The theatrics that occurred during the court trial of a certain ex-football player who was acquitted of murder in 1995 concerns some people about the possibility of allowing the media's cameras in the South Dakota courtrooms.

"If I was to give you a one-sentence answer: O.J. Simpson," South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long said when asked why lawyers, judges and others in the state's legal system might be ambivalent about cameras in the courtroom.

"It was a great education opportunity for the public to understand how the criminal justice system works and why it is the way it is," he said. "The opportunity was there and it was handled very badly. It was appalling. It was awful."

Long is a member of a 22-person committee that is studying the feasibility of having cameras in South Dakota's circuit courtrooms

A new state law on July 1 repealed the existing ban on cameras in South Dakota's circuit courtrooms. The law, however, does not mean cameras will be allowed.

The committee will make a recommendation to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which will decide whether cameras should be allowed in circuit courts and if so, what if any restrictions should exist.

Many states allow cameras in court but many have restrictions, such as not showing a rape victim giving testimony.

Long said there are quite a few restrictions that would have to be discussed if the cameras were approved, like shielding certain witnesses, the jury, sexual assault victims and others from being put on television or the newspaper.

Cameras are currently allowed only in the South Dakota Supreme Court's appeals hearings. The appeals court in Pierre has allowed electronic recording equipment and television and still cameras during its oral arguments since 2001.

The camera review committee, made up of lawyers, judges, media representatives, law enforcement officers and others, held its first meeting in April. The panel will meet again Oct. 6.

While Long is hesitant to say if he's for or against cameras in the courtroom, 7th Circuit Judge Jeff Davis of Rapid City was willing to comment.

"I'm mostly totally against it," he said.

Davis also brought up the Simpson trial. Calling that trial the "perfect example" of why cameras should not be allowed, Davis said the testimony of such witnesses as Kato Kaelin was marred by over-analysis from television reporters.

"You'd watch him testify and actually hear the words, then you'd hear someone comment on what he'd said; it wasn't quite the same," he said.

Davis, who is the 7th Circuit's presiding judge, is concerned about changing the rules because he thinks television stations would show only snippets of court proceedings that would not be representative of the overall trial or hearing.

"It's the potential for inaccuracy, no matter how honorable and trustworthy a reporter is being," he said. "I just have concerns that the whole story will not get told."

The way the laws are written now, members of the media are allowed in the courtroom but cannot bring in cameras - either video or still - or any type of recording equipment.

Reporters often only report portions of court proceedings now. But Davis thinks showing clips of actual court video could be taken out of context more easily than an on-camera reporter's version of the events.

Pennington County State's Attorney Glenn Brenner is in favor of allowing video and still cameras in the courtroom. Brenner doesn't think cameras would interfere with the process. Instead, it would help deter criminals, he said.

"I don't think it would affect the way we go about our daily business, but what it might have an effect on is the behavior itself that's occurring and maybe make our community safer," he said.

Brenner said that potential criminals may be deterred when they see what kind of sentence is handed down for certain crimes. He also said allowing the cameras would further inform people in the community who are too busy to attend court hearings.

Tim Rensch is used to his cases being scrutinized by the media. The Rapid City attorney has handled a number of high-profile cases, including the defense of former legislator Ted Klaudt, who was accused and later convicted of raping his foster daughters. Rensch also defended a Keystone man who was accused and later acquitted of starting a fire that destroyed several Keystone businesses in 2003.

Both cases received statewide media attention.

A camera review committee member, Rensch also is in favor of allowing some form of cameras in court.

"I think there are certain circumstances where they should not be banned so long as all parties have a say and it doesn't prejudice the trial process," he said.

Rensch said his own experience has shown him that the cameras could change how people act in court, which may be something the committee should take into consideration.

"I've been in courtrooms where there are cameras," he said. "It really does seem to make somewhat of a difference in how you feel when you're arguing when the cameras there."

Rensch said arguing in front of others actually helped him, but that it's hard to predict how the cameras could affect others in court.

"You wonder if people act different in front of cameras or if witnesses would be less desirous of telling completely what happened with the thought that their picture could be on the news," he said.

Members of the media are known as the main proponents of allowing cameras in the court. John Peterson, news director of KOTA-TV in Rapid City, is also a member of the committee.

"There's a lot of evidence out there that there can be cameras in the courtroom and still assure due process in court," he said.

Peterson said a change in the camera rules would affect the way KOTA covers court trials. However, he said the changes would depend on what the rules of coverage were.

Peterson said that when he worked at a television station in Denver, there were rules where only one camera was used and the tape was shared among media. Similar rules could be developed for South Dakota, he said.

Chief Justice David Gilbertson is in charge of the committee. Committee members are currently studying some of the rules in other states where cameras are allowed in the courtroom.

No time frame has been set for the committee to make a recommendation about cameras in court, according to Judith Roberts, who serves as legal and legislative counsel for the unified judicial system.

"We're going to try to get all sides of the story to answer the questions and concerns the public and the people have," she said.

Contact Ryan Woodard at 394-8412 or ryan.woodard@rapidcityjournal.com