but the real impact came just a few years later. and charles lindbergh of course the first person to fly solo across the atlantic shortly after his defeat married and they had a child who on march 1st, 1932 was 18 months old. and a doctor with a handmade letter claimed into the second story of their home in hope will new jersey and obstructed the child. the missing child was found or

was discovered -- the fact the child was missing was discovered by his nurse a woman named betty about 10:00 that evening. a search in sood and there were ransom notes left that time of the kidnapping and thereafter and an intermediary that the colonel worked with had a number of encounters with the alleged a doctor or a -- abductor or abductors. the body of the baby was found and had been terribly abused and of course was dead. the search in sood and consumed public attention. the search for the abductor of the lindbergh baby. due course of late 1934 a german immigrant with a criminal record in his home country by the name of bruno richard was arrested and put on trial in the county

courthouse in flemington new jersey. the coverage of the lindbergh kidnapping trial was a sensation. a rogers and john called it the trial of the crime of the century. h. l. mencken said was the greatest news story since the resurrection, and indeed it appears to have been a sensation. this is the scene outside of the courthouse, people trying to get in to see the trial. >> new jersey faces questioning mysterious face is filling the courtroom, the border assistance takes down every word of the proceedings of machine, prez cables to the world centers describe the face to the court, colonel schwarzkopf and the lindbergh, colonel lindbergh,

betty, the murdered baby's nurse with the defense anxious wife of the accused and nervous bruno richard the prisoner whose life is in the hands of the jury. here they are, charles snyder in the grace knute, ethel stockton, philip, robert wearing eyeglasses, gray-haired elders smith, mrs. bna smith followed by howard baker. serious faces. talking things over with his wife, edward reilly chief defense counsel and mrs. on left with betty all faced with the tragedy told by these of little lindbergh, the first garment made by betty, the second is the shirt he wore over the first garment on the night he was kidnapped and last but not least thus leading suit identified as the one the baby war which the prosecution contends is the one

turned over and return for the ransom. again in the picture she is reminded of that tragic night by the little from guard torn from his suit. he smiles as he leaves the courtroom. is he guilty or not guilty? comments by the author and words and still more words of evidence of doubt of identification and words that span oceans and continents and interest on the street from new york to timbuktu or different reporters cover the trial turned out coffee to the tune of sticking tease. >> the defense counsel was hired and paid for by the newspapers and returned for the story. well, the news reels cameras and these images which you seem were shown in theaters across the

country during the course of the trial. the news cameras were permitted in the courtroom. the judge permitted still photography and film recording in the courtroom. but he limited the coverage to the events outside of the trial itself. at least that was his order. the judge did permit the participants to reenact the events related to the trial and putting, including eyewitness testimony implicating him. >> that is the man accusing fingers pointed as the supreme court justice and the intensely interested the jury hear witness after witness. here is the jury. 12 men and women who hold his life in their hands. study these faces. housewives, farmers, teachers, laborers, stenographers, it difficult section of american life. they alone must decide whether he is innocent or guilty. this witness, joseph, taxi driver who delivered the ransom

note at hoffman said that is the man. this witness, 87-year-old german told his dramatic story. from his house leading to the home he saw the car approached like this, is better of the corner and almost upset in the ditch. they stopped, the driver blared and he points out of -- kaufman. that is the man. he told how he paid the $50 ran some. he looks directly at the accused. john is bruno richard huffman. >> to facilitate the filming, the judge permit a sound booth -- soundproof booth to be built in the courtroom but unbeknownst to him, the crew operating the film camera in the sound proof surreptitiously recorded the trial and as a result, we have

footage of some of the trial itself. the prosecutor in the case was david willis, then 39-years-old and the attorney general of the state of new jersey and interestingly enough the law firm is still a prominent law firm in the state of new jersey. the ransom money was paid in gold certificates. gold certificates which were due to be retired in april, 1933. a member of the ransom was paid in 32. the idea being this would force the recipient to spend the money and that would facilitate tracing. the basket containing some of the gold certificates was found at his residence and here is part of his cross-examination. >> listen to the search and cross-examination.

[inaudible] hispanic during the cross-examination he contradicts himself and is forced to admit that he lied. >> [inaudible] >> we don't often have cross-examination quite like that in the courts.

but obviously in the aftermath of the trial there was a widespread national reaction against cameras in the courtroom because of all of the intense emotions that the coverage of the trial had generated. bayonet it was cameron numbers 35 which stated the proceedings in the court should be conducted with dignity and decorum and taking the photographs and filming sessions of the court or recesses and broadcasting the court proceedings is inconsistent with that. well, of course, what happened is the advance of technology. and although in the wake of the experience, 44 of the states prohibited cameras in the courtroom gradually that began to break down steve by state by state. and by 1980 many states moved to the model whereby trials could

be broadcast and so the issue once again percolated up to the supreme court which visited the issue in 1981. the case arose of florida. coverage was sought by the television affiliate of "the washington post" and so the supreme court had to revisit the opinions it had issued in the speed case of 1965. and in this case, the supreme court said there was no absolute bar to the cameras in the courtroom that cameras were not themselves inconsistent with due process and the trial rights. and as it often happens from the states, matters percolated up to the federal courts. and 1990 the federal judicial center authorized the study and a project which revisited the

issue of the provision of cameras in the district court rooms and an extensive pilot project was commissioned and yielded substantial evidence that cameras could be used consistent with due process. well, that was all going along fine until this happened. and once again as the trial shifted on the issue so the o.j. simpson experience shifted the ground with respect to the study and progress wasn't made at all on this issue in the federal courts as a result of that experience until perhaps very recently. ..

