Restrictions on courtroom news coverage
In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Chandler v. Florida that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from adopting policies that allow news outlets to record and cover court proceedings electronically.
Currently all 50 states and the District of Columbia have rules regarding news coverage of court proceedings. Each state varies on the regulations and access limits put on the press. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction that prohibits both appellate and trial electronic news coverage. News organizations outlets throughout the country continue to challenge the restrictions.
At the federal level, bills were introduced in the U.S. House and Senate in 2005 that would mandate coverage of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. Additional bills were also introduced to allow electronic news coverage of federal court proceedings. At present, only the 2nd and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals allow electronic news coverage.
In 1962, news outlets covered the pretrial hearing of an alleged scam artist, Billie Sol Estes. After his conviction, Estes appealed, claiming that the coverage had denied him his Sixth Amendment rights. In Estes v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Estes' rights had been violated and that the right to a fair trial trumps the press’ right to cover the trial. (Although Estes was decided on 14th Amendment grounds involving defendants' due-process rights, the ruling affects what the press can do.)
The U.S. Supreme Court again ruled in favor of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights in 1966. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, Dr. Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife. Live news coverage was broadcast of both the coroner’s inquest and Sheppard's trial. The Supreme Court, finding the coverage interfered with his right to a fair trial, instructed states to create rules for news coverage that would ensure fair trials.
In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court held in another case not decided on First Amendment grounds, Chandler v. Florida, that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from adopting rules that permit electronic recording devices in their courts.
Current legislative efforts to allow coverage
In 2005, S. 1768 was introduced in the U.S. Senate in an attempt to mandate broadcast access of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings unless a majority of the justices voted against it in an individual case. The last major action concerning the bill occurred March 2006, when it was placed on the Senate legislative calendar under General Orders. A similar House bill, H.R. 4380, was referred to a House Subcommittee in February 2006. Nonetheless, at a July 2006 conference, Chief Justice John G. Roberts reiterated that the Supreme Court justices opposed televising their hearings.
Congressional legislators also addressed access to electronic news coverage in federal courts. A bill, S. 829, which would give federal appellate and trial judges the option of broadcasting their proceedings, was also placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. In November 2005, the House passed on a 375-45 vote the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act, H.R. 1751, which gave federal judges discretion to televise proceedings. Already the 2nd and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals allow broadcast coverage if a news-media request is made and the judges approve it.
Recent state challenges to coverage
News organizations including The Des Moines Register were prohibited in 2005 from shooting video and taking photographs at a trial of a man charged with four felony counts of HIV transmission. The county attorney argued that electronic news coverage would be disruptive for the women testifying. Iowa’s rules require that permission to cover a proceeding electronically should be granted unless it would interfere with the rights of parties or witnesses. Access may also be denied if a party provides a good reason that access should not be allowed or if witnesses are involved in a sexual-abuse trial.
In 2005, the Georgia Supreme Court overruled a trial court ruling that banned a Savannah Morning News reporter from taking a still camera into a murder trial. The ruling came too late to help the journalist cover the case because the murder defendant had been sentenced eight months earlier. The trial judge, saying he banned the use of the camera because the defendant objected, also cited jury-privacy concerns.
An Idaho judge in 2005 banned cameras, cell phones, audio recorders, and laptop computers at a hearing for a man accused of murdering three members of an Idaho family. The judge also banned a Court TV reporter from using a BlackBerry to communicate with co-workers outside the courtroom. In Idaho, the judge has sole discretion to decide which devices can be used and his or her decision cannot be appealed.
In Re: WLBT, Inc. (2005), the Mississippi Supreme Court overruled a state circuit court refusal to allow a television station to film a sentencing hearing. The circuit judge denied the station’s request because he was concerned the sentencing hearing might include a separate defendant charged with conspiracy in the same case. The state high court held that restricting television cameras was comparable to complete closure of courtrooms.
The state Legislature passed a law that allowed cameras in the courtroom from 1987 to 1997 as an experiment. The law was not renewed. The Court of Appeals ruled 7-0 in Courtroom Tel. Network v. State of New York (2005) that the press has a right to attend trials but not electronically record them.
An Army commander ruled in 2006 that the news media and public would be barred from witnessing testimony of Iraqis in a hearing for U.S. Army soldiers accused of raping and killing an Iraqi teen. The order stated the Iraqis felt their appearing in court could lead them to be targeted by insurgents.
Statute summaries by state
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah.
Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia.
California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
See RTNDA's Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide.
Following is a summary of each jurisdiction’s rules regarding court coverage.
The Supreme Court of Alabama must approve a plan under which coverage will occur that will not interfere with a defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. If the Supreme Court of Alabama approves the plan, then written consent of all parties in a civil or criminal proceeding is required before cameras are allowed. Coverage must cease if at anytime a witness, party, juror, or attorney expressly objects. In an appellate proceeding a judge may also expressly object and halt coverage.
Authority: Canon 3A(7), 3(A)(7A), and 3(A)(7B), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Ala. Code, Vol. 23A (Rules of Alabama Supreme Court) (2006).
News media may cover court proceedings in all trial and appellate courts. However, they must seek approval from the presiding judge at least 24 hours before a proceeding starts. The consent of all parties is required in proceedings pertaining to family-law issues and sexual offenses. Jurors may not be photographed or videotaped in the courtroom.
Authority: Rule 50, Rules Governing the Administration of All Courts, Alaska Rules of Court.
All state courts allow electronic and still photographic coverage at the discretion of the judge. However, recording a juvenile proceeding, or recording jury members in any judicial proceeding, is prohibited. When coverage is allowed, equipment or personnel may not be a distraction to the proceeding or prevent the parties from receiving a fair trial. Just one TV camera and still camera are allowed in the courtroom at a time; news outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements. The court also specifies the quality of equipment that is required.
Authority: Rule 122, Rules of Arizona Supreme Court, Ariz. Rev. Stat., Vol. 17(A).
A judge may authorize the broadcast and recording of a courtroom proceeding. However, an objection by a party precludes coverage. A witness may also object, and if so, cannot be covered. Coverage of juvenile, family-law matters and sexual offenses are prohibited. Only one TV camera and one still camera are allowed in the courtroom at a time; news outlets are responsible for pooling agreements.
A judge may grant permission to record a judicial proceeding if a request is made at least five days before it starts. News outlets must come to a pooling agreement and file it with the court. Coverage of jury members or private discussions between the parties is not permitted. Personal recording devices may be used for notetaking if permission is sought and granted by the judge before the proceeding. The court clerk maintains a list of all reporters working on the proceeding; a copy of this list is available to the public.
A written request must be received by the judge at least one day before the court proceeding commences. A judge may grant permission to cover the proceeding if he or she feels news coverage will not interfere with the right to a fair trial. Trial participants do not need to consent to the coverage. News outlets must make pooling arrangements.
Authority: Canons 3(A)(7) & 3(A)(8), Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, Colo. Rev. Stat., Vol. 7A (Court Rules), Appendix to Chapter 24; Form.
In the trial court, a request to cover the judicial proceeding must be given three days before it starts. In an appellate court, a request for coverage must be given no later than two weeks before commencement. A written notice must also be delivered to each counsel. Coverage of family-relation matters, trade secrets and sexual-offense charges is not allowed. Equipment may not be operated during a court recess. A trial judge may prohibit coverage of any trial participant upon that person's request. Because the amount of recording equipment allowed is limited, the news media are required to make pooling arrangements.
Electronic coverage of appellate proceedings is allowed and does not require the consent of the parties. The Delaware Supreme Court issued an administrative order launching an experiment with trial-court coverage. In 2005, the “experiment” was extended indefinitely.
District of Columbia
Electronic coverage of all proceedings is prohibited in trial and appellate proceedings.
Authority: Rule 53(b) Rules Governing Juvenile Proceedings; 53(b) Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 203(b) Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 203(b) Superior Court Domestic Relations.
Although electronic and still photographic coverage is allowed, it is subject to the authority of the presiding trial or appellate judge at all times. Under a “qualitative test,” an individual who does not want electronic coverage must show that (1) the presence of camera has a qualitatively different effect on that person than on other people, and (2) the effect is different from the effect of other types of media. A criminal defendant must also show that it would prohibit him or her from receiving a fair trial. In re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations Fla., Inc., 370 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1979). The amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom is limited and therefore news outlets must make their own pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rule 2.1780, Rules of Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Court.
In probate, magistrate, and juvenile courts a request for coverage must be filed with the court. However, juveniles and jury members may not be recorded. A request for covering the Court of Appeals must be filed seven days in advance. A copy of the recording must be provided to the court. News outlets are required to make pooling arrangements. Prior approval to cover the Supreme Court is not required.
Authority: Rules 75-91, Supreme Court Rules; Rules 3.8, 26.1 and 26. 2, Juvenile Court Rules; Rule 18, Probate Court Rules; Rule 11, Magistrate Court Rules; Rule 22, Superior Court Rules, Georgia Rules of Court Annotated.
