« Ind. Gov't. - Two well-worth-reading education stories | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending August 26, 2011 »

Monday, August 29, 2011

Courts - Two stories from California on public access to court proceedings

The first involves a California federal trial court that vidotaped a trial, but has been prevented from making the video public. The second relates to cameras in state trial courts.

"Throw open the Prop. 8 video records: It is time for the courts to acknowledge that video records are a natural, lawful and useful evolution in the American judicial tradition of open court proceedings" is the headline to this op-ed in the August 29th LA Times, authored by Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The op-ed begins:

"What transpires in the court room is public property." Writing those words in 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a principle so intrinsic to our national character that it predates the Declaration of Independence.

America's founders believed that justice was facilitated by openness. In 1774, the first Continental Congress specifically stated that trials should occur "in open court, before as many of the people as choose to attend." Their reasoning was that public openness would ensure the honesty of judges, witnesses and jurors, who could not "injure [the defendant] without injuring their own reputation."

This concept was both simple and elegant: Open courtrooms provide a citizen's check on the justice system — so that those who fail to fulfill their duty in court honestly and competently are exposed, their testimony scrutinized, their character considered.

In today's fast-paced, globalized, digital society, audiovisual records are the best way to bring a trial or court hearing to life and to throw open the doors of our justice system to "as many of the people as choose to attend," not just those lucky enough to sit in the courtroom.

On Monday, a federal district court judge will consider whether to make public the video recording of the 2010 Perry vs. Schwarzenegger trial regarding California's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Proposition 8. It's astonishing that in the digital age, this issue is still even being debated.

From today's San Francisco Chronicle, this story, headed "Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye backs off camera push," reported by Bob Egelko, begins:
California's chief justice says she'd like to encourage greater use of cameras in the courts to make the legal system more accessible, but she's moving cautiously in the face of resistance from trial judges.

Opposition from Superior Court judges around the state has forced a state Judicial Council committee to shelve a proposal that would have allowed cameras at trials unless a judge gave specific reasons to exclude them. Asked about the proposal in a KCBS radio interview that aired Sunday, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said, "I think in time it will have to be looked at again."

But first, she said, "I'd like to hear from the judges in the trenches. ... Those strong feelings have to be addressed."

Current rules give judges the last word on whether to allow filming and still photography, which have rarely appeared in California's trial courts since the televised murder trial of O.J. Simpson in 1995. Judges who reject cameras often cite concern about the safety of witnesses and a defendant's right to an impartial jury.

The committee proposal would have created a presumption in favor of cameras and allowed the news media to appeal a judge's rejection to a higher court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 29, 2011 11:10 AM
Posted to Courts in general