The debate over whether cameras should be allowed into courtrooms has been ongoing for years. Opponents argue that it is a privacy issue and could potentially lead to harm to witnesses who testify. Those who support cameras in the courtroom say that the public deserves transparency and an opportunity to see our justice system in action. After spending the past two and a half years working on my book I Will Ruin You, I fall squarely into the camp that supports cameras in the courtroom.
In the trial of Christian “Kit” Martin, the former airline pilot and army major accused of a triple homicide, the entire trial was captured from start to finish by Court TV. Additionally, the State of Kentucky not only allows cameras but provides its own video coverage. The State cameras cover trials, pre-trial hearings, bench conferences, and evidentiary rulings.
In my book, due out March 26, 2024, I take readers through the entire case and highlight a trial many believe did not provide due process to the defendant. After the guilty verdict, many Court TV viewers responded by saying that the trial was unfair and that jurors didn’t get to hear all the evidence, especially since jurors didn’t hear from the defendant's former wife and her son, whom the defense argued had some involvement in the killings. The judge allowed both to plead the fifth outside the jury's presence.
My job as a writer is to present all the evidence and to let the reader decide on guilt or innocence. So, I not only covered the trial but everything that preceded the trial. My conclusion was and is that if you were to go with the same evidence presented to the jurors, the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When you include the facts and details jurors didn't hear, it becomes clearer that something was amiss.
To help make my point, watch the short video clip below. This discussion between the judge, prosecution, and defense occurred the night before closing arguments. The prosecution had holes in their theory of the crime that could only be explained if there was a co-conspirator. The investigators had six years to come up with an accomplice but failed to find anyone who could have aided the defendant. I’ll leave it to you to decide on the ethics of going forward with a trial that you know requires more than one individual when you only have one defendant.
The murder trial of Kit Martin has already been the subject of a Dateline episode, a podcast, a documentary series by a local TV station, as well as at least one class at a law school. But you don’t have to rely on any of those to understand how our justice system doesn’t always work like it should. I encourage you to watch the entire trial and then read the book to learn what wasn’t presented at the trial. The murder trial of Christian “Kit” Martin is available online on the Court TV website.