Prior consent of the judge is required in trial proceedings but not in appellate proceedings. The judge may deny coverage only for “good cause” such as protecting a child witness or sexual offense victim. The media may not record jurors or any proceeding that is closed to the public. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rules 5.1, 5.2, Rules of the Supreme Court, Hawaii Court Rules.
Under Rule 45, all public proceedings may be recorded, provided that permission is granted from the presiding judge. Rule 46 allows for electronic coverage in appellate proceedings. The judge may deny coverage if it would have an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings, or if the proceedings are closed to the public. There is a limit on the amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom and therefore news outlets must make pooling arrangements. Furthermore, the news media are required to dress and act in a manner in keeping “with the dignity of the proceedings.”
A witness cannot be compelled to testify if the testimony will be covered by electronic media. News outlets wanting to cover a proceeding must contact the court five days before the proceeding begins. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements. A judge may curtail coverage upon his or her discretion. In 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected a bid to allow cameras and microphones in trial courtrooms. Cameras and microphones are allowed only in appellate proceedings.
Authority: Rule 63(A)(7), Rules of the Illinois Supreme Court; Chapter 735, §8-701, Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated; Supreme Court Orders of Nov. 29, 1983, and Jan. 22, 1985.
In summer 2006, the Indiana Supreme Court launched a pilot program to allow extended electronic coverage of court proceedings. The pilot program will last for one year. Journalists must fax requests to the counsel to the chief justice before the start of court argument. If there are more requests than positions, a random drawing will be held. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements. There is an archive of appellate Webcasts.
Electronic media coverage of court proceedings is permitted if permission is granted by the presiding judge. A judge may refuse to grant permission if he or she believes it would interfere with a defendant's right to a fair trial. Coverage of certain issues may not be covered; sexual offenses, for example. Although coverage of jurors is not allowed, coverage of the jury’s verdict is. Equipment must meet certain specifications and news outlets must make pooling arrangements.
Authority: Ch. 25, Iowa Court Rules.
The news media and educational television may record public proceedings before the appellate, district and municipal courts, but the recordings may be used only for news or educational purposes. The judge should be given at least a week's notice. Coverage must not identify jury members. A judge has the discretion to prevent coverage of certain participants or proceedings involving sensitive subject matter. Before a verdict, criminal defendants in restraints may not be recorded as they are being led to or from the proceedings. The amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom is limited.
Electronic media coverage is allowed in appellate and trial courts under the discretion of the presiding judge. A request must be made to the judge prior to the proceedings. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements.
A request to cover a court proceeding electronically must be received by the clerk of court at least 20 days in advance. The consent or approval of all parties is not required. The amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom being limited, news outlets must make pooling arrangements. Individual journalists are allowed tape recorders and may sit anywhere in the courtroom but may not change tape cassettes except during a recess. Courtroom dignity and decorum (which includes a dress code) must be followed at all times.
Those wishing to cover a trial electronically must make a request to the court clerk in writing. Coverage of civil matters is generally allowed except in cases involving sensitive subject matter, such as divorce, sexual assault or trade secrets. Only non-testimonial criminal proceedings may be covered. No jury member may be recorded. Also, the recording of proceedings in which a child is the principal subject is not allowed. Because the amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom is limited, news outlets must make pooling arrangements.
Authority: Administrative Order JB-05-15, Cameras in the Courtroom (Aug. 1, 2005).
Electronic coverage of criminal matters is not permitted. In civil cases at the trial level, all parties must consent to coverage. Parties' consent is not required at the appellate level. A request to cover a proceeding must be given at least five days in advance. Coverage of jury members is not permitted. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements.
All proceedings open to the public may be electronically recorded. News organizations should make a request in advance to record the proceeding. Jury members should not be recorded in a manner in which they can be recognized. A party may object to coverage and if the objection is granted, the news outlets may appeal it.
Requests for courtroom news coverage must be received at least three days in advance. Requests can be denied and cannot be appealed. Coverage of jury members is not permitted. The judge has discretion to prevent coverage of certain parties, witnesses or proceedings dealing with sensitive subject matters such as sexual offenses. News organizations must make pooling arrangements.
Electronic recording is allowed in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. In all other proceedings, the judge may allow recording only if all parties have consented and the recording is used for educational purposes.
Authority: Canon 3A(11), Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, Minn. Stat. Ann. Vol. 52; Rule 4, General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, Minn. Stat. Ann. vol. 51.
