Tag: cameras in the courtroom

Minnesota Supreme Court to begin live streaming oral arguments

On the heels of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s first live broadcast of an oral argument last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court has announced that it will begin live streaming its own oral arguments next week.  The first live streamed case will involve a dispute between Governor Mark Dayton and the state legislature.

In a statement, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea said the court is “committed to maintaining the public’s trust in our Court, and ensuring the openness and accessibility of our public proceedings.”

“By livestreaming our oral arguments, we hope to give more Minnesotans the opportunity to see their highest Court in action, and to learn more about how our Court considers and decides the important legal matters that come before us,” she said.

Oklahoma Supreme Court begins broadcasting oral arguments

The Oklahoma Supreme Court broadcast its first oral arguments this week, in a case involving a challenge to an increase on state cigarette taxes.  The Tulsa World editorializes:

We hope the Supreme Court — and the lower courts under its jurisdiction — will find a way to continue allowing live broadcasts of important cases. Such a move would remove the mystery of the judicial process and give the people a greater sense of ownership of their own courts.

State courts, leading the way.

New York court security officers to receive training on courthouse recording and media rights

In June, a reporter in the Syracuse, New York area was briefly handcuffed by courthouse security after he took pictures of individuals involved in a hallway altercation.  The court had generally prohibited photographing and video recording activities in court hallways, but made an exception for the media.

The reporter was freed after a few minutes and not charged, but court administrators are now requiring all security officers in the six-county area to undergo training on working with journalists as well as proper arrest procedure.  This appears to have been an isolated incident, but it is good to see the court system acknowledging the problem and working proactively with its officers to maintain the proper balance between security and transparency.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals introduces courtroom cameras

Thanks to recent state legislation, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will began posting video of oral arguments online later this year. The legislation may also open the door for the state’s highest court for criminal matters to broadcast some oral arguments live.

The members of the court do not sound particularly thrilled about the move, although they are trying to maintain a neutral stance now that the legislation has gone through.  Said Presiding Judge Sharon Keller: “We decided years ago that we don’t want cameras in courtroom, but a lot of those judges are gone now, and I don’t know what the new judges think. But it does seem to be the wave of the future.”

Former Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson strongly supported the move, which also increases pressure on the United States Supreme Court to permit video recording of its oral arguments.

Continue reading “Texas Court of Criminal Appeals introduces courtroom cameras”

Two-thirds of South Korean judges want to televise court hearings

A new poll finds that 67 percent of judges in South Korea favor broadcasting judicial proceedings for major criminal cases, as long as the presiding judge gives permission.

From the Korea Herald:

The OCA didn’t mention any specific case in the latest survey but appeared to be collecting the opinions of ordinary judges amid growing public calls for live TV broadcasts of the ongoing trials of former President Park Geun-hye, her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil and Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong.

Amid enormous public interest in their unprecedented corruption and influence-peddling scandals, there have actually been moves to lift the current ban on TV broadcasts of court hearings.

The current Supreme Court rules allow the filming before the trial begins but do not permit recording, taping or broadcasting after the trial begins.

 

Justice Breyer: Courtroom cameras are too risky

Speaking at the American Constitution Society’s annual convention, Justice Stephen Breyer again expressed skepticism about video recording the Court’s oral arguments.  Breyer stated that some of his friends have told him he does “ridiculous things” during argument, and that the presence of cameras could change the tone of the session.

I will leave an assessment of a public figure questioning public access to issues of public importance, all while speaking at a quasi-public event, as an exercise for the reader.

Fourth Circuit allows CSPAN broadcast of hearing on President’s immigration order

Yesterday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the latest challenge to President Trump’s executive order on immigration.  For the first time in circuit history, the court allowed the arguments to be recorded and broadcast on CSPAN.

Even without video, it was an insightful colloquy to listen to.  Imagine if viewers could have seen who was talking!  Still, score one for transparency, and for the court not being afraid to show its important work to the broader public.

Previous coverage here.

Nevada Supreme Court expands courtroom camera access to reality TV producers

Nevada’s state courts have long allowed access to news cameras, provided that the footage is used for informational or educational purposes.  Last week, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously concluded that footage of a murder trial, which was recorded for a reality TV series about local prosecutors, fell within the “informational or educational” definition.

Used of the video was challenged by Michael Solid, whose murder trial was partially recorded by production company My Entertainment TV for use on “Las Vegas Law,” a cable reality show.  Solid argued that the video footage had a commercial advertising purpose rather than an information or educational one.  But the state supreme court rejected that argument, finding that “under the plain language” of the rule governing courtroom cameras, My Entertainment TV was a “news reporter.”

 

Fourth Circuit mulls live streaming next month’s arguments on travel ban

The Fourth Circuit’s openness to live streaming comes in the wake of significant public interest in the Ninth Circuit’s live stream of similar arguments in February.  More the 137,000 people logged on to hear those arguments.

From the National Law Journal story:

Rob Rosborough, a partner at Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany, New York, added that he was “impressed by how accessible it made the proceedings seem in a highly technical case like that one.”

“You could hear phenomenal attorneys on both sides advocate for their clients on issues that had an impact on millions of people nationwide,” Rosborough said. “I do think that the Fourth Circuit, and all courts, should livestream arguments in all cases, especially in cases like the travel ban that have drawn such public interest.”

The Fourth Circuit has not live streamed arguments to date, although it does post audio files of arguments on its website the day after they are held.

Ravid on Tweeting #Justice

Itay Ravid (JSD candidate, Stanford) has posted his new article, Tweeting #Justice: Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in a World of Shifting Technology, on SSRN. It should be of significant interest to readers of this blog who follow issues of comparative law and court transparency.  From the abstract:

The debate over whether to allow cameras into courtrooms refuses to fade away. In 2015 alone, U.S. federal courts completed a five-year experiment with cameras in courts, New Zealand published new guidelines for audio-visual coverage, and Scotland completely revised its former broadcast policy. These jurisdictions, and others around the globe, constantly struggle to design model practices that successfully balance freedom of the press, transparency, and public access to information, with rights to a fair trial and privacy. The constant need to rethink coverage policies can be attributed in large part to the advancement of technology, providing the media innovative tools to report from within courtrooms even when formal legal norms bar direct reports. These advancements often result in an unsettling disparity between formal norms and the reality of court coverage.

Drawing on the Israeli example, this Article seeks to address this timely issue, illustrating how social media and technological advancements can push regulators to re-evaluate legal regimes that seem to lag behind the law in action. The Article provides a systematic analysis of both doctrinal arguments and empirical data on the policies adopted by different common law jurisdictions, aiming to devise a policy framework for audio-visual coverage of courts in the age of hyper-technology. By synthesizing lessons from these jurisdictions, the Article first traces the evolution of the doctrine on audio-visual coverage across various jurisdictions, and its constitutional framing. Moreover, the Article exposes the politicization of constitutional law: how courts adopt flexible frameworks with regard to policies on constitutional issues that affect them. Second, the Article suggests that existing empirical data are generally supportive of coverage, showing almost no adverse effects resulting from the presence of cameras in courtrooms. Third, the Article provides practical tools for reaching balanced coverage policies, offering the first analytical framework for the design of coverage policies. The Article utilizes the Israeli case study—a country with currently no audio-visual coverage policy—in order to implement the suggested framework and offers a comprehensive coverage policy within Israeli courts.