The 1995 O.J. Simpson trial continues to be cited as a reason to ban courtroom camera coverage (“Jury still out on justice with TV in the courtroom” by Elliott Epstein, Jan. 16), yet that trial was such an anomaly it shouldn’t be compared to anything.

First, Christopher Darden was so insecure and inept, he would have risen to the bait anyone had tossed at him — whether he was on camera or in a cave. I was in the Simpson courtroom and in the back halls every day and saw the disrespectful, prep-boy behavior by not only F. Lee Bailey, but Robert Shapiro and other “dream team” members. Most of that juvenile behavior occurred when court was not in session.

Bailey talks about the “too-small” bloody glove, but not about Simpson’s attorneys’ instructions that he stop taking his arthritis medicine before the trial began so his knuckles would be swollen and gnarled. Bailey doesn’t mention that the leather glove had gotten wet, then dried, which, of course, caused it to shrink and become stiff. Bailey also doesn’t mention that Darden for some lame-brained reason had Simpson try to pull the glove on over a latex glove, which guaranteed it would be nearly impossible to get the leather glove on.

As for Lindbergh, that trial, like other notorious trials in pre-TV days, was the spectacle of its day, just as Simpson’s was of the mid-1990s. University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor and high-profile case historian Douglas Lindner says, “H. L. Mencken called the trial of Richard Hauptmann, the accused kidnapper of aviator Charles Lindbergh’s baby, ‘the greatest story since the Resurrection’.”

The 1925 Scopes trial was an even greater spectacle with a truly publicity-seeking judge.

Even modern-day trials such as the 2005 Michael Jackson child-molestation and the 2004 Scott Peterson trials in California were complete circuses — and neither had courtroom-camera coverage, yet some trial participants, particularly the Santa Barbara district attorney in the Jackson case, behaved as if the courtroom were full of cameras.

The best case for cameras in the courtroom is Florida, where cameras have been a presumptive right for 30 years and have not resulted in any mistrials or other adverse incidents.

Some might use Anna Nicole Smith-remains hearing judge Larry Seidlin who gabbed from the bench about his tuna sandwich lunches and his days as a New York taxi driver, and cried when he made rulings, as a reason to ban courtroom cameras.

To me, Seidlin is a great example for cameras to be present. People have a right to see their judicial system conduct their business, and the behavior of judges and lawyers in trial.

Jerrianne Hayslett, South Milwaukee, Wis.

Editor’s note: Jerrianne Hayslett is the author of “Anatomy of a Trial: Public Loss, Lessons Learned from The People vs. O.J. Simpson.”