cameras in the courtroom – Page 3 – The Interdependent Third Branch

Minnesota legislature moves to restrict courtroom broadcasts

Minnesota’s courts recently completed a successful pilot program to allow broadcasts of sentencing and related post-conviction hearings in criminal matters. The Minnesota Supreme Court has also shown strong support for opening its courtrooms to broadcasts in the public interest.

Some members of the state legislature, however, remain unconvinced. Yesterday, the House Public Safety Committee advanced a bill that would severely restrict the broadcast of sentencing hearings, unless everyone involved agrees in advance. The bill also would prohibit the use of state funds for audio or video coverage of criminal proceedings.

Sponsors of the bill argue that witnesses and victims may be reluctant to testify if cameras are running. That sentiment is understandable, but the bill itself is sorely misguided. Proceedings in an open courtroom reflect a careful balance between the rights and sensitivities of victims and witnesses, those of the accused or convicted, and those of the general public. Modern broadcasting tools do not upset this balance; they merely extend its reach outside the courthouse. Indeed, the current practice already prohibits broadcasts of victim statements, witness testimony, or the jury, while still permitting the public to witness the administration of justice.

Attorney Mark Anfinson, a proponent of courtroom broadcasts, nicely summarized the real benefits of the existing system: “What it does is it provides a reassurance, a catharsis, a demonstration of how the justice system works. And that has enormous value to the people whose court system it is, after all.”

Hear, hear. Hopefully the legislature will ultimately reject the bill and allow the state court system to continue serving the public interest by broadcasting certain hearings through both audio and video channels.

Minnesota seeks public comment on broadcasting of criminal proceedings

In 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court authorized a pilot program to allow limited audio and video coverage of criminal proceedings in the state trial courts. The pilot ended in December, and the state’s advisory committee on criminal rules has recommended that the pilot procedures be adopted permanently. The Supreme Court is now seeking public comment on this proposal.

Comments are due by March 25, and a hearing will be held in April.

New high-tech courtroom for Brooklyn’s family court

Brooklyn’s family court will now benefit from a new high-tech courtroom, which will permit remote sharing of evidence, videoconferencing, and remote court interpreting.

This is a wonderful thing. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story explains:

“This automation is overcoming barriers,” Dr. William Bell, whose organization Casey Family Programs helped pay for the ICT part in Brooklyn, said. “Barriers of language and barriers of location. Even though [someone] may be incarcerated, they can participate in a hearing about their child’s future. That is barrier that has far too long been nearly insurmountable. The fact is that we no longer have to bring people into this courtroom in chains in front of their children in order for them to have a say in their child’s life.”

Kudos to the court system for initiating these updates. (If only they could do something about the clunky, formal name for the courtroom: The Kings County Integrated Courtroom Technology Part. How about something a little snappier?)

Convicted war criminal commits suicide in open court

Late last month, Slobodan Praljak arrived in court at the Hague to hear the final outcome of his appeal. It was not what he had hoped for. Praljak, convicted in 2013 of war crimes stemming from his role in the civil war in Bosnia, learned that his conviction and sentence would stand.

As the judgment was read, and with cameras rolling, Praljak produced a small vial of liquid and drank it in full view of the judges. He then announced, “I just drank poison. I am not a war criminal. I oppose this conviction.” The hearing was immediately postponed and Praljak was rushed to the hospital. He died shortly thereafter.

Dutch police and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are now investigating how Praljak smuggled the poison into the courtroom. The New York Times reports on that question, as well as Praljak’s odd behavior in the days leading up to the hearing:

Defense lawyers at the tribunal say the security arrangements in place for defendants like Mr. Praljak, and the five other men whose sentences were affirmed on Wednesday, were rigorous. They were subjected to body searches when they left their detention center — inside a high-security Dutch prison — and again when they arrived at the tribunal building. But, lawyers acknowledged, body-cavity searches were not part of the routine. And in the months before his final appearance in court, he had seemed to eschew contact with his family and his lawyers.

Nika Pinter, his lead counsel, said in a telephone interview from Zagreb, the Croatian capital, that Mr. Praljak had told his family not to be present at the judgment.

Prajlak had been sentenced to 20 years in prison, and would have been eligible for parole in just two years (accounting for time served). Perhaps this event will reinforce the need for courthouse security to protect the parties as much as the judges and court staff.

On courtroom cameras, states continue to lead the way

As the United States Supreme Court begins another Term this month, calls for the Court to open its oral arguments to cameras are getting louder. The Court has traditionally brushed off these demands, and there is little reason to believe that it will respond differently this year. But there is yet hope for supporters of court transparency: the state courts continue to lead the way in allowing broadcasts of courtroom proceedings. Two examples from just this week illustrate the point:

Continue reading “On courtroom cameras, states continue to lead the way”

Justice Breyer appears on television to explain why the Supreme Court should not be on television

Justice Stephen Breyer appeared on a television interview with CBS This Morning‘s Norah O’Donnell last Thursday night, portions of which were shown on the television program on Friday morning. Breyer argued that cameras should not be placed in the Court in part because it could change the behavior of lawyers or Justices during argument. The full transcript and some video is here.

This is a silly position. Perhaps cameras would affect behavior a bit, but that change would be marginal at best. The Supreme Court already (and thankfully) has live audiences for its oral arguments — is a lawyer arguing before the Court and more than a hundred observers really likely to be affected by the presence of a camera or two? Nor have the Justices shown any individual reticence to talk to large crowds, or in front of cameras.

Maybe the Supreme Court should just hold its oral arguments in a private room, with only counsel attending, lest the presence of anyone else in the room make the Justices uncomfortable. Or maybe they should embrace the transparency in adjudication that historically has made the United States judicial system the envy of the world.

Judge Posner’s new, self-published book raises eyebrows

Just days after retiring from his seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Posner released his latest book, the awkwardly titled Reforming the Federal Judiciary: My Former Court Needs to Overhaul Its Staff Attorney Program and Begin Televising Its Oral Arguments. The book is self-published, and apparently contains a significant number of internal memos from within the court.

The reviews are not good:

Continue reading “Judge Posner’s new, self-published book raises eyebrows”

Judge Posner, unvarnished (as usual)

At Above the Law, David Lat has a terrific, wide-ranging interview with Judge Richard Posner, who abruptly retired from the Seventh Circuit bench two weeks ago. He discusses a number of interesting topics, from pro se litigants to cameras in the courtroom to bagging groceries.

Frost on the Dying Art of Courtroom Illustration

Regular readers of this blog know that I am strong advocate of broadcasting courtroom proceedings. But increasing use of cameras and live streaming may mean the death knell for vivid courtroom illustration. Natasha Frost has a very interesting article at Atlas Obscura that looks at some of the history of this dying art.