Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the swindling conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been carried live on both television and radio. News photography was permitted throughout the trial and parts of it were broadcast as well. // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters or law reports. ... 1965 (MCMLXV) was a common year starting on Friday (the link is to a full 1965 calendar). ... The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... The plaintiff, claimant, or complainant is the party initiating a lawsuit, (also known as an action). ... Billy Sol Estes was a close associate and neighbor of president Lyndon B. Johnson in Texas prior to president John F. Kennedys election. ... Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). ...

There was no doubt that the Court was displeased with the intensive pretrial and trial coverage, but its biggest concern was the presence of cameras at the two-day long pretrial hearing. It included at least 12 still and television photographers, three microphones on the judge's bench, and several aimed at the jury's box and attorney's table. When it was time for the trial to be held, it was moved about 500 miles away and the judge had imposed rather severe restrictions on press coverage. However, the justices did mark the notion that cameras would return to courtrooms eventually: A camera is a device used to take pictures (usually photographs), either singly or in sequence, with or without sound recording, such as with video cameras. ... A microphone, sometimes referred to as a mike or mic (pronounced mike), is an acoustic to electric transducer that converts sound into an electrical signal. ... A judge or justice is an official who presides over a court. ... A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law. ... An attorney is someone who represents someone else in the transaction of business: For attorney-at-law, see lawyer, solicitor, barrister or civil law notary. ...

It is said that the ever-advancing techniques of public communication and the adjustment of the public to its presence may bring about a change in the effect of telecasting upon the fairness of criminal trials. But we are not dealing here with future developments in the field of electronics. Our judgment cannot be rested on the hypothesis of tomorrow but must take the facts as they are presented today."

Indeed the facts did change with technology. Sixteen years later the Supreme Court ruled in Chandler v. Florida, 449 US 560 (1981) that a state could allow the broadcast and still photography coverage of criminal trials. // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters or law reports. ... 1981 (MCMLXXXI) was a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

External link

• Estes v. Texas - full text of decision on Findlaw.com