The Judge in the Scott Peterson case today issued this order prohibiting television coverage of his preliminary hearing. We think it's the correct decision. Hearsay is allowed at preliminary hearings, which is not allowed at trial. Evidence is admitted at prelims that later may be determined to have been illegally obtained or to be irrelevant and therefore barred from the trial. Once the public and potential jury pool has heard the inadmissible evidence, how do can you unring the bell? In our view, the unfair prejudice to the defendant outweighs any right of the public to view the proceeding in their living rooms.

Here's a news article on the ruling. We find it interesting that only the prosecution objected to the cameras. Mark Geragos, Peterson's media savvy attorney, had asked for the prelim to be closed to the media and public. But once the judge ruled against him on that motion, he said he didn't object to televising the hearing, because it would provide a more accurate depiction than second hand news reports. He has a point, which is one of the reasons we always say, the defendant's postion should be the guiding light in deciding whether to admit cameras in the courtroom. Trials should not be televised to the general public over a defendant's objections. The Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial applies to the accused. Particularly in a death case, that right should trump any first amendment right of the public to watch the proceedings at home.