« Ind. Law - Again: Do the changes to the sex offender law mean longtime homeowners must move? | Main | Ind. Law - New York has a good idea here »
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Ind. Courts - South Bend Tribune opines "Let Cameras In"
The South Bend Tribune, which on August 13th had a long report (see ILB entry here) headed "Indiana trial cameras shuttered: Main obstacle for pilot project is requirement that both parties agree to taping," today has an editorial headed "Let Cameras In." Some quotes:
This is a nation with open courtrooms. Civil and criminal issues are resolved in the light of day. Video and still cameras to record and report judicial processes are a logical extension of that openness.But logic is not always applied everywhere. Not, for example, in Indiana and South Dakota, two states that still prohibit cameras in trial courts.
Indiana could've been on a path to make South Dakota the lone holdout. And it could be again, if there is a change in the criteria for a pilot courtroom camera project. We hope that there will be.
The purpose of the pilot program, approved by the Indiana Supreme Court and begun a year ago, is to determine what effect cameras would have on court proceedings. Eight judges are participating, including St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael Gotsch.
According to the plan, after the 18-month experiment the Indiana Broadcasters Association and the Hoosier State Press Association will commission a study to quantify the experience, hoping to build the case that cameras in courtrooms are not disruptive.
The justices added one major caveat. They insisted that both the plaintiff and the defendant of a case agree to be taped or photographed. If either side said no, cameras would be kept out.
After 12 months, almost no one has said yes. Only six cases statewide have been taped or photographed. The participating judges had predicted that defendants, especially, would camera-shy. As it turns out, there probably won't be enough results to evaluate.
The Hoosier State Press Association plans to return to the Supreme Court and ask that it give trial judges discretion in deciding what happens in their courtrooms, instead of giving both sides veto power. If the high court were to extend the pilot program and allow judges that authority, the result could be a meaningful record -- the basis for an educated decision on the camera question. * * *
Even considering all our high-tech communication gadgets, people who lived a century ago had a better understand of courtroom procedures than do people today. In those days, the county courthouse was the center of activity in a community. These days, people seldom look on during a trial. Consequently, their ideas of courtroom conduct are formed by television dramas rather than reality.
It is commendable that the state Supreme Court is proceeding cautiously in order to protect Hoosier plaintiffs and defendants. But it is clear to us that trial judges are very capable of keeping disruption out of their courtrooms while at the same time letting cameras in. It has been done elsewhere -- hundreds of times. Dozens of other state have adapted to the presence of courtroom cameras.
We hope that the justices will come to see this as an opportunity to extend public understanding of judicial processes. They should grant trial judges discretion on the camera question.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 19, 2007 01:25 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts