ILNews

Fate of courtroom cameras still unknown

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The federal judge vying to become the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court favors having cameras in court and says she might be interested in furthering their use at the nation's highest court that has resisted the idea for decades.

During her second day of confirmation hearings Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor responded to a senator's question about cameras in the courtroom by saying she's participated and volunteered to have cameras in the courtroom, and has had a positive experience allowing the access. While she would listen to all arguments from her Supreme Court colleagues on that procedure if confirmed, she also hinted that she might be a persuasive new voice on the topic.

But even with that hint of change, the Hoosier legal community continues waiting on word from the state's justices about whether a pilot project for cameras in Indiana trial courts will continue. While arguments are broadcast online for the two appellate courts, the trial level has generally been off limits up until the court decided to investigate a change in that procedure.

Justices have been considering the issue for 16 months, since a report was submitted for review to determine what may be in store for Indiana's trial courts as far as camera accessibility. The appellate docket for Pilot Project for Electronic News Coverage in Indiana Trial Courts, No. 94S00-0605-MS-00166, shows no activity since March 27, 2008.

At that time, the Indiana Broadcasters Association and Hoosier State Press Association submitted a final evaluation and summary of the pilot project that lasted from July 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2007. The report showed the 18-month process was positive based on those recordings but overall disappointing, since only six proceedings were filmed in eight different courtrooms scattered throughout the state. Evaluators noted that the state's consent rules hindered the tapings, and to improve the process the Indiana Supreme Court could modify that to allow media to record proceedings with only the approval of participating judges, rather than all of the parties involved in a case.

Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan told Indiana Lawyer today that the court is still considering the issue and hasn't made a decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT