« Law - "Brokers welcome in Kentucky: Ruling opens state for real estate deals" | Main | Ind. Courts - Continuing story: Indiana Supreme Court only Supreme Court in Nation with No Women Members! »

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Ind. Courts - More on the cameras in courtrooms pilot project

The ILB has quoted from several recent stories about how the cameras in trial courtrooms pilot project sponsored by the Supreme Court is failing. See this entry from August 13th, quoting from a South Bend Tribune story headed "Indiana trial court cameras shuttered," and this one from May 24th headed "Courtroom camera plan fizzles". "Doomed from the start" might be another apt title.

The headline writer at the Evansville Courier & Press titled today's story by Bryan Corbin "Camera test hasn't developed: Cameras in the courtroom: Media's exposure has been limited." A quote:

Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Wayne Trockman, whose courtroom was the first in the state to participate, said defense attorneys don't have to cite reasons for denying requests, but some have.

"The comments I've heard cited have been one, this would be disruptive; two, they don't know what effect it would have on the jury; and three, even though these are public proceedings, it makes it even more public when live footage or a photograph could be in the print media or on TV or on the radio," he said.

Trockman says a compromise would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial while allowing news-camera access.

"If the trial judge was given the authority to say, 'There aren't going to be any cameras in the courtroom for any pretrial matters on a high-profile case, and the cameras can come in when the trial starts after the jury is already seated,' then the whole procedure hasn't increased the likelihood of tainting the jury pool in a particular county or area," Trockman suggested.

"I'm an advocate that the doors of the courthouse should be open, and technology has advanced to the point where it is not nearly the distraction that it once was, and what happens in a courthouse should be transparent," Trockman added. "There are certain safeguards that should be observed, but our business should be as transparent as possible."

Cole Banks, an Evansville defense attorney, is also quoted:
"You have an absolute obligation to go to your client and say, 'Do you want to do this?'" Banks said. "The client will approach this from a personal perspective: 'Do I want myself in the newspaper or does my family want that?' And generally the answer is no because we're dealing ... with people who have committed crimes or done something that they don't want to put on their resume."

Banks believes attorneys are gun-shy about allowing cameras, and he questions whether most judges support cameras in court.

"I think honestly the only people advocating this are people from the press and people from the broadcast industry — and if I was from that industry, I would advocate it, too," Banks said.

With so little data to collect from the 18-month study, the broadcasters association started documenting the number of rejections. The association also sent a request to the Indiana Supreme Court, asking it to grant judges the sole authority to decide whether to grant requests so attorneys couldn't veto them. But the experiment's rules remain unchanged, he said.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 12, 2007 05:48 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts