|WikiProject Law||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
I don't want to be presumptuous enough to correct the article, but the quote is not correctly attributed. Chief Justice Warren did not write that, Judge Dyer of the 5th Circuit wrote that in 1974 in the case of US v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 497 F.2d 102 at 106.
The article speaks of the impeachment trial of Andrew Jackson, but I am unfamiliar with such a trial. Andrew Johnson stood trial for impeachment, and is mentioned in the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This quote has been moved here pending proper citation. Please do not move it back into the article until this happens.
Former Judge Dyer of the 5th Circuit once wrote about how sketch pads were less obtrusive than cameras, which are not allowed in federal district courts, "Sketching requires only a writing instrument and a sketch pad, and can be done quite unobtrusively, or even... from memory completely outside the courthouse."
It is a mystery to me why courtroom sketches are tolerated when photography/video recordings are prohibited. And for the same reason, why courtroom sketches are even performed at all in the modern century, when photography is much less expensive. Perhaps readers of this article come to it wondering the same thing, hoping it will shed light on this or explain more of this aspect, specifically. Light reflects off people in the courtroom and passes through the lens of a camera in a scientific, objective process. Courtroom sketches are produced by human beings in a subjective process at best. Maybe I'm missing something basic here, but that's a huge contradiction to me. Judges are not required to be good artists, and courtroom sketch artists don't even need to pass so much as an eye test.DavidBoudreau (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Possible additional images
OTRS received an image File:Sean bell trial 001-1.jpg intended for this article. It is my practice to simply add an image when there is no image in the article, but if there already is an image, to note the existence of additional image(s) and let the editors decide whether replacement of existing images or additional inclusion is warranted.
In an odd coincidence, this was not the only courtroom drawing image received at OTRS today. The other one is not yet uploaded, because it didn't adequately identify the subject, but if that is remedied, there may be another candidate.
One possibility is to add a small gallery, selecting from the ones just added and other at Commons:Category:Courtroom drawings, or perhaps one or another of the recent submissions deserves supporting text and inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone think it might be a good idea for there to be a disambiguation or a "did you mean" for this and court painting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)