Cameras/mics allowed in high profile St. Louis trial
Trial opens in murder of Casey Williamson
By William C. Lhotka
Of the Post-Dispatch
Wednesday, Jan. 12 2005
Johnny Johnson beat 6-year-old Cassandra "Casey" Williamson with a brick at an
abandoned glass factory in Valley Park, then attempted to rape her and clubbed
her with a rock when she still struggled to resist him, a prosecutor told a
jury today.
In a hushed tone in a crowded courtroom, Prosecuting Attorney Robert P.
McCulloch described the last moments of the child whom Johnson killed on July
26, 2002.
McCulloch is seeking the death penalty.
Johnson, 26, a drifter and ex-convict, is charged in St. Louis County Circuit
Court with first-degree murder, armed criminal action, kidnapping and attempted
rape.
Johnson's attorney, Beverly Biemdiek, told the jury the case "is not a
whodonit.''
At the time of the murder, Biemdiek said, Johnson was suffering from a mental
illness. He suffered from mental illness most of his life and he suffers now
from mental illness.
The defendant was incapable of cool reflection, a necessary ingredient of
first-degree murder, and is guilty of second-degree murder, Biemdiek said.
Johnson was staying at the same house that morning where the victim was
staying with her parents, Ernie and Angie Williamson, and her siblings.
Besides the defendant's confession to police, McCulloch said, two witnesses
will testify they saw Johnson that morning carrying Casey piggyback as he
crossed a parking lot heading toward a trail that led to the glass factory
where Casey's body was found later that day.
The jury was picked after two days of questioning from a pool of 100 people. Judge Mark D. Seigel has allowed cameras in the courtroom for the trial.
Re: Re: Cameras/mics allowed in high profile St. Louis trial
I don't find it surprising for cameras/mics to be in the courtroom. Missouri has a pretty open and easy process, each circuit has a coordinator, they are contacted, the coordinator takes the request to the judge who then rules (extremely rare when they say no) cameras are allowed, the coordinator then calls media back who made requests and then the coordinator picks the pool.
I've said this once and I'll say it again to anyone in a capacity to influence judges in this state to get cameras and mics in the court. When talking about this issue, ALWAYS ask them, "Have you ever watched Court TV?" If their answer is yes, the reply is natural, "Then why is Illinois law in the 19th century?"
Maybe I haven't seen it here, but does any circuit allow the circuit court clerk to tape trials to record and preserve the proceedings like a court recorder?" If it's illegal for the the actual circuit clerk staff to videotape to do their job, then why is it ok for cops have video cameras in cars for the benefit of prosecutors but not the court staff?
Maybe I've been out of Illinois too long to see where common sense prevailed. The mentality and attitude of those in charge who could allow us to tape is as modern as a covered wagon.
