« Law - More on Ohio sex-offender ban challenged | Main | Ind. Gov't. - State lobbying plan comes under scrutiny »

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Law - Illinois completely bans cameras in courtrooms

An AP story today in the Evansville Courier & Press reports, in a story date-lined Springfield, Illinois:

Illinois news organizations thought they had a winning formula this time for getting cameras and microphones into state trials.

They pointed out that technological advancements make the equipment less intrusive. They agreed to restrictions on what would be recorded. They noted that most other states allow recordings and that it helps ensure accurate reporting.

But the courtroom doors remain closed.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected their request Thursday to allow taping of trials, upholding a long tradition of limiting reporters to ink and paper.

Where reporters see taping trials as a way to improve accuracy and give the public a better understanding of the legal system, the Supreme Court sees it as a potential distraction. * * *

Illinois is one of only seven states that completely bar taping of trials, according to the national Radio-Television News Directors Association. Nearly 20 states give judges broad discretion to allow taping, and the rest impose some restrictions.

In a story from 6/17/05, the NY Law Journal reported:
On Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the state's 53-year-old ban on cameras in the courts, flatly rejecting Court TV's invitation to stake independent state constitutional ground in favor of electronic access to trial proceedings.

The court found that a 1952 law banning cameras from the trial courts easily survives both federal and state constitutional muster -- even if a strict scrutiny standard were applied, which it said was not necessary here.

Additionally, the court made clear that the press has no greater right of access to the courtroom than the general public, that the state Legislature and not the courts should decide if televising trials is in the public interest and that in some applications New York's historically expansive free speech provision covers no more ground than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also stressed that the right to a fair trial outweighs any right of access afforded either the public or the press.

Thursday's ruling was a total loss for Court TV, with the court declining to address the media company's argument that judges have discretionary power to decide on a case-by-case basis if cameras should be allowed in their courtroom. A handful of trial judges have embraced that position, occasionally admitting television and still photographers. Their authority to do so was undercut by this decision. * * *

The ruling leaves New York as the only state with an absolute ban on cameras, at least television cameras, in the courts.

Court TV has this on its FAQ page:
Q: Are cameras allowed in all courtrooms?
A: Most states allow cameras in the courtroom. The exceptions are South Dakota, Indiana and Mississippi. Most state laws leave it up to the trial judge to decide whether he/she will allow a camera in the courtroom.

Federal courts do not allow cameras. An experiment that allowed cameras in certain federal courts ended and the Judicial Commission, which establishes policy for federal courts, voted not to renew the experiment. Court TV is working to get the commission to reconsider its ruling.

Each of the above stories seems to get it slightly different.

What about Indiana? Readers may remember this ILB entry from Sept. 7th, quoting a story from the Munster (NW Indiana) Times that began: "Cameras aren't allowed in Indiana courtrooms -- with one exception." That story was about a documentary film maker who has been authorized by the Indiana Supreme Court to film juvenile court proceedings.

According to this article from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC):

Cameras are not permitted in Indiana trial courts, and cameras are allowed in the intermediate appellate court only with special permission. In 1996 the Indiana Supreme Court began allowing print and television news cameras into its oral arguments as long as users followed specific rules. For example, cameras must be mounted on a tripod and must remain in place during the entire argument.

And there is another exception. The Indiana Supreme Court itself webcasts its own oral arguments, and many Court of Appeals arguments, via its own system. And it archives them. They are also available for purchase, here.

The NCSC article cited above points to new features of the Supreme Court's webcasts (that I, for one, did not know about):

As our collection of archived oral arguments started to grow, we looked for a way to make them even more useful to both lawyers and the general public. “Courts in the Classroom” recently launched a searchable database of these videos. End users can search by keyword, cause number, or a party’s name to identify particular oral arguments that might meet their educational or legal objectives. Keywords are created with both the lawyer and the student in mind, for example, both “driving while under the influence” and “drunk driving” are entered as keywords. A one-sentence summary of the court’s action regarding each case is entered once the case is resolved; this includes a link to the opinion or other action.
This is very cool.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 18, 2005 08:55 AM
Posted to General Law Related | Indiana Courts