A courtroom sketch is an artistic depiction of the proceedings in a court of law. In many jurisdictions, the use of cameras in courtrooms is generally prohibited in order to prevent distractions and preserve privacy. This requires news media to rely on sketch artists for illustrations of the proceedings.
Creation
Courtroom sketch artists attend judicial proceedings as members of the public or as credentialed media depending on the venue and jurisdiction. Judges may require or allow artists to sit in a designated area or they may sit in general public seating. In some jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom[1][2] and Hong Kong,[3] courtroom artists are not permitted to sketch proceedings while in court and must create sketches from memory or notes after leaving the courtroom.[2]
Courtroom artists can quickly capture a moment on paper and then sell their work to media outlets who would otherwise be denied a visual record of the trial. They may be paid per sketch or on a per diem commission. Sketches are often sold to television stations, newswire services, newspapers, or the subjects of a sketch.[4] Courtroom sketches may also be acquired by institutional archives. The entire set of courtroom sketches related to the Lindy Chamberlain trial were purchased by the National Museum of Australia from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.[5] Selected works of American court artists Richard Tomlinson and Elizabeth Williams are held at the Lloyd Sealy Library at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.[6] Other collections of courtroom art include the works of Howard Brodie held in the Library of Congress,[7] the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, which holds selected court artwork from artist Aggie Kenny,[8] and early 20th century examples by William Hartley at the Crime Museum in London.[9]
A courtroom artist must work quickly, particularly during arraignment hearings where a witness may appear in court for only a few minutes. A television-ready illustration can be produced in that time, and viewed on television after a court proceeding is finished.[10] Courtroom artists can be barred from drawing alleged victims of sexual abuse, minors, and jurors or some witnesses in high-profile trials.[8]
In the United States
Courtroom sketches in the United States date back as far as the 19th century. Courtroom sketch artists were present for the trial of abolitionistJohn Brown and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.[11][12] By the mid-19th century, there were well-known court artists and printmakers such as George Caleb Bingham and David G. Blyth. Sketches during this era were reproduced as engravings in print publications, because photography was not a practical option for courtroom news coverage.[11]
As mass media technology advanced in the early twentieth century, courts began experimenting with allowing photography and radio broadcasts of court proceedings. Following the media "circus" surrounding the trial of Richard Bruno Hauptmann for the Lindbergh kidnapping, broadcasts from federal courtrooms were banned by Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.[13] Additionally, the American Bar Association adopted Judicial Canon 35, which prohibited the use of motion or still cameras in the courtroom and was codified into law by the majority of states.[13] On the other hand, no state or federal court prohibited the publication of courtroom sketches and courtroom sketch artistry continued.[14]
In 1973, courtroom artist Aggie Whelan (Kenny) was hired by CBS to illustrate the Gainesville Eight trial.[14] The judge presiding over the trial, Winston Arnow, ordered that no sketches were to be made in the courtroom and that no sketches of the trial be published, even if those sketches were made outside of the court from memory.[14] In the United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1974), the Fifth Circuit of Appeals overruled the trial judge's order and protected Aggie Whelan's right to create sketches and CBS's right to broadcast courtroom sketches.[15] The restrictions were too broad and violated both CBS and Whelan's First Amendment rights.[14]
Television networks began using sketches to illustrate courtroom events during news broadcasts in the 1960s.[8][15] As long as the artist arrived on time, and did not disturb the proceedings by making unnecessary noise, their presence was rarely challenged in most jurisdictions.[15] In jurisdictions where artists were restricted from sketching inside the courtroom, they created sketches from memory.[11] Courtroom artists including Ida Libby Dengrove protested these restrictions, and gradually courtrooms began allowing sketch artists to work during trials whilst seated in the public gallery.[11]
The reintroduction of cameras into courtrooms has been credited with a decline in courtroom sketch artists.[16][17] By 1987, courtroom photography was allowed in 44 states.[16] While the creation of Court TV and the O. J. Simpson murder case did cause renewed debate on whether or not courtroom photography should be allowed,[18][19] all 50 states allowed the use of courtroom photography by 2014.[8]
One of the most well-known courtroom artists was Walt Stewart, whose career began with the trial of Jack Ruby. Over the next 35 years while on retainer by various networks, he covered famous trials such as the Manson Family, Soledad Brothers, Angela Davis and Patty Hearst. His work now hangs in museums and his sketches of the Patty Hearst trial were purchased by Liza Minnelli.[25]
^ abSarner, Joshua (Summer 2000). "Comment: Justice, Take Two: The Continuing Debate over Cameras in the Courtroom". Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal. 10. Seton Hall University: 1053–1083.
^ abcdUnited States of America v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 497 F.2d 102 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 11 July 1974).
^ abcdCohen, Mark C. (1974). "United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.: Courtroom Sketching and the Right to Fair Trial". New England Law Review. 10. New England School of Law: 541–559.
^Paul, Angelique M. (1997). "Turning the Camera on TV: Does Televising Trials Teach Us". Ohio State Law Journal. 58. Ohio State University: 655–694.
^Pugsley, Robert A. "This Courtroom is not a Television Studio: Why Judge Fujisaki Made the Correct Call in Gagging the Lawyers and Parties, and Banning the Cameras from the O. J. Simpson Civil Case". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal. 17. Loyola Marymount University: 269–381.
^Owens, Susanne; Rowe, M. Jessica; Winiker, Barry M; Joe and Emily Lowe Art Gallery (15 August 1976). Contemporary courtroom artists: Anthony Accurso, Marilyn Church, Stephen Cohen, Ida Libby Dengrove, Albert Herr, Joseph Papin, Richard Tomlinson, Meryl Treatner, Betty Wells : March 3-28, 1976, Joe and Emily Lowe Art Gallery, Sims Hall, College of Visual and Performing Arts, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The Gallery. OCLC2372359.
^COURTROOM ARTISTS The East Hampton Star, "Opinion" section, East Hampton, New York, 23 May 1985