« Law - "Blogs can top the presses" | Main | Ind. Law - the Upcoming Week in the Indiana General Assembly »

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Courts - More on "Judicial Conference Urges End to 'Secret' Dockets"

This ILB entry from March 14th about changes to be made in the federal court system briefly mentioned the federal Judicial Conference's pilot project aimed at making audio of court proceedings available online. This story today from Mark Apuzzo of the AP has more on the plan:

The federal judiciary approved a pilot program this week to make free audio recordings of court proceedings available online. Although a court's participation in the program is voluntary, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, the executive committee chairman of the policy-making Judicial Conference, said he expects the system ultimately will be widely used.

"I do hope the Judicial Conference efforts will be looked at as an attempt to see if we can make court proceedings more inclusive and transparent to people," Hogan said in an interview.

News organizations and open-government groups applauded the decision, which will allow the files to be played on television and radio and posted on Internet news sites and blogs. * * *

Hogan, the chief judge in the Washington, D.C., federal court, made news in the Libby case by creating a media room with a closed-circuit video feed for the trial. He said the response was positive and he received no complaints about the broadcast of the Libby tapes.

With so many high-profile cases, the Washington courthouse is a good testing ground for the audio program, Hogan said. He said he does not yet know how many judges will sign up here or nationwide.

He said judges will have discretion over when to turn the recorder off, such as during an FBI informant's testimony or when a rape victim takes the stand. Ronald Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, said lawyers will haggle over when that's appropriate.

"Inevitably there's going to be a U.S. attorney who objects on secrecy grounds, a defense counsel who objects on prejudicial grounds or invasion of privacy. There's going to be a victim who objects," Collins said. "Those determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis but the default position is open."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 17, 2007 07:45 PM
Posted to Courts in general