Will this be another oops? Illinois trials to be televised?

From the Chicago Tribune:
Illinois trials may soon be televised

The Illinois Supreme Court is promulgating rules that will allow a more open courtroom by allowing court proceedings to be televised. While this change is meant to be positive, as with many governmental "advances", this may actually create complex problems down the road. The article notes the possibility that witnesses may feel uncomfortable coming forward, and that's a valid problem, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Illinois has laws allowing expungement or sealing of case information in many types of cases where defendants are found not guilty or the case is dismissed, and even in some felony matters resulting in conviction. Once a Court orders a case sealed or expunged, the information about the case is sealed or even destroyed. A potential employer, for instance, would not be able to see information about that case.

What's the point?

What about visual search? Never heard of visual search? If not, you will. It's a technology in its toddling stages, well past infancy. Go ahead and do a Google search for "Visual Search" and as of this moment, you'll find some 30,500,000 results. You plug in your image or photo and the search engine looks for related material. And facial recognition software? It's here now. Apple's iPhone and iPad? There's an app for that. Motorola's Xoom comes with facial recognition built in.

So you beat a criminal charge at trial and go through the process of expungement all with help from your local highly qualified Illinois Criminal defense attorneys, but guess what? Your trial was televised! And some soul with more time than tact uploaded a copy of the video to, where else, YouTube. So when you pop in for your job interview, your interviewer snaps a photo, uploads it to the Google of visual search (which will probably be Google) and presto chango - Illinois' expungement law is circumvented.

I can't help but wonder if this was considered by the Illinois Supreme Court? What do you think?

Evidence disallowed by the trial Judge shown in Clemens Criminal. Result? Mistrial.

In any criminal court trial, the Judge decides what evidence is admissible and what is not - they serve as a gatekeeper. Nowhere is this more important that in a criminal Jury trial. The Court in Roger Clemens' criminal perjury trial decided that certain evidence was inadmissible and would unduly prejudice the defendant, in this case, The Rocket himself.

This legal process of having the Judge serve as a gatekeeper of information is fundamental to our system of justice. The Judge is charged with preserving the integrity of the system, and most importantly, with assuring fundamental fairness. Nowhere is this more important than a case where freedom is at stake, like in a criminal trial or, you guessed it, a DUI trial.

Why after a direct order would a prosecutor attempt to introduce the prohibited evidence or exhibit? What do you think?