{
  "id": 552,
  "url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/532",
  "final_url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/532",
  "title": "Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)",
  "publisher": "Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute",
  "published_on": "1965-06-07",
  "link_state": "live",
  "link_state_since": "2026-09-26T18:11:00Z",
  "wayback_url": null,
  "wayback_saved_at": null,
  "source_kind": "court_record",
  "last_checked": "2026-09-26T18:11:00Z",
  "archive_attempts": 0,
  "checks": [
    {
      "checked_at": "2026-09-26T18:11:00Z",
      "checker": "twon-linkcheck/1.0",
      "http_status": 200,
      "final_url": "https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/532",
      "observed_state": "live",
      "detail": "jev:article:1.00"
    }
  ],
  "claims": [
    {
      "id": 828,
      "statement": "The Supreme Court of the United States heard Estes v. Texas on April 1, 1965, and decided it on June 7, 1965.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 829,
      "statement": "A pretrial hearing on cameras in the courtroom, filled with reporters and photographers, was held on September 24, 1962, in Billie Sol Estes's case.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 830,
      "statement": "The Supreme Court held that Estes's trial was not conducted consistently with due process and reversed his conviction.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 831,
      "statement": "The Supreme Court took the case to decide whether Estes was denied due process by being required to submit to a televised trial.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 832,
      "statement": "Judge Otis T. Dunagan told the parties that the most important point in regulating camera coverage was to ensure Estes received a fair and impartial trial.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 833,
      "statement": "The Court acknowledged the press's role in informing the public of court proceedings, even as it found the cameras at Estes's hearing had interfered with the trial.",
      "status": "current"
    },
    {
      "id": 834,
      "statement": "Justice Potter Stewart dissented, warning that the suggestion there are limits on the public's right to know what goes on in the courts caused him deep concern.",
      "status": "current"
    }
  ],
  "incidents": [
    {
      "slug": "1962-us-estes-v-texas-camera-ban",
      "title": "United States: Texas judge allows televised pretrial hearing in the Billie Sol Estes case; Supreme Court later limits cameras in criminal courtrooms"
    }
  ]
}