Image: clipart.com
The state's top judge says advances in technology make it more important than ever to open courtrooms to cameras so New Yorkers can see for themselves how justice works.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who presides at the Court of Appeals where arguments are routinely broadcast online, is calling for a change in state law so people understand how laws are being interpreted, rights determined, criminals punished, and tax dollars spent for the courts and legal system.
"To close our courtrooms to cameras in an age that we have today, with the technology we have with the iPhones and the pads that you see everything in the world, and for the people in New York to not be able to see what happens in our courtrooms doesn't make any sense," Lippman said. "We have to educate people about the critical work that goes on in the courts. They have a right to know about it. They pay the taxes. And yet they can't see it."
New York lawmakers 25 years ago approved camera coverage of court proceedings on an experimental basis but the experiment ended 10 years later when the Legislature didn't vote to continue it.
While some judges have permitted still photographers and video cameras on a limited case-by-case basis, Lippman said access is cumbersome and requires judges to navigate an outdated law. Passed 60 years ago, it prohibits audiovisual coverage of public proceedings where witnesses are subpoenaed or otherwise compelled to testify.
The New York State Defenders Association opposes courtroom cameras, saying broadcasting threatens the right to a fair trial because of adverse publicity, that most states impose restrictions, and that there's no First Amendment right to photograph or televise inside courtrooms.
At a panel discussion last year in Washington, D.C., judges and U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen Jr. said they were concerned about the chilling effect on potential witnesses, especially those who might be regarded as snitches. Another concern is undercover investigators.
Grant Jacquith, first assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of New York, said the rules generally bar cameras in federal courthouses, though the courtrooms are generally open to the public.
"Our office is concerned with both the First Amendment right of access, the public right to know, and the integrity of investigations and the safety of people who conduct them, the safety of people who come forward and tell the truth," he said.
The ban on cameras was part of the national response that followed sensational coverage of the Lindberg baby kidnapping and murder trial of Bruno Hauptmann, according to court officials. More recent reluctance followed the widely viewed 1995 national broadcast coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in California, Lippman said.
-
Ike Aruti, Esq.
Congratulations are almost in order.
Perhaps it is because I was an engineer for more than a decade before becoming a lawyer, but I feel that our court system's failure to embrace mature technology despite the obvious and overwhelming benefits to the parties and system alike is shameful.
I cannot conceive of why we do not now use audiovisual recording as the official record of ALL court proceedings, and obtain a copy on compact disc on our way out of the courthouse. This is the 21st century, and just as society's development has forced our reevaluation of many concepts, we should reconsider what it takes to make a proceeding "public" as well as how one may "appear."
Leaving this up to a judge's individual discretion may be perceived to demonstrate a lack of good faith in an insincere attempt to bring our courts into the present day. It may serve to further bring into question the lack of transparency in our judicial branch of government, and corresponding decline in public confidence exemplified ad nauseum in the Senate Judiciary and Ethics Committee hearings of 2009, abandoned due to overwhelming response.
Just imagine if our police had dragged their feet in adopting technologies such as two way radio, radar, audiovisual recordings, telecommunications and the like. It did not require a decree from their leadership. If grade school children can upload and download videos and conduct multi-party audiovisual communications in real time, why can't our court system?
We have recently made a major modernization of our judges salaries, we should do likewise for our facilities and procedures for delivering justice. This is especially the case in places like New York City, where mere access to facilities can present a major difficulty due to location in highly congested areas with limited public accommodations.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments