I have not fully had the opportunity to evaluate the impact of cameras in the courtroom.

If you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.

If you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide a certain measure of truth from the public.

Whereas if you have a camera in the courtroom, there's no filtering. What you see is what's there.

And if you take the cameras out of the courtroom, then you hide, I think, a certain measure of truth from the public, and I think that's very important for the American public to know.

And the American public was able to make up their own mind whether this verdict was a just verdict or not. So I think there's a lot of value in the public being able to see how the system works or doesn't work, so I think there's a definite value there.

I know the pundits and the news media have carried a lot of commentary about cameras in the courtroom, and there's a lot of controversy about it as a result of the Simpson case. But I have not had enough time to step back and enough time to evaluate that.

The American public got to see for themselves every day, all day, how this trial progressed. There's a lot of value in the public being able to see how the system works.

The problem with not having a camera is that one must trust the analysis of a reporter who's telling you what occurred in the courtroom. You have to take into consideration the filtering effect of that person's own biases.