ILNews

Judges consider cellphone restrictions after court video hits Facebook

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Disturbed by recent incidents in which video of open court has found its way online, Marion County judges on Friday discussed restricting cellphones in court.

“I’m alarmed,” court administrator Andrea Newsom said of two recent instances she conveyed to judges and court staff during a meeting of the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee. Newsom said court video in one instance was uploaded to Facebook. In another instance, someone in the gallery recorded and streamed video live. Upon learning of the latter violation, a judge mandated the video be removed from a cloud computing server.

“It’s serious enough now with two known incidents to bring it to the attention of the court and talk about next steps,” Newsom said.

Newsom said the activity is a clear violation of Judicial Code of Conduct Rule 2.17 that prohibits the broadcasting of court proceedings. Executive Committee Chairman Judge David Certo said there’s a larger issue: ensuring the safety and security of court participants. One judge said it’s believed that a criminal informant may have been photographed in one instance.

“My proposed solution is to not allow cellphones in the courtroom,” said Marion Superior Criminal Division Judge Marc Rothenberg. He said he would exempt a select few including law enforcement. