Public trials and mentions Estes v. Texas, a case in which the U.S

Paper details:

In an approximately 500-word post (can be longer if necessary), please respond to the following prompt: Your text discusses public trials and mentions Estes v. Texas, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s conviction because the presence of television cameras was a distraction to the parties in the case. Of course, cameras are still allowed in the courtroom at times. In fact, at times we have the opportunity to watch trials on television or even watch them streamed live on the internet. What are your thoughts on having trials publicized not just to those in the courtroom, but to individuals across the country and maybe even the world? For instance, does this impact the integrity of trials/the criminal justice process? Why or why not? Does this serve as a distraction to those participating in the process because they know the trial is being broadcast (even if there are not as many cameras there that concerned the Court in Estes)? In the alternative, do you believe all criminal trials should be made available to the public? In other words, should we be able to watch all criminal trials (e.g., online or on TV) even if we are not able to be present in the courtroom to observe the trial? Why/Why not? Have you ever taken the time to watch a criminal trial that was being broadcast on TV or on the internet? Why/Why not? Please be sure NOT to copy and paste information from the internet as your discussion post.