The judge overseeing the case has yet to decide whether cameras will be allowed. But the state attorney general’s office, which is prosecuting the case, opposes them, saying cameras would only create more problems. In June, Judge Peter Cahill decided against allowing audio and visual coverage of pretrial proceedings because he said it would risk tainting the possible jury pool and the state opposed it. But Mr Cahill, who is still weighing requests to try the defendants separately, said he would rule on trial audio and video coverage at a later date. Prosecutor Matthew Frank wrote in July that the State was concerned that live audio and visual coverage may create more problems than they will solve.

Source: The Hindu September 20, 2020 08:15 UTC