>> but when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, society immediately has a vital interest in that for two runs. one, society needs the creation of new life for the next

generation, but secondly, society is its vital interests are actually threatened by the responsibility that an unintentional and unwanted pregnancy will mean that the child is born out of wedlock and is raised by in all likelihood its mother alone, and that directly implicates society's vital interests. that is nonsense that you can enact a proposition that walls off the citizens of this state from a fundamental right because you're worried otherwise children might be preoccupied be issues of sexuality. that, of course, if it was a justification, it would equally warrant them in comic books, television, and other conversations with other children. [laughter] >> the first, of course, was

chuck cooper representing the proponents of proposition 8, and the sons was ted olson representing the plaintiffs in the in this case, the rerespondents in the court of appeals. well, if the broadcast of the trial was different from what you've just seen, i submit the best evidence is an actual clip of the trial. what i'm going to show you is david's cross-examination of a profession at the colleges. the issue is whether a ban on permitting same-sex couples to marry fits the professor's definition of official or state-sanctioned discrimination. >> that's what you refer to as official discrimination? >> legally enforced rules that

have an effect on gays and lesbians. >> that's what you refer to as official discrimination; is that true? i'm trying to get your word. >> maybe legal is a better word. i don't know how you want to describe it. various different ways to say the same thing. >> what word would you use because i just want to use your language. >> official would be fine. >> official, okay. by official discrimination, you mean discrimination legally enforced, discrimination by the state; correct? >> i think that's fair to say, yeah. >> now, are you aware of any of what you call official discrimination against gays and lesbians in this country today other than the don't ask, don't tell policy?

>> i'm trying to think of other laws out or official policies that discriminate on that basis. obviously, what you're looking at is one thing would be the delma policy; right? >> there you go. >> okay, so i know that's what you're getting at; right. [laughter] >> that'd be another example. >> okay, okay. >> if you're looking at adoption, some states treat heterosexuals differently than homosexuals; correct?

>> i think only a couple states state why policies actually restrict adoption. now, arkansas is an example where the restriction is on unmarried couples so that could be heterosexual or same sex. >> yes, but in arkansas they put that in at the same time they put in a law that said the gays and lesbians couldn't marry; correct? >> that's correct. >> that means because gays and lesbians can't marry, by definition they're not a married person, so they can't adopt; correct? >> that is correct, but it also applies to heterosexual couple as well. >> but they can marry. >> they have to marry in order to tonight. >> gays and lesbians can't marry, so they can't adopt; correct? >> that's the current law.

>> well, i think that makes the point. all of us who have been trial judges or lawyers know that in a trial, there are those long periods of silence that occur. there's undoubtedly lots of tedium in trials. one of my colleagues has a remedy for the problem. he takes a sharp pencil, puts it on the bench, he takes his finger, puts on the eraser end of the pencil, his heel of his hand on the bench and when the trial gets today yous, his hands fall on the pencil. [laughter] there are those moments when not much happens, and the other interesting point is the train of examination of a witness that occurs only in a trial court

really doesn't occur even in an appellate court where the art is between a judge and a lawyer, oftentimes as pointed out in the panel this morning on issues that are legal in nature and which float above the kin of most people, but that's much less true in the trial court where you can see a train of argument, a train of thinking, a train of logic follows, and so if any, of course, i disclose my bias here, i think a broadcast of a trial would be even more interesting than the broadcast of an appellate proceedings. well, there was so much interest in the proposition 8, the perry case, that several groups, not just one, but several groups did reenactments of the trial. this is an image from one of the reenactments. you can see why i'm not in favor

of it -- >> [laughter] when you see who they cast as the judge. they got a transcript of the entire proceeding, and they had actors who played each of the roles, and they reenacted the trial from beginning to end, and, indeed, they've gone even a step further than a dramatic reenactment. there is a musical. [laughter] problems of technology. [laughter] ♪

♪ ♪ it's a brand new day ♪ with the time to be straight or gay ♪ ♪ nothing could be wrong ♪ join us for the day ♪ where nothing can go wrong ♪ nobody is watching ♪ it's time to spread hate ♪ and put it in the constitution ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wells bible says a lot of

things ♪ ♪ doesn't the bible say these ?eets ♪ -- >> well, what would you rather have people learn how the courts function? [laughter] would you rather have them listen to the musical, a reenactment or the real thing? i submit to you because we're in the center, i submit to you that's the way things are, but would you rather have people learn what happens in courts and in trials and proceedings by these reenactments or by the real thing? i submit to you that the real thing is far better e far informative for the public and far better for teaching people how our institutions work than the kind of reenactments which

we have in the prop 8 case, the judge judy's