Posts Tagged ‘cameras in courtroom’
The disputed subject of placing television cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court has evoked passion for decades on both sides of the argument, with – no surprise – the justices’ “no” winning out.
Given all the questions about the detentions of accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, allowing the greatest transparency for 9/11 military tribunals would be in the nation’s interest.
Army Col. James Pohl denies request by attorneys for five men accused in 2001 attacks, saying the court has no authority to allow general broadcast.
Conference of judges and journalists examines uses and challenges of new technology in judicial reporting; new Seigenthaler News Service project also highlighted.
Rousing success of state Supreme Court policy is pleasing the news media, converting skeptics who initially opposed allowing broadcast and electronic coverage from courtrooms.
Rules governing war-crimes tribunal forbid broadcasting the proceedings, Army Col. James Pohl says, but journalists and public may attend.
County judge objects to Fort Wayne radio reporter’s use of a smartphone during a murder hearing, saying electronic devices aren’t allowed in courtroom.
Chief justice announces addition of two more counties to pilot program, which he says appears to be working well in circuit courts where it already is being tried.
With care and common sense, judges can accommodate the First Amendment freedom of news reporters to cover courtrooms — including via Twitter — and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
But justices agree to release audio recordings of the proceedings the same day, and will post information within two hours of the end of arguments.
Proceedings will be the first big test of the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to experiment with cameras in state courts.
Sponsors say there’s no valid reason for the high court to operate outside the public eye.
Panel: Judge had promised video wouldn’t be released and ‘integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word.’
Beyond blocking courtroom cameras, Erwin Chemerinsky contends, justices fail to tell public in advance when they’ll rule on cases or explain why they don’t take cases.
New policy announced by state high court invites state’s 23 circuits to apply to participate in pilot project, after which news media will be able to ask to record specific trials.