Electronic press coverage is not allowed in justice or municipal courts. However, coverage is allowed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, chancery courts, circuit courts and county courts. The news media must notify the court at least 48 hours in advance. The presiding judge can use discretion to protect the rights of the parties or the dignity of the proceeding. Certain parties, witness or proceedings dealing with sensitive subject matters may be off-limits to news coverage. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rules for Electronic and Photographic Coverage of Judicial Proceedings; Canon 3B(12), Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges; Rule 1.04, Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Courts, Mississippi Rules of Court.
News coverage is allowed at the both the trial and appellate levels. Requests for coverage must be filed with the media coordinator at least five days before the proceeding; the media coordinator will then contact the parties and judge at least four days in advance. Coverage of the jury and sensitive subjects such as family matters is not permitted. No press coverage of a criminal proceeding is allowed until the defendant has counsel or has waived his or her right to counsel. The judge may prohibit certain coverage of a participant’s testimony, either on the participant’s objection or at the judge’s own discretion. Owing to limitations on the amount of equipment allowed, pooling arrangements are required.
The recording of any proceeding open to the public is allowed as long as the judge determines it would not interfere with a party's receiving a fair trial. Electronic news representatives should contact the judge to express their desire to record the proceedings. News organizations are required to make pooling arrangements and representatives must dress so that they do not stand out from other spectators.
Authority: Canon 35, Montana Canons of Judicial Ethics, 176 Mont. Xxiii, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1543 (1980).
Expanded news coverage is permitted in all judicial proceedings unless it would interfere with the rights of the parties to receive a fair trial. A party objecting to coverage must file a written request at least three days before proceedings commence. News outlets must make their own pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rules 17, 18; Rules of the Supreme Court/Court of Appeals; Nebraska Court Rules and Procedure.
News organizations must file a written request with the presiding judge at least 72 hours in advance. Only hearings open to the public may be covered. The consent of participants in the proceeding is not required. However, coverage is not allowed at certain confidential hearings. The recording of jury members is not allowed. During the conduct of any voir dire hearing at which the print press is excluded, the electronic media are also excluded.
Authority: Nevada Supreme Court Rules, Part IV, Rules on Cameras and Electronic Media Coverage in the Courts.
Coverage of Supreme Court, Superior Court and District Court proceedings is allowed as long as there is no disruption or impairment of the proceeding. Permission must be sought to cover. News organizations must make their own pooling arrangements.
“Bona fide” news outlets may cover court proceedings. If coverage may damage a party’s ability to receive a fair trial, the presiding judge has discretion to limit the coverage. However, news organizations may appeal a limiting restriction. Print journalists may carry a tape recorder as long as it meets the court’s requirements. Coverage of jury members is not allowed. Coverage of certain subject matter is also not allowed. Under certain circumstances, recording of a juvenile may be allowed. News organizations are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Canon 3A(9), Code of Judicial Conduct; Supreme Court Guidelines for Still and Television Camera and Audio Coverage of Proceedings in the Courts of New Jersey.
Electronic coverage of appellate and trial court proceedings is allowed. The court clerk should be notified at least 24 hours in advance. The judge has discretion to prohibit coverage for good cause. Coverage of certain parties, witnesses or proceedings dealing with sensitive subjects may be prohibited. News organizations are responsible for pooling arrangements.
News outlets seeking to cover appellate court proceedings electronically must seek approval. Limitations are imposed on the amount and type of equipment allowed. The case of Courtroom Tel. Network, LCC v. New York held that a ban on electronic coverage of trial court proceedings under New York Civil Rights Law § 52 was constitutional.
News-related personnel and equipment should not be seen or heard inside the courtroom and consequently must be set up outside the courtroom or behind a partition. However, hand-held audio tape players may be used if the judge grants prior consent. Coverage of jury members is not allowed. The rules do not require the consent of all participants. Coverage of certain parties, witnesses or proceedings involving sensitive matters, however, may be prohibited. The news media are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rule 15, General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts of North Carolina, North Carolina Rules of Court.
Electronic news coverage is authorized in all courts unless it would interfere with the right to a fair trial. Also, coverage may be prohibited of certain sexual-offense victims, and certain witnesses and undercover agents. Requests to cover trial-court proceedings must be made to the presiding judge at least seven days in advance. Requests to cover the Supreme Court must be received at least 72 hours in advance.
Coverage is allowed of court proceedings that are open to the public. A request for coverage must be made to the presiding judge. A victim or witness has the right to object to being covered and must be informed of that right. News outlets are required to make their own pooling arrangements because the amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom is limited.
A request for coverage must be filed with a judge, who may then permit the use of broadcasting equipment in the courtroom. Any party or witness objecting to coverage may not be recorded. No coverage is allowed of matters held in private. In a criminal trial, the accused party must give his or her consent before coverage is allowed.
