No Judge Ito, he.

Opening statements begin today in the trial of R&B star R. Kelly at the storied Cook County Criminal Courts Building in Chicago. Kelly was indicted on child pornography charges in 2002 in connection with a home movie he allegedly made a decade ago, in which he ostensibly had sex with a girl who some have claimed may have been as young as 13.

There is, however, a major wrinkle in the prosecutor’s case – the supposed victim insists it is not she in the video. Prosecutors say they will introduce testimony from witnesses contradicting the woman’s assertions, and also plan to call a woman who will testify that she and Kelly had sex when she was underage.

Leonard L. Cavise, a professor at DePaul University’s law school, posits in an article in the New York Times that if the purported victim is at all credible, and the prosecution can’t show she’s been bought off, her testimony can’t fail to cause reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, he continues, Chicago has been made a laughingstock. “It’s as if they said, ‘Let’s spend millions of dollars and six years, shut down an important courtroom, cause a media circus and end up either convicting him of nothing at all or on some charge that has nothing to do with what you really should get him on if he’s guilty: sex with children.”

Indeed, the proceedings are surrounded by much hoopla, with press coverage from all over the world. The Chicago Tribune, which has promised its readers “gavel to gavel” coverage, reports that press from CNN, People Magazine, Agence France-Presse, and the Steve Dahl show will all cozy up together on a courtroom bench to take in the proceedings.

Presiding over the trial is Judge Vincent Gaughan, a tough, no-nonsense jurist who is doing everything he can to ensure that what takes place inside his courtroom will be measured and controlled. While it’s a given that having a fair and impartial judge in any criminal trial is essential, in a high-profile case the need for firm but sensitive control is paramount. The glare of media coverage can subvert the best intentions of even the most experienced judge.

Judge Gaughan seems to have a unique approach. Predictably, he has entered a gag order barring lawyers and court personnel connected with the case from speaking with reporters. Less predictably, he jailed a woman who was in court on her own probation violation after she snapped photos of R. Kelly with her cell phone, and ordered the phone destroyed. And last week during jury selection, he complained about reporters sticking their chewing gum under the courtroom benches, threatening to order DNA testing on the wads of Wrigley’s and bring the culprits to justice.

Joking or not, everyone is on notice to tread – and chew – carefully in Judge Gaughan’s courtroom. CR

Sketching their flock.

On Friday, the Sean Bell trial ended when the judge announced his verdict acquitting all three police officers of all charges. You won’t see any photographs or videos of that dramatic moment, though, because there is still no First Amendment right to photograph or televise court proceedings – despite the impassioned arguments of journalists over the years.

Indeed, very little has changed on this front since 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Estes v. Texas that defendant (and friend of Lyndon) Billy Sol Estes had been denied a fair trial owing to the disruption caused by live television coverage of the trial. While the Court recognized that advances in technology might make television coverage less disruptive in the future, its held that its judgment in this case had to “take the facts as they are presented today.” The Court revisited the issue in 1981 in Chandler v. Florida, when it held that Florida could allow electronic coverage of criminal trials even if the defendant objected. Following Chandler, most states allowed cameras in at least some of their courts.

So while the federal judiciary continues to prohibit all electronic coverage, there is a patchwork of regulations covering the state courts. In New York, it is allowed in appellate courts subject to the individual court’s approval. At the trial level it was allowed, subject to certain restrictions, from 1987 to 1997, when the legislature permitted a ban on Section 52 of the Civil Rights Law to expire. Several trial judges ruled that Section 52 was unconstitutional and permitted electronic coverage in their courtrooms. But in 2005, the New York State Court of Appeals ended the debate when it affirmed a lower court’s ruling against Court TV’s challenge to the law.

Cameras in the court continues to be a hot topic among defense lawyers. No matter which side you come down on, however, there is no doubt that the courtroom sketch artists are a part of the rich tapestry of this city’s dramatic trial culture which would be lost if the electronic journalists were to prevail. Surely the most colorful of these artists is the mother-daughter team of Andrea and Shirley Shepard, who work together and sign their sketches “Shepard.” Today’s New York Times City Room blog carried a wonderful interview and video of the pair discussing their coverage of the Sean Bell trial, and how they worked furiously to capture Detective Michael Oliver at the moment of his acquittal.

You know you’ve made the big time when the Shepards show up at your client’s arraignment or trial. Check out their work here. Now who’s that distinguished looking white-haired guy standing on the right? CR