Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
(Argued the cause for the appellee)
(Argued the cause for the appellants)
(Argued the cause for the appellee)
Facts of the Case 

Two Miami Beach police officers were charged with burglarizing a local restaurant. Their trial gained much media attention. Local television stations televised a small portion of the trial, thanks to a recent Florida Supreme Court decision which permitted (with certain restrictions) electronic media to record judicial proceedings. Officers Chandler and Granger objected to the coverage and were found guilty as charged.


Does allowing radio, television, and still photographic coverage of a criminal trial for public broadcast violate the accused's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Decision: 8 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

The Court found no constitutional violation in this case. Chief Justice Burger first denied Chandler's and Granger's claim that the Court's holding in Estes v. Texas (1964) regarded television cameras in the courtroom as offensive to due process. State experimentation with "evolving technology" in the courtroom, as long as it does not infringe on "fundamental guarantees" of the accused, is consistent with the Constitution. Furthermore, Florida's policy was implemented with strict guidelines intended to protect the right of a defendant to a fair trial. For example, the state required its courts to protect certain witnesses from the "glare of publicity" and to hear and consider arguments from a defendant who feels that electronic coverage may bias the jury.

Cite this Page
CHANDLER v. FLORIDA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 31 August 2015. <>.
CHANDLER v. FLORIDA, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, (last visited August 31, 2015).
"CHANDLER v. FLORIDA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed August 31, 2015,