The one of Tom Brady has to be the best of all time. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/tom-brady-courtroom-sketch-m...
I'll add Guy Fieri to the list.
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5273e8bc69bedd1614a...
The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
21–27 of 27 posts
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#22Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?
I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well. One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety…
I agree, but also think that neither is really necessary, courtrooms could have CCTV, that could be archived and made available to people that are involved with the case. A professional photographer or illustrator in a courtroom, now that I think about it, seems bonkers.
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#23Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?
Because no one poses for a courtroom sketch. Just by force of habit, the photographer would be a distraction and jurors would be looking at the camera, smiling, fixing their hair/teeth, and not focusing on the information being presented.
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well indeed, I suppose I should have also said "aside from photography being disallowed". Perhaps to phrase another way, why could anyone be against the reintroduction of photography into courtrooms?
I think it's an extension of trying to avoid the effects of "conviction in the court of public opinion". Imagine seeing a coworker on trial on the news. Or imagine being on trial, declared innocent, but most people just saw the fact you were on trial and recognize you by your picture. There's also details like having the jury's faces be out there. Personally I think a lot of this is "solvable", and having video foota…
This sounds like an implicit discussion about semi-secret courts for the pure reason of defending a potentially innocent defendant.
What happens if X is tried for $crime and is found not guilty? Court of public opinion may still see them as guilty, and keep away rental properties, jobs, and social network away from them. And now since communication is in ms across the world, perhaps we ought to come back to this.
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#25Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?
The article states that cameras were allowed in the US until the Lindbergh trial, which was the 'trial of the century' of that year. It was a zoo in the courtroom, so the Bar barred cameras. But now, with digital cameras that can operate quietly without a flash in ordinary indoor light, that objection would seem obsolete.
Plus couldn't they institute a lottery system. Offer ten slots for photographers, to avoid a "zoo", but still allow for photography. All photos would be made public, so everyone gets images regardless of news org.
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article states that cameras were allowed in the US until the Lindbergh trial, which was the 'trial of the century' of that year. It was a zoo in the courtroom, so the Bar barred cameras. But now, with digital cameras that can operate quietly without a flash in ordinary indoor light, that objection would seem obsolete.
Plus couldn't they institute a lottery system. Offer ten slots for photographers, to avoid a "zoo", but still allow for photography. All photos would be made public, so everyone gets images regardless of news org.
[deleted]
Re: The Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration
#27Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?
I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well. One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety…
This reminded me of an article I read years ago in Spy magazine. It was a collection of cliches from court reporting, lots of different cases where the defendant was described as "emotionless as the guilty verdict was read out".
After about 20 examples of famously (to different degrees) guilty criminals it followed up with another 10 or so where the defendant was later cleared of the crime when new evidence came out, but still they sat "emotionless" as they were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit.