As a result of the Bruno Richard Hauptmann trial in 1935, the American Bar Association enacted Canon 35 (amended in 1952 and 1963 to incorporate stricter standards) that recommended the banning of certain media coverage in the courtroom. Subsequent surveys conducted among the legal community in Oklahoma, Illinois, and Florida regarding Canon 35 have produced mixed reactions. In March 1978, a study examined the effects of controlled audiovisual coverage (with participants and spectators unaware of what was being recorded) of the second trial of a person convicted in 1973 for murder and rape. The study included tabulation and filing of all newspaper stories and pictures, evaluation of television coverage by four stations, interviews with trial participants, and a telephone survey of a random sample of lawyers and judges in Summit County (Ohio), where the trial took place. It was concluded that the news reporting was fairly straightforward; the televised coverage did not sway the surveyed lawyers in their attitudes toward media coverage of trials; the attorneys, presiding judge, and witnesses felt that the coverage had been fair and responsible; most respondents and participants approved of the manner of coverage; and attitudes toward the issue correlated with age, experience, knowledge of videotaping, and type of practice. (Tables are included and the Ohio rules governing media access are appended.) (MAI)