December 28

APPEALING SUBJECTS
BY CRAIG MANSON
A Monthly - Weekend With Shades - Column

Justice Souter's line was hardly original; some twenty years earlier, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger used nearly identical words to express his opposition to allowing cameras in the courtroom of the nation's highest court. Many years later, cameras remain banned from the federal courts. And only fairly recently have cameras been allowed in most state courts.

Trials capture the ethos, pathos, eros, and drama of life in America. To paraphrase de Tocqueville, there's hardly a human or social issue that doesn't become a legal one. How better than the art of photography to record and illustrate such issues than by capturing the personae dramatis on stage, so to speak, in the courtroom?

So why the lingering judicial phobia about the little box with an aperture? Well, you can blame the names Hauptmann, Sheppard, Estes, and Simpson (as in O.J.). Not the men themselves, but their trials and the circumstances surrounding the trials. These were some of the most sensational trials in American history; tailor-made for photography and other press coverage.

In the United States, cameras were generally accepted in the courtroom for the first third of the twentieth century, but not without some difficulty for photographers, the photographed, and the courts. This was the first modern age of tabloid journalism and sensational photographs were essential to the business model of many metropolitan rags. That the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press was an argument used to justify the business model.

Bruno Richard Hauptmann	Sam Sheppard	Billie Sol Estes	O.J. Simpson
Rogues Gallery of Scalawags Whose "Trials Of The Century" Almost Killed Cameras in Courtrooms

In 1935, the first of the century's "Trial(s) of the Century" took place in Flemington, New Jersey. The infant son of aviation hero Charles Lindbergh had been kidnapped and killed in 1932; more than two years later, a German immigrant named Bruno Richard Hauptmann was charged with the crime. The Attorney General of New Jersey personally appeared in the courtroom to prosecute the case; a state Supreme Court Justice presided over the trial. Intense international media attention had been focused on the matter since the kidnapping. The popular perception of the atmosphere at the trial was described thus:

It was a Roman holiday. Photographers clambered on counsel's table and shoved their flashbulbs into the faces of witnesses. The judge lost control of his courtroom and the press photographers lost control of their senses.^[1]

This characterization was not literally true. Although more than 130 still and newsreel photographers attended the trial, the appellate court found that "the trial court seems to have taken proper action of its own motion to preserve order . . . ."^[2] But the perception was true enough that the American Bar Association adopted Canon 35 of its Canons of Judicial Ethics:

Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the courtroom, during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and should not be permitted.

Forty-seven states, as well as all federal courts, adopted some version of this ban on cameras in the courtroom. For nearly three decades, this ban generally held up over the vociferous objections of the press and First Amendment advocates. The case for opening the courts to the shutter and flash was not aided by other notorious cases such as the Sam Sheppard case and the Billie Sol Estes case.

Murder and mystery, society, sex and suspense were combined in this case in such a manner as to intrigue and captivate the public fancy to a degree perhaps unparalleled in recent annals.^[3]

That's how the Ohio Supreme Court characterized the case of Sam Sheppard, the O.J. Simpson of the Eisenhower era. A young and handsome doctor in Cleveland, Sheppard in 1954 was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife. Sheppard claimed he had seen a "form," presumably a man, in his house the night of the killing, and the "form" had knocked him unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found his wife dead. Sheppard said he chased the "form" out of his house and grappled with it on the beach, but again lost consciousness. The crime story became the basic idea behind the wildly popular 1960's television program, "The Fugitive." Adding to the real-life drama was the fact that Sheppard had had an extramarital affair and lied about it to the police.

If the Hauptmann trial wasn't as frenzied as it seemed, the Sheppard trial certainly was:

As the selection of the jury progressed, individual pictures of prospective members appeared daily [in the newspapers]. During the trial, pictures of the jury appeared over 40 times in the Cleveland papers alone. The court permitted photographers to take pictures of the jury in the box, and individual pictures of the members in the jury room. One newspaper ran pictures of the jurors at the Sheppard home when they went there to view the scene of the murder. Another paper featured the home life of an alternate juror. The day before the verdict was rendered--while the jurors were at lunch and sequestered by two bailiffs--the jury was separated into two groups to pose for photographs which appeared in the newspapers.^[4]

Television cameras were set up inside the courthouse with the knowledge and consent of the court. During the trial the [judge] was part of a television program that took place on the steps of the courthouse in the morning at a time when the jurors were arriving. This program was arranged by a reporter named Fabian, a representative of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. The [judge] stood across the street and watched until he received a signal and then walked over to the Courthouse steps, mounted the steps and had a conversation with said Fabian while the television cameras operated.^[5]

In 1966, after Sheppard had served more than ten years of his life sentence in prison, the United States Supreme Court overturned his conviction, finding that he did not receive a fair trial due to "the carnival atmosphere" in the courtroom. Upon Sheppard's retrial, his new defense attorney, F. Lee Bailey, convinced a jury to acquit Sheppard.

Billie Sol Estes was a Texas financier and crony of Lyndon B. Johnson. He came up with a scheme by which he swindled the government and others out of $24 million by being paid for cotton he didn't grow and using property that didn't exist as collateral for loans. After Estes was charged but before his trial, five of his associates died, one by one, under suspicious circumstances. Estes was eventually convicted of various charges and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Later, Estes claimed LBJ had been in on his schemes and that Johnson had ordered the deaths of the five associates, as well as the murder of President Kennedy. Ties to Estes in one degree or another led directly or indirectly to the resignation of the Secretary of Agriculture as well as the electoral defeat of one or more Members of Congress.

Estes' trial was widely covered all over the country. The Supreme Court gave this example of the intrusiveness of cameras in the courtroom:

The petitioner was subjected to characterization and minute electronic scrutiny to such an extent that at one point the photographers were found attempting to picture the page of the paper from which he was reading while sitting at the counsel table.^[6]

Chief Justice Warren's concurring opinion further set the scene:

With photographers roaming at will through the courtroom, petitioner's counsel made his motion that all cameras be excluded. As he spoke, a cameraman wandered behind the judge's bench and snapped his picture. Counsel argued that the presence of cameras would make it difficult for him to consult with his client, make his client ill at ease, and make it impossible to obtain a fair trial since the cameras would distract the jury, witnesses and lawyers. ^[7]

The Court reversed Estes' conviction on reasoning similar to that in the Sheppard case and announced what many regarded as the absolute end of cameras in the courtrooms of criminal trials:

Court proceedings are held for the solemn purpose of endeavoring to ascertain the truth which is the sine qua non of a fair trial. Over the centuries Anglo-American courts have devised careful safeguards by rule and otherwise to protect and facilitate the performance of this high function. As a result, at this time those safeguards do not permit the televising and photographing of a criminal trial, save in two States and there only under restrictions. This is weighty evidence that our concepts of a fair trial do not tolerate such an indulgence. We have always held that the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair trial--the most fundamental of all freedoms--must be maintained at all costs. Our approach has been through rules, contempt proceedings and reversal of convictions obtained under unfair conditions. Here the remedy is clear and certain of application and it is our duty to continue to enforce the principles that from time immemorial have proven efficacious and necessary to a fair trial.^[8]

The Sheppard case and the Estes case made huge impressions on the judiciary, especially the federal judiciary, such that it would be another decade and a half before the Supreme Court could definitively say that cameras in the courtroom weren't inherently evil.^[9]

These sensational trials had been presaged by the Illinois trial of Charles B. Munday.

Munday was the vice president of Chicago's LaSalle Street Bank and in 1915 was accused of conspiring with others to loot the bank of about $3 million. Because of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, his trial was moved to Morris, Illinois, a hamlet in Grundy County, about sixty miles southwest of the Windy City.

During the trial, the court apparently allowed news photographers free rein in the courtroom, to the point of even "suspending the progress of the trial at different times to permit these photographs and moving pictures to be taken." On Munday's appeal from his conviction and five year prison sentence, he claimed that this prejudiced his right to a fair trial. But the Illinois Supreme Court found that Munday in fact had "expressly consented to" the photography in the courtroom. Nonetheless, the court said:

[T]he [trial] court should not have permitted it. It is not in keeping with the dignity a court should maintain, or with the proper and orderly conduct of its business, to permit its sessions to be interrupted and suspended for such a purpose.^[10]

One reason for all the interest in Munday's trial was that his co-conspirator was William Lorimer, the LaSalle Street bank president and a former politician. In the "The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same [Especially in Illinois]" Department, Lorimer had been booted out of the United States Senate in 1912 after the Senate found he had been appointed to the seat in a "pay to play" deal with another key politician.^[11]

Left: Disgraced Senator William Lorimer on trial in 1915 for conspiracy to wreck the LaSalle Street Bank.

Today, Canon 35 has been repealed. Most state courts allow some form of photography in the courtroom, although most federal courts do not. But even in the dark ages of Canon 35, there were some cases which yielded great and mainly dignified courtroom photographs conveying the issues of the day.

The Trial of Leo Frank

When Mary Phagan, a 13 year old girl employed at an Atlanta, Georgia, pencil factory was found dead in the factory basement, a sloppy investigation aided by anti-Semitism, cast suspicion on factory manager Leo Frank, a 28 year old Texas-born, Brooklyn-raised Jew. Frank was convicted only high disputed and unfairly prejudicial evidence. He was sentenced to death. After the trial, a number of prosecution witnesses recanted their testimony and physical evidence was discovered that tended show Frank's innocence. The Governor of Georgia commuted his sentence to life in prison.

Leo Frank and his wife, Lucile,

in the courtroom in Atlanta

A key prosecution witness (and perhaps the actual killer),

Newt Lee, testifies against Leo Frank in the 1915 photograph above.

On August 16, 1915, a mob took Leo Frank from the State Prison Farm at Milledgeville. Calling themselves "The Knights of Mary Phagan," they drove Frank to Marietta where they hanged him. The crowd included a former governor, at least two former judges, a former sheriff, the son of a state legislator, and other prominent citizens.

In the aftermath of the lynching, many Jews (some say up to half of the Jewish population) left Georgia for other states. The Anti-Defamation League was founded as a direct result of the Leo Frank case.

In 1986, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole granted Leo Frank a pardon.

State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes

One of the most dramatic and significant trials in American history took place in 1925: the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial." An early herald of the faith vs. science debate that still rages today, the prosecution of Tennessee teacher John T. Scopes for teaching evolution pitted two great advocates against each other. Scopes was defended by legendary trial attorney Clarence Darrow. The prosecution team was led by former U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.

An iconic photograph of two very different legal giants:

Darrow (left) and Bryan

The trial reached its dramatic denouement when Darrow, the agnostic socialist, called his trial adversary, Bryan, a populist fundamentalist, as an expert witness on whether the Bible should be taken literally. The New York Times in a front page story described this session, held outdoors on July 20, as follows:

The greatest crowd of the trial had come in anticipation of hearing Messrs. Bryan and Darrow speak, and it got more than it expected. It saw Darrow and Bryan in actual conflict--Mr. Darrow's rationalism in combat with Mr. Bryan's faith--and forgot for the moment that Bryan's faith was its own. The crowd saw only the battle, appreciated only the blows one dealt the other and laughed with and at both.

***
These Tennesseans were enjoying a fight. That an ideal of a great man, a biblical scholar, an authority on religion was being dispelled seemed to make no difference They grinned with expectation and amusement, until the next blow by one side or the other came, and then they guffawed again. And finally, when Mr Bryan, pressed harder and harder by Mr. Darrow, confessed he did not believe everything in the Bible should be taken literally, the crowed howled.

***
The spectators, however, instead of being only men, were men, women, and children, among them here and there a negro, sitting or standing on the pine boards set on long saw-horses. In the rear of the crowd little children played on sea-saws made from the same boards and saw-horses. Small boys went through the crowd settling bottled pop. Most of the m en wore hats and smoked.

The seats were under the trees, but between them the sun blazed and scorched. Men and women hung from windows in the court House, and the platform where the Judge and the principals, including the all but forgotten Scopes, was filled with newspaper reporters and men and when women who had crowded in and refused to move, determined to see the show.

And just as the spectacle was a religious argument in a country store with the settings of a court and a camp meeting, it was a a show, an absurdly pathetic performance, with a famous American the creator and butt of a crowd's laughter.

One of the strangest scenes in U.S. legal history: Clarence Darrow calls opposing counsel William Jennings Bryan as an expert witness.

The trial ended suddenly when Darrow announced that the defense was asking for a directed verdict of guilty to expedite an appeal. This maneuver also had the effect of depriving Bryan the chance to cross-examine Darrow and to give the closing argument he had worked so hard on. Bryan died five days later.

Scopes was found guilty and fined $100. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the judgment on the technical basis that the judge, instead of the jury, had fixed the fine, contrary to state law at the time. But instead of sending the case back to the trial court, the Tennessee high court dismissed it, saying, "We see nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case."^[12]

The attention of the nation had been riveted on the small town of Dayton, Tennessee in the first battle of the twentieth century's "culture wars." And it, turns out, the whole spectacle may have been just for show. There was indeed a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution and the American Civil Liberties Union had offered to pay for the defense of any person charged with violating it. But that's where the Inherit the Wind scenario really stops. A group of businessmen cooked up the idea of bringing such a trial to Dayton to focus attention on their little town. They gave John Scopes the biology book he was supposed to use. They initially invited H.G. Wells to lead the defense, counting on his celebrity to make even a greater spectacle.

Scopes later said that he never even taught the evolution lesson; he skipped it when he got to it in the book. The children, he claimed, were coached to say he had taught it.

War Crimes Trials

War has always been a backdrop for great photography and so it is with the trials during and following World War II.

The Nazi Saboteurs

During the week of June 13, 1942, two groups of covert operatives from Germany landed on the shores of the United States. They were part of the Nazis' so-called Operation Pastorius, intended to sabotage certain economic targets in the United States. One group, Ernest Burger, George Dasch, Heinrich Heinck, and Richard Quirin, arrived by submarine at Amagansett Beach, Long Island, New York. Of these four, Burger was a U.S. citizen and the other three had lived in the U.S. previously. A second group consisting of Herbert Haupt, Kerling, Herman Neubauer, and Werner Thiel, landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. In this group, Haupt was a U.S. citizen and the others also had lived in the U.S. before the war.

A shot of the secret Nazi Saboteur Trial at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., July 1942. The military commission members are at the far end of the room.

The eight German terrorists at their trial. The case established legal principals that would be used more than sixty years later.

The would-be saboteurs made their way to various points in the country. Dasch and Burger, of the group which hand landed in New York, went to Washington, D.C., and immediately surrendered to the FBI and divulged details of the plot. The FBI did not believe them. Eventually, the defectors convinced the Bureau of the truth of their story and they were arrested. Shortly thereafter, the remaining conspirators were arrested.

President Roosevelt ordered the men tried before a secret military commission. No military commissions had been convened in the United States since the Civil War and there was some doubt about the constitutionality of Roosevelt's order. Nonetheless, the trial proceeded before the seven member commission from July 8, 1942 to August 4, 1942. The prosecution was headed by U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle and Major General Myron C. Cramer, Judge Advocate General of the Army. The defense team included Colonel Kenneth C. Royall (who later served as Secretary of War) and Major Lausen H. Stone. Major Stone was the son of Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone. The trial was held in Washington, D.C.

During the trial, the defense decided to petition the Supreme Court to release the men and find the military commission unlawful. But it was the middle of July and the Court was in recess until October. One account says that Colonel Royall went to the Chief Justice's home in suburban Virginia on a Sunday afternoon and convinced him to call the other Justices by telephone. In any event, the Court agreed to hear the case. (It's a big help when your co-counsel is the son of the Chief Justice!).

The case was argued July 29-30, 1942, in the Supreme Court. On July 31, 1942, the Court issued a brief opinion which upheld the constitutionality of the military commission. The trial continued to its verdict and sentencing. The men were all found guilty and sentenced to death. The sentences of Dasch and Burger were commuted to thirty years for Dasch and life in prison for Burger.

On October 29, 1942, the Court issued a more complete opinion reaching the same conclusion.^[13] But six of the saboteurs had already been executed on August 8, 1942.

There is a certain irony about photography and trials that arises from the Nazi Saboteurs Case. The Sixth Amendment gives accused persons the right to a public trial and on this basis, the press has often argued that cameras should be allowed in. And in ruling that cameras should be kept out to give defendants fair trials under the Sixth Amendment, courts have paid lip service to the notion of open trials. But the Nazi saboteurs' trial was secret by design; yet there (albeit few) photographs of this trial where there are none of most civilian trials of that era.

The case of the Nazi saboteurs, known in legal circles as Ex Parte Quirin, established principles that came in for debate more than sixty years later after a different group of saboteurs wreaked unimaginable damage on the United States.

The Nuremberg Trials

In Europe, the Allied Powers put on trial at Nuremberg the Nazi political leadership and high military command. This was the first time victors in war had resorted to an international judicial process to deal with the vanquished. The trials established important principles of international law and their drama was recorded by photography for all posterity to see.

In an action without precedent, yet underscoring the significance of the trials, President Roosevelt asked Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to be the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunal. Jackson agreed to do so and took a leave of absence from the Court. He returned to the Court in 1946.

A famous courtroom photograph of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg.

In a unprecedented action, Justice Robert H. Jackson left the U.S. Supreme Court for two years to serve as Chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg.

Japanese War Crimes Trials

In the Pacific, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East tried twenty-eight Japanese political and military leaders. Of these, seven were sentenced to death and sixteen were sentenced to life in prison.

Japanese military and political leaders being tried for war crimes

before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, 1946.

The Trial of General Yamashita

The most controversial of all the major postwar trials was that of Lt. Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, who had been the Japanese commander of ground forces in the Philippines campaign. As Japanese troops retreated from Manila under assault by United States forces, about 100,000 Filipino civilians were brutally killed by the Japanese troops. Yamashita did not order the massacre, but he was tried before a U.S. military commission on a theory of "command responsibility," which, on Yamashita's appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court described as "an unlawful breach of duty by . . . an army commander to control the operations of the members of his command by ‘permitting them to commit’ the extensive and widespread atrocities specified."^[14]

Lt. Gen Tomoyuki Yamashita testifies at his trial in Manila, 1946. The case established an important principle of command responsibility for war crimes.

The military commission hearing Gen. Yamashita's case.

Critics of the Yamashita trial point out that the atrocities were committed not by Yamashita's forces but by Japanese marines under the command of Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi. Critics also claim that the trial procedures were unfair and that the trial was conducted too hastily.

Yamashita was hanged on February 23, 1946, at Los Banos Prison Camp in the Philippines.

Footnotes

1. Milton C. Bauer, associate editor of the Portland Oregonian, quoted in David Reed, Canon 35: Flemington Revisited 1 (Freedom of Information Center Report No. 177, 1967) as recounted by Richard B. Kielbowicz, The Story Behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras, 63 Judicature 14 (1979). Kielbowicz says, "It appears that the photographers outside the Lindbergh trial--not the ones inside--caused the commotion that led to a total ban on courtroom photography."

2.State v. Hauptmann, 180 A. 809, 827 (NJ 1935).

3. State v. Sheppard, 135 N.E.2d 340,342 (Ohio 1956)(per Bell, J.).

4. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333,344(1966) (per Clark, J.).

5. State v. Sheppard, 128 N.E.2d 471, 477 (Ohio App.1955)

6. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532,538 (1965).

7. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. at 553 (Warren, C.J., concurring).

8. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. at 540-541.

9. The Court backtracked in a case called Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).

10. People v. Munday, 117 NE 286, 301 (Ill. 1917).

11. Washington Post, July 14, 1912, p. 1, col. 1.

12. State v. Scopes, 289 S.W. 363,368 (Tenn. 1927).

13. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

14. In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).

Photo Credits

Hauptmann: Photographer unknown. Digital copy found on Wikimedia Commons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hauptmann22.jpg accessed 12-14-08. Photographer unknown. Copyright notice: "Public Domain. This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: The copyright holder grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

Sam Sheppard: Original appeared in Cleveland Reporter, 11-14-1956. Digital copy found on flickr.com at: http://flickr.com/photos/modestospeed/1535891832/ accessed 12-14-2008. Location of original unknown. Uploaded by ClevelandSGS. Copyright notice: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Billie Sol Estes:Time, Inc., 1962. Digital copy found at The Time-Life Archive on Google.com, http://images.google.com/hosted/life/; accessed 12-14-2008. Copyright 1962 Time, Inc. [See: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/photo-news/photojournalism/index.jsp 11-18-2008 "LIFE posts Archive on Google, Says Blogger Infringement a Low Priority"]

O.J. Simpson: Gerald Johnson, U.S. Department of Defense, 1990. Found on Wikimedia Commons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:O.J._Simpson_1990_%C2%B7_DN-ST-91-03444_crop.JPEG
Public Domain as work of US Government (taken by US military photographer during visit to troops in Operation Desert Shield, 1990)

Lorimer in Court [b&w negative]: Chicago Daily News, May 2, 1916; part of CDN collection at Library of Congress;DN-0066260, Chicago Daily News negatives collection, Chicago Historical Society. Copyright expired.

Leo Frank in Court: Photographer unknown, 1915. Digital copy found at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/frankattrial.jpg, accessed 12-14-2008. Location of original unknown. Copyright expired.

Frank trial courtroom: Photographer unknown, 1915. Digital copy found at
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/frank/trial.jpg, accessed 12-14-2008. Location of original unknown. Copyright expired.

Darrow & Bryan in Court: Photographer unknown, 1925. Digital copy found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scopes_trial.jpg, accessed 12-14-2008. Location of original unknown.

Darrow questions Bryan: Watson Davis, Science Service, 1925. Digital copy found at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607580371997/. Original located at Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Nazi Saboteurs Military Commission: United States Office of War Information, 1942. Digital copy found at:
Wikimedia Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_saboteur_trial_3c34579r.jpg. Original at : Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division Washington, DC 20540.
CALL NUMBER: LC-USE623- D-OA-000144 [P&P]

Nazi Saboteurs in Court: United States Office of War Information, 1942. Digital copy found at http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=949. Original at: Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division Washington, DC 20540.
CALL NUMBER: LC-USE623- D-OA-000136 [P&P]

Nuremberg Defendants: United States Army, 1942. Digital copy found at . Original located at Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division, College Park, MD
Item from Record Group 238: National Archives Collection of World War II War Crimes Records, 1933 - 1950

Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson: Photographer unknown. Digital copy found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prosecutor_Robert_Jackson_at_Nuremberg_Trials.jpg, accessed 12-14-2008. Original at Harry S. Truman Library, Independence MO

International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Photographer unknown. Digital copy found at Wikimedia Commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMTFE_defendants.jpg, accessed 12-14-2008. Location of Original unknown. Public domain under Japanese Law

Yamashita photos: United States Army, 1942. Digital copies found at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/PT.htm, accessed 12-14-2008. Original located at National Archives and Records Administration, Central Plains Region, 2312 East Bannister Road, Kansas City, MO, 64131-3011. Item from Record Group 338: Records of U.S. Army Operational, Tactical, and Support Organizations (World War II and Thereafter), 1917 - 1993