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.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.