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. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT