The 15 federal district courts within the Ninth Circuit will be allowed to experiment with video coverage in civil, non-jury matters. The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council announced the new policy on December 17, 2009.
According to the announcement, the Ninth Circuit hopes that "being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law."
The Ninth Circuit's move is an important and laudable step. Time will tell whether it represents only a baby step or in fact a giant leap forward (only about 1/3rd of 9th Circuit trials are bench trials, and the actual approval rate for media requests remains to be seen). However, this move is consistent with a growing trend across the country favoring public access to judicial proceedings.
Because CVN has webcast hundreds of trials and hearings in 30 states, it is uniquely qualified to understand the concerns of camera opponents. CVN frequently encounters opposition from litigants who, although engaged in a public dispute in a public forum with public implications, nonetheless wish to exclude the public.
In our experience, the opponents of public access only occasionally argue that the public has no right to see the proceedings; rather, they emphasize all the ways in which cameras might taint the proceedings. For example, they claim that witnesses will be intimidated, the equipment will interfere with the physical space, the camera operator will be disruptive, or the presence of the cameras will somehow confuse the jurors about the importance or nature of their duty.
Against all of these hypothetical bugaboos, weighs ponderously our actual experience of cameras in the court. They simply do not interfere with the administration of justice. CVN's experience covers all types of proceedings -- trials and hearings, civil and criminal, jury and non-jury, state and federal. Our cameras have never been asked to leave, no case has been reversed (or even appealed) as a result of our media presence, nor even has there been a suggestion to our knowledge that the presence of cameras interfered with the administration of justice in any respect.
Augmenting CVN's experience is the wisdom of the states. Florida has for the past 30 years allowed cameras in nearly all proceedings without any impairment to the judicial system. In fact, some states, including Kentucky and Arizona, use their own permanent, in-court cameras to capture trial proceedings. Video cameras have become a regular part of every day life, and the courts are no exception.
There is a legitimate judicial concern with cameras, though, and that is to ensure that any media presence does not adversely impact the proceedings. Courtrooms, like libraries, are very special public spaces, where custom requires a heightened civility, and words are sometimes spoken in a whisper. The videographer used to covering rock concerts or sports events needs to approach judicial proceedings with an understanding of the required decorum.
CVN's videographers, specially trained for and experienced in covering court proceedings, have proved in the past, and hopefully will demonstrate once again in the Ninth Circuit, that the benefits of improved public access far outweigh even the imagined risks, let alone the real ones.
Resources:
- Ninth Circuit Press Release on Camera Pilot Program
- Florida Press Release Commemorating Cameras in Court
- Florida Supreme Court Proclamation on Cameras
- History and Future of Camera Access in Courtrooms (White Paper)
