ILNews

Indiana courts take backseat on camera study

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As yet another study concerning cameras in the courtroom is about to begin, Indiana doesn’t appear to be anywhere closer to allowing cameras in its state or federal trial-level courtrooms.

While the federal judiciary and other states move forward on studying whether cameras should be allowed in courtrooms, the Hoosier legal community waits and remains cautious about moving forward or putting a policy in place.

The Indiana Supreme Court conducted a limited 18-month pilot project and has been studying the issue, but it has not released a decision based on a final report it received March 31, 2008. Meanwhile, a recent pilot project at the federal level is moving forward and District courts throughout the country are being asked to volunteer and allow some cases to be filmed.

In September, the federal judiciary’s policy-making arm, the Judicial Conference of the United States, authorized a pilot project allowing cameras in some District courts. Recording will be limited to civil cases at the trial judge’s discretion, and all parties must give their consent. The recordings will be publicly available on the federal court’s website and local District sites. An exact length for the project hasn’t been determined, but it’s expected to stretch at least three years with the Federal Judicial Center conducting a study in the initial years and issuing a report.

Volunteers are being accepted for the next couple months. Due to ongoing congressional budget issues and fiscal constraints, courts that already have existing audio and videoconferencing are encouraged to use that equipment.

“We especially want to ensure that judges who hold a range of views on the recording of courtroom proceedings will participate,” said U.S. Judge Julie A. Robinson from the District of Kansas, who chairs the conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. “It’s important to the validity of this project to include the skeptical as well as the supportive.”

Both of Indiana’s federal courts say they aren’t going to participate, but neither group of District judges say they are opposed to the idea of having cameras in the courtrooms.

“We’ve decided not to participate in the pilot project, although it wasn’t a reflection of any general attitude against cameras in courts,” Chief Judge Philip Simon said in the Northern District. “There’s mixed views among my colleagues, but this was more that we didn’t want to serve as guinea pigs on it. Most are pretty supportive of the project, and we’d like to take a wait-and-see attitude rather than stepping forward and being on the forefront studying that here.”

Chief Judge Simon said he doesn’t personally have a problem with the idea of cameras in courtrooms, but said these issues move slowly because strong feelings and legitimate concerns exist on both sides.

In the Southern District, Chief Judge Richard L. Young said that his colleagues also agreed to stay out of the pilot project, but for a different reason.

“(There was) some discussion at a recent judge’s meeting, but we declined to participate in this pilot project because we were involved in the first one in the early 1990s. This time, other courts should be given the opportunity to participate,” he said.

Despite the decision not to volunteer for this program, Chief Judge Young said consensus among the Southern District judges is that they aren’t opposed to the concept of having cameras in the courts. But they do want to know specifically what the protocols would be to make sure they have the ability to control the process and guarantee the court’s efficiency isn’t impacted.

Chief Judge Young said he’s interested in seeing how this progresses and what districts are chosen to be a part of the pilot project. He expects a good sampling of geography, caseload, and size, reflecting all of the potential issues that might surface. For example, the Southern District of New York encompasses New York City and might not be as able to have a local TV affiliate spend time filming in court as compared to a place like the Southern District of Indiana’s Evansville division, he said.

“They are just different markets, and we need to see how that all fits together in creating a policy like this nationally,” he said.

Cameras have been banned in federal courts since 1994 and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar them from being used in criminal proceedings. This is the first time in about two decades the federal judiciary has changed its policy on allowing cameras in the courts. Recent changes in the makeup of the judiciary may have helped play a part in that. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have both joined the court in the past two years and support the concept of cameras in the courtrooms, though some justices still express their opposition and concern.

“Technology has changed so much and you just didn’t have social media networks and things like Facebook in the 90s,” Chief Judge Young said. “We want to see how this plays out now, in this new world of public access.”

What impact any federal judiciary action may have on state decision-making about cameras in courts remains to be seen.

About two dozen states allow cameras to record trial-level proceedings in some way. There has been a push in recent years for further study of the issue. Earlier this year, Minnesota allowed a pilot project similar to what Indiana allowed from July 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2007. That Indiana pilot was limited – six proceedings were recorded in eight courts statewide.

A final report was submitted three years ago, but Indiana’s top court hasn’t budged on the topic. Two requests have been submitted since then asking for a new smaller study and a webcast in some Lake County civil proceedings. However, Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo, who was heading the webcasting proposal, retired, as have others interested in being a part of the second state pilot project.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has said that the report submitted in 2008 didn’t propel the court in any particular direction, but was just one piece of useful data to compare to everything else. A lingering question has been about the balance between public information and relative burden that still exists, and the chief justice has told Indiana Lawyer that the court doesn’t have enough data to move forward.

As of March 2011, court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the court continues studying both requests in conjunction with the first pilot project evaluation but hasn’t yet made a decision. Those looking for guidance on the issue say the clear message from the court has been that not enough data exists at this time, and that is what is driving the subsequent requests for further study.

“At this point, it’s wait and see,” said Indianapolis attorney Dan Byron, who represents the Indiana Broadcasters Association. “Our feeling has been that we didn’t have sufficient data from that (first) project, and so allowing this new pilot would allow full trials to be televised in a smaller group so that we can move forward.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT