›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Merits of banning cameras/recording equipment

JasonJason
edited January 2012 in Anime
A Cleveland television station was barred from covering a high-profile corruption case with cameras in the court room.

So they took good notes and have been using Muppet-like felt puppets to reenact key parts of the trial. I am highly amused.

My question for the forum lawyer/legal types: What are the merits to banning electronic recoding equipment during proceedings? From a media standpoint (I am a reporter), I have always opposed judges using this power.

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    I do think the public has a right to see what is going on in the court room. But there are problems where the presence of cameras in the court room could interfere with the fairness of the trial. OJ is the obvious example. If cameras were not in that court room, it wouldn't have taken nearly as long, and the result may have even been different.
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    This has been going on for a long time. I mean, we've seen courtroom artist drawings and whatnot. As long as full transcripts of what happened in the courtroom are made available immediately upon completion of the trial, if not sooner, I'm fine with it. As Scott said, there may be a case where cameras and such could affect the fairness of the trial.
  • RymRym
    Any case involving a public interest should be open to the public. E.g., corruption, bribery, police brutality.
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    Very true, but there are possibly varying definitions of what "open" could mean. Does allowing anyone, within reason with respect to space considerations and the behavior of the observers, into the court room count as making it open to the public, even if recording devices are not allowed? What about making the transcripts available to the public? Does that count?
  • GregGreg
    A Cleveland television station was barred from covering a high-profile corruption case with cameras in the court room. So they took good notes and have been using Muppet-like felt puppets to reenact key parts of the trial. I am highly amused.
    Um... Pics and or video please?
  • AprecheApreche
    I think the biggest problem with government information openness is that a lot of time you have to send in FOIA requests and other nonsense. It's like yeah, this information is publicly available just pay a fee and send in a form and maybe your request will be honored eventually.

    It should be mandatory for all non-secret government information to be published online in non-proprietary formats and be extensively searchable.
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    The ideal situation is the the court is in bubble. You can see in, but they can't see you. It would still likely effect the outcome (simply knowing that your actions as a lawyer, juror, or judge would be known to the world may inform some actions... though maybe in a positive or negative way). Perhaps further scrutiny is needed. Perhaps the jurors themselves should not be observed? Or would that itself have further negative consequences?

    I'm uncertain... I lean towards open information... but I'm having trouble figuring it out...
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    I think the biggest problem with government information openness is that a lot of time you have to send in FOIA requests and other nonsense. It's like yeah, this information is publicly available just pay a fee and send in a form and maybe your request will be honored eventually.

    It should be mandatory for all non-secret government information to be published online in non-proprietary formats and be extensively searchable.
    Agreed completely. For a second, I was going to say that it should also be available in a non-online format for those who visit an appropriate records office, but then I realized this would be redundant -- even if you don't have access to a computer at home or work, for example, you should still be able to get to it online at a library, town hall, or some other local public institution that can at the very least have network access to these documents.
  • JasonJason
    Per request:
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Oh, that's just funny. Well, when you don't have a camera you just have to do your best.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    I don't see why recording equipment shouldn't be in every courtroom that allows a public audience.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I don't know, if this spawns things like Puppet Court, I might be ok with this.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why not do it CSPAN style? Just leave a camera in the corner of every courtroom and make the recordings available later for a nominal fee or air them on a local public access cable channel?
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    I don't see why recording equipment shouldn't be in every courtroom that allows a public audience.
    I can see one scenario... Presumably a rape victim may not want her (or his for that matter) face to be shown in public during/after the trial of the assaulter.

  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    edited January 2012
    I don't see why recording equipment shouldn't be in every courtroom that allows a public audience.
    I can see one scenario... Presumably a rape victim may not want her (or his for that matter) face to be shown in public during/after the trial of the assaulter.

    Observation is a bit of a double-edged sword. I'm specifically thinking of the jury here. Being "watched" may influence some people to want to act in a way that will either earn the respect or avoid the disdain of their neighbors. That could be good or bad.

    Or maybe they are more protected than I realize? I always think back to the OJ Simpson case where even the jurors were under the public eye.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • GregGreg
    I don't see why recording equipment shouldn't be in every courtroom that allows a public audience.
    I can see one scenario... Presumably a rape victim may not want her (or his for that matter) face to be shown in public during/after the trial of the assaulter.

    I'm okay with her/him wearing a V mask or something if (s)he is worried about anonymity.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    I can see one scenario... Presumably a rape victim may not want her (or his for that matter) face to be shown in public during/after the trial of the assaulter.
    That's why I said "a courtroom that allows a public audience." There are definitely scenarios where you want/need a closed courtroom, for things like witness protection and national security.
  • PeguPegu
    You guys probably already know about this but it's worth bumping this thread for.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2014
    KY is backwards in a lot of areas, but it actually has a pretty decent, modern court system. Whereas some jurisdictions, like DC, still rely on court reporters, KY uses video as its court record. So, if any news organization wants video of an event, they could just get it from the clerks, like this little gem: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/30/prosecutor-history-anger-issues-fired/18184541/
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    HungryJoe said:

    KY is backwards in a lot of areas, but it actually has a pretty decent, modern court system. Whereas some jurisdictions, like DC, still rely on court reporters, KY uses video as its court record. So, if any news organization wanted video of an event, they could just get it from the clerks, like this little gem: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/10/30/prosecutor-history-anger-issues-fired/18184541/

    Wow. How come that guy just didn't go straight to jail for contempt?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited November 2014
    Realistically, for street-level practice, contempt depends a lot on an individual judge's tolerance for shenanigans. Also, a contempt finding is kind of a last resort remedy.

    I happen to know both the prosecutor and the judge in that video. Judge McLaughlin is very, very prosecution oriented. Once, when she lost a case as a prosecutor, she grabbed the lapels of a juror and screamed at her. http://kycir.org/2014/07/31/a-look-at-louisvilles-worst-rated-judge-and-her-controversial-comments/

    http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/09/05/judge-admits-making-inappropriate-comments/15121213/

    So, she probably doesn't care when a prosecutor acts out like that.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    That reminds me of a only barely related question I thought of when I voted earlier this month.

    We vote for judges, at least in my district. All these judges were unopposed. I presume it's possible for someone with no legal expertise whatsoever to get on the ballot. What if such a person were to miraculously win? Do they have to quit their job and become a judge? Has it ever happened?
Sign In or Register to comment.