Oklahoma Supreme Court considers pros, cons of televising bomb conspirator's case

The Associated Press

06.20.00

Printer-friendly page

OKLAHOMA CITY — Televising pretrial hearings in the state murder case of bombing conspirator Terry Nichols would not infringe on Nichols' right to due process and would help provide the public an unbiased view of the proceedings, a media attorney argued Monday in a state Supreme Court hearing.

"There's going to be pretrial publicity irrespective of the presence of TV," argued media attorney Bob Nelon. "Prejudice by the media would be less likely if the public were allowed to see for itself what happens in the courtroom."

Nelon is appealing a decision by the state Court of Criminal Appeals that bars television cameras from covering Nichols' scheduled Aug. 7 preliminary hearing and other pretrial proceedings.

The appellate court reversed a district court decision that allowed television coverage of the hearings, saying cameras in the courtroom would represent a violation of Nichols' due process rights guaranteed by both state and federal law.

Monday's hearing before state Supreme Court Referee Wayne Snow will result in a memo written by Snow to be used by the state Supreme Court as it considers Nelon's appeal.

Nelon asked the court to either throw out the appeals court's decision or to get rid of a state code allowing a defendant to veto the presence of cameras in a court proceeding.

"There is no line to differentiate between electronic and print media any more," Nelon said. "To deny television the same rights afforded to the print press would represent unwarranted discrimination."

Attorney Brian Hermanson, representing Nichols, argued that the appellate court's decision doesn't discriminate against television reporters.

"A (television) reporter can sit in a courtroom and take notes and then go outside to the camera and report," Hermanson said.

Hermanson said having the Supreme Court revisit the camera issue will only "create a large amount of publicity and cause more hardship" to Nichols' due process rights.

He said court precedent dictates that television coverage of a court proceeding can't fly in the face of a defendant's due process rights.

But Nelon argued the decision of the state appellate court was too "generalized," based on past court cases that don't necessarily relate to Nichols' trial.

"The court didn't discuss the facts (of Nichols' case) at all," Nelon said.

Nelon called the idea that televising the court proceedings will hurt Nichols' rights a "phantom fear." He said television coverage would only give the public a better understanding of Nichols and the case against him.

"The only image we have of Terry Nichols is that of a jackal surrounded by federal agents because that's all that's been available," Nelon said.

Nichols is charged with 160 state counts of first-degree murder in the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. State prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against him.

He is already serving a life sentence on a federal conviction of conspiracy and involuntary manslaughter.