« Ind. Courts - More on: Indiana's cameras-in-the-courtroom pilot project | Main | Ind. Law - Courtroom battle on toll road lease begins tomorrow; feature on attorney Arend Abel »

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Ind. Courts - Even more on: Indiana's cameras-in-the-courtroom pilot project

Today's papers have a number of stories on the announcement by the Supreme Court yesterday of an 18-trial pilot "cameras in the courtroom" project in trial courts across the State. Here is the report of Bryan Corbin, of the Evansville Courier& Press, who first reported on the story yesterday morning. Some quotes:

In front of cameras in a Vanderburgh County courtroom, Indiana's chief justice signed a history-making order Tuesday that opens up Indiana courtrooms to news photographers. * * *

Indiana for decades prohibited photographing trials and court hearings, but after considering the requests of two media organizations, the Indiana Supreme Court voted 3-2 to revise that policy.

"We think in general the public benefits by knowing more about what happens in its courts," Shepard said.

The change means television and still cameras and audio recorders will be allowed to operate inside those eight courtrooms, provided the litigants in the case agree to it beforehand. Flash cameras, distracting spotlights and intrusive camera noise won't be permitted. And photojournalists won't be allowed to film jurors, police informants, undercover agents, minors or victims of sex crimes.

At the end of the 18-month experiment, the Indiana Supreme Court will evaluate whether to allow courtroom cameras on a wider basis. * * *

Shepard said he chose Evansville to unveil the project because it is where he first observed the news media covering courts, while he was a Vanderburgh Superior Court judge in the early 1980s.

He also cited the 1955 murder trial in Evansville of Leslie "Mad Dog" Irvin, a death-penalty case so inundated by prejudicial pretrial publicity that Irvin was granted a new trial by the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Irvin case, cameras were prohibited in Indiana courtrooms.

"Over time, that lesson has been re-examined. The nature of press coverage changes, the equipment changes and the way the public reacts to press coverage has shifted. So there is an unusual historical connection Evansville has to the topic," Shepard said during a courtroom news conference.

Starting July 1, the Supreme Court order will allow one TV camera, one still camera and three audio recorders in the participating courtrooms, as long as each side in the case agrees to it in advance. It will be up to news organizations to work out the logistics of "pool coverage" of the case. Though the order doesn't specifically address the Internet, Shepard said nothing would prevent Web casting trial court proceedings live.

Richard D. Walton of the Indianapolis Star reports:
Most states already allow cameras in their courtrooms, as do the Indiana Supreme and Appeals courts, but the issue isn't without controversy.

Critics argue allowing cameras could intimidate witnesses and cause lawyers and judges to play to the camera. "You're adding a performance element to it," said Bob Hammerle, an Indianapolis criminal defense attorney. "You end up focusing on matters other than what you're there for."

Proponents say cameras would hold lawyers and judges accountable, and be a reality check for citizens whose main source of legal news is Judge Judy.

Under the Indiana program, no jurors, confidential informants, minors or witnesses at sentencing hearings may be photographed. And use of cameras will require the consent of the judge and both parties.

Allowing cameras inside eight of Indiana's roughly 275 trial courtrooms is part of a trend toward opening up government proceedings. In 2002, the Indiana House of Representatives began letting people listen to debates via computer. The chamber upgraded to video in 2005. The Senate joined midsession last year.

Nationally, videocasts of legislative proceedings are becoming commonplace, with at least 27 states having some form of Web or television viewing.

More than 30 states allow cameras in their trial courts. By the mid-1990s, with the advent of Court TV and other such programs, the momentum appeared to be with the movement. Many federal judges, in their own test of whether the ban on cameras in federal courtrooms should be lifted, found that the cameras did not disrupt proceedings and in some cases had a good effect.

For example, lawyers tended to be better prepared. "They didn't want to look foolish or bad under that kind of microscope," said Stephen Key, general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association.

Then came the O.J. Simpson trial. The circus atmosphere surrounding the 1995 murder trial turned off much of the federal judiciary, who voted against lifting the camera ban. "The O.J. Simpson trial set cameras in the courtroom back probably 10 years," Key said. * * *

Shepard says there are safeguards against abuses, and he isn't all that worried about lawyers posturing for the viewers. "The typical news clip of any story these days is so short, you don't have a lot of time for theatrics," he said.

Courts participating in the program, which also permits tape recordings of trial proceedings, are located in Fort Wayne, South Bend, Muncie, Indianapolis, Evansville and Crawfordsville. Among local jurists involved are Marion Superior Judges Robert R. Altice Jr. and Patricia J. Gifford.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 10, 2006 06:28 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts