade secrets…”[16] North Carolina allows for broadcasting of court proceedings, also making exceptions for certain types of proceedings.[17]
Potential Downfalls to Livestreaming Court Proceedings
If a court proceeding is live streamed, the jury has the potential to be exposed to the stream.[18] Additionally, with the ability to comment under videos on most platforms, the jury has the potential to see comments from the public on the case.[19] In that case, it would be the duty of the judge to put measures in place to protect the jury from the prejudicial information, but that is a daunting task.[20] Others argue that the livestreams limit the participation of the public, rather than increase it because they are not physically present in the courtroom.[21]
Moreover, there is concern that live streaming court proceedings would limit the candor in the courtroom that is required of our justice system. Defendants have complained that pre-trial media has impacted their right to a fair trial.[22] While the Court has not examined the issue, I can see those complaints offering a path for complaints about live streaming court proceedings, especially on platforms where public commenting is accessible. Additionally, live streamed court proceedings could impact jury pools, potentially limiting the ability of a defendant to face a jury of their peers.[23]
Potential Benefits to Livestreaming Court Proceedings
When a trial is live streamed, it has the potential to be viewed and heard more than when it is limited to a courtroom.[24] When a court proceeding is live streamed, there is increased public access to the proceeding.[25] A live streamed proceeding may provide a more accessible courtroom to those physically far away.
A live streamed court proceeding also allows for the viewer and future viewers to act as watch dogs.[26] Although there are transcripts and records, some believe that actually being able to hear and see things as they occurred in real time has the potential to be beneficial.[27] It is also seen by some as a protection against potential perjury since the public is widely, easily able to view a live stream rather than record, and report any misconduct.[28]
Furthermore, as seen in the examinations of how the levels of the judicial branch handle the issue, judges have discretion on when cameras are allowed in courtrooms during specific cases. There are some cases where the public should not see the material in the courtroom, and the courts are able to make those decisions at their discretion.[29] In those cases, it would be relatively simple for all cameras to be turned off for the duration necessary.
While some believe that we do not understand enough about the risks and benefits being able to live stream court proceedings can bring.[30] Others believe that the practice would be a blatant violation of the rights that the Sixth Amendment guarantees.[31] Live streamed court proceedings have drawn the interests of millions.[32] Now that the genre of true crime makes cases more widely accessible and known, some have voiced wanting more livestreaming or broadcasting of court proceedings- particularly in high profile cases. While the practice of live streaming or broadcasting court proceedings is not a direct violation of the Constitution, it presents benefits and costs to all of the parties involved. In the end, the court deciding the case is left to their discretion. However, they have the duty to balance the pros and cons, and to decide what is in the best interest of justice in each case.
——————————————————————————————————
[1] Sarah Naseer, et. al, True Crime Podcasts are Popular in the U.S., Particularly Among Women and Those With Less Formal Education, Pew Research Center (June 20, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/20/true-crime-podcasts-are-popular-in-the-us-particularly-among-women-and-those-with-less-formal-education/.
[2] Galen Stocking, et. al, A Profile of the Top-Ranked Podcasts in the U.S., Pew Research Center (June 15, 2023),https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2023/06/15/a-profile-of-the-top-ranked-podcasts-in-the-u-s/.
[3] Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/browse (last visited, Jan. 26, 2024).
[4] Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/browse (last visited, Jan. 26, 2024).
[5] Jean Murley, The Rise of True Crime: 20th-Century Murder and American Popular Culture 133 (2008)
[6]U.S. Const. amend. 6.
[7] Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 791 (2022).
[8] Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 795 (2022).
[9]Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 796 (2022).
[10]Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 797 (2022).
[11]U.S. Courts, History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts, (last visited Jan. 26, 2024),
[12]U.S. Courts, History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts, (last visited Jan. 26, 2024),
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-broadcasting-and-remote.; Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, §15001, 281 Stat 134 (2020).
[13]U.S. Courts, History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts, (last visited Jan. 26, 2024),
[14] Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 800 (2022).
[15]Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 797 (2022).
[16] Va. Code §19.2-266.
[17]N.C. R. Prac. Super. & Dist. Ct. 15.
[18]Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 801 (2022).
[19]See, Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 800, 801 (2022).
[20] See, Ryan Fenn, This Isn’t a Reality Show: How Social Media Livestreams of High Profile Criminal Trials May Violate One’s Right to a Fair Trial, 96 St. John’s L. Rev. 789, 800, 801 (2022).
[21] Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 121 (2021-2022).
[22] Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Social Media, Venue, and the Right to a Fair Trial, 71 Baylor L. Rev. 421, 423 (2019).
[23] Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Social Media, Venue, and the Right to a Fair Trial, 71 Baylor L. Rev. 421, 430 (2019).
[24] Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 120 (2021-2022).
[25] Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 120 (2021-2022).
[26] See, Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 124 (2021-2022).
[27]Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 124 (2021-2022).
[28]Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Social Media, Venue, and the Right to a Fair Trial, 71 Baylor L. Rev. 421, 423 (2019).
[29]Stephen Smith, The Online Criminal Trial as a Public Trial, 51 Southwestern L. Rev. 116, 129 (2021-2022).
[30] Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Social Media, Venue, and the Right to a Fair Trial, 71 Baylor L. Rev. 421, 422 (2019).
[31]See, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer, Social Media, Venue, and the Right to a Fair Trial, 71 Baylor L. Rev. 421, 455 (2019).
[32]Dana Feldman, 14M Watched as OJ Simpson was Granted Parole, Forbes (July 21, 2017, 7:26 p.m.), https://www.forbes.com/sites/danafeldman/2017/07/21/14million-watched-as-oj-simpson-was-granted-parole/?sh=9927a0a75486.