Authority: Title 5, Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 1, Appendix 4, Canon 3B(10)(11).
In appellate court, a judge may allow coverage as long as it does not cause a distraction or interfere with the right to a fair trial. The amount of equipment allowed in the courtroom is limited; therefore news organizations must make pooling arrangements. A news-media representative may be removed from a proceeding for failure to wear appropriate attire.
Electronic coverage of civil or criminal proceedings is generally prohibited. Under certain circumstances, the presiding judge may authorize a request for electronic coverage if 1) all parties consent; 2) it is not broadcast until the completion of the proceeding, and 3) it is used for educational purposes.
Authority: Canon 3A(7), Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 112, Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 223, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Official Note); Rule 7, Rules of Conduct, Rules Governing Standards of Conduct for District Justices.
Electronic coverage is not permitted at any trial-level criminal proceeding. Judges have discretion to exclude all media from appellate and civil proceedings. A judge may prohibit coverage owing to a party's objection. Coverage of juvenile cases is prohibited. A jury member may be recorded if he or she agrees to it.
Authority: Article VII, Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules, Rhode Island Court Rules Annotated; Rules 53, Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
A news organization should give a judge reasonable notice that it wishes to record the proceeding; the presiding judge has discretion over whether to permit coverage. Coverage may not distract participants or disrupt the proceeding. The parties and witnesses must consent. Recorded news coverage may not be shown until after the proceeding has concluded and all direct appeals are exhausted.
Authority: Rule 605, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, South Carolina Rules of Court.
All Supreme Court proceedings are presumed open and expanded news coverage is allowed. A party objecting to coverage must file with the court to that effect 10 days in advance. Extended coverage of trial or appellate proceedings is not allowed. News outlets are required to arrange pooling agreements.
News outlets should make a coverage request to the presiding judge at least two days in advance. Coverage of jury members and juveniles is not allowed. Before denying coverage a judge must hold an evidentiary hearing and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to prevent coverage. There is a limit on how much equipment is allowed in the courtroom; news organizations must make their own pooling arrangements.
A request to cover arguments in a civil or criminal trial must be submitted at least five days in advance. Requests for other proceedings must be submitted two days in advance. News outlets must make pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rule 18c, Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 14, Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In a trial courtroom, recording is prohibited except to create a record of proceedings. In an appellate courtroom, recording is permitted to preserve the record of proceedings and under some appellate court procedures. Journalists may not record any jury member. Still photography is prohibited except at the discretion of the judge. A request to take still photographs must be filed with the judge 24 hours in advance.
In the Supreme Court, electronic media coverage of the proceedings is permitted without the full consent of the court unless the chief justice decides otherwise. At the trial level, coverage is permitted in the courtroom and in areas open to the public outside the court. The judge at the trial level does retain some discretion to limit coverage. Coverage of jury members is prohibited. Coverage is allowed only in matters open to the public. News outlets are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Vermont Rules: Rule 35, Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure; Rule 53, Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rules 79.2 & 79.3, Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure.
The presiding judge has sole discretion to prohibit electronic and still-photography coverage. Coverage is not allowed of certain parties or witnesses or at certain proceedings that are of a sensitive nature. News organizations are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-266.
Extended news coverage is allowed as long as advance permission from the presiding judge is sought. If the judge wishes to limit coverage, he or she must make particularized findings on the record as to why it should be limited. News organizations are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Rule 16, General Rules, Washington Court Rules.
Requests to cover a trial-court proceeding electronically must be made one day in advance. Only proceedings open to the public may be recorded unless an exception is made. News outlets are responsible for organizing pool coverage.
Authority: Canon 3(B)(12), West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 1, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Media Coverage of Courtroom Proceedings in the Supreme Court; Rule 8, West Virginia Trial Court Rules.
The trial judge retains discretion on whether electronic media should be allowed in the courtroom. If possible, news outlets should give a trial judge three days' notice of a wish to bring electronic recording equipment into the courtroom. Certain proceedings or participants involved in sensitive subjects may not be covered. Jury members also may not be covered. News organizations are responsible for pooling arrangements.
Authority: Chapter 61, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules.
A request for electronic news coverage of trial and appellate proceedings must be received at least 24 hours before the proceeding begins. Coverage of jury members is not permitted. In cases involving a victim of a crime or concerning other sensitive subject matter, a victim's objection to coverage is presumed valid.
Beth Chesterman is a third-year law student at the University of Iowa College of Law in Iowa City.