Media Relations
Media Coverage of
State Court Proceedings
Memorandum
| Date: |
January 2007 |
| By: |
Anne E. Skove |
|
Re:
|
Cameras
in the Courts |
|
Every
state permits some type of broadcast media access to at least one
level of its state court system. From the 1970s through 1990s, many
courts implemented experimental rules allowing broadcast media access
to judicial proceedings.
Most rules have been made permanent.
Prohibitions
on coverage vary, but certain types of proceedings are rarely
broadcast.
Coverage of proceedings involving juveniles, victims of sex crimes,
domestic relations, and trade secrets are usually prohibited to some
extent. Coverage of voir dire is prohibited. Coverage of jurors is
either prohibited or restricted to prevent visual identification of
jurors.
Some states prohibit coverage of witnesses who appear under subpoena,
and deny coverage of victims or witnesses who object and show good
cause. We do not delve into the self-imposed policies of the press
here, but many media outlets do not publish names of minors or of
certain victims where the story does not gain from their
identification.
To
preserve the attorney-client relationship, all states ban coverage of
conferences. Typical is Florida Administrative Rule 2.450(g),
which forbids “audio pickup or broadcast that occur in a court
facility between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel of a
client, or between counsel and the presiding judge held at the
bench.”
The
media represent the public at proceedings, so have no more rights than
the public. Thus, any proceeding closed to the public is likewise
closed to the media. While “open court” is the ideal, judges have
discretion over what may or may not be open. This is particularly true
of extra-trial information, such as juror names and addresses or
access to closed hearings.
Judges
have a duty to maintain decorum. Judicial canons address the judge’s
duty to remain impartial in the face of what, particularly in
high-profile trials, may include “partisan interests, public clamor,
or fear of criticism.”
Rules regarding media coverage are often found in the canons rather
than in rules of court administration, demonstrating further the
judge’s responsibility to ensure fairness and dignity for all
parties involved. The duty to maintain order and decorum may include
avoiding a media circus.
An example of a state’s code of judicial conduct that speaks
directly to the issue of the media is found in the Texas Judicial
Code, Canon (A)(7):
Judges
should prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording or taking
photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto
during sessions of court or recesses between sessions, except that a
judge may authorize:
-
the use of electronic or photographic means for the
presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record or for
other purposes of judicial administration;
-
the broadcasting, televising, recording or photographing
of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings;
-
the photographic or electronic recording and
reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following
conditions:
-
the means of
recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of
the proceedings; and
-
the parties have
consented; and the consent to being depicted or recorded has been
obtained from each witness appearing in the recording and
reproductions; and
-
the reproduction will not be exhibited until after the
proceeding has been concluded and all direct appeals have been
exhausted; and
-
the reproduction will be exhibited only for
instructional purposes in educational institutions.
The note
to this section explains “[t]emperate conduct of judicial
proceedings is essential to the fair administration of justice. The
recording and reproduction of a proceeding should not distort or
dramatize the proceeding.”
Rules
and policies allow more coverage and openness than in the past.
Even proceedings once held sacred, such as child protection hearings,
are more open. In the example of child protection, public
accountability was a factor. Many such cases were already in the
press; all that was missing was court coverage. Moreover, studies
showed that the proceedings remained controlled and respectful.
The
potential to increase public trust and confidence in courts and the
opportunity to educate the public about the legal system have been
touted as positive outcomes of broadcasting judicial proceedings.
Responsible coverage increases public access to the justice system
while avoiding a “circus” atmosphere.
While the media are in an excellent position to educate the public,
however, their penchant for entertainment may trump their educational
role. The public may be misled because more unusual cases tend to make
headlines.
RULES
AND RESOURCES
Rules
typically cover media requests; types and placement of equipment;
consent; procedures for objecting; and technical information. The
attached Media
Coverage of Court Proceedings Table indicates the status of media coverage in state
courts. Particular attention is given to consent and prohibitions.
Links to information for the media, such as PIO contacts,
applications, and guides to the legal system, are also included.
Online resource centers with information about high-profile cases are
listed where available.
See Hayslett, Jerrianne, “What A Difference A Lens Makes,”
Court Manager, vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer 1997): 21. Hayslett
compares celebrity trials that were and were not televised
(Menendez and O.J. Simpson).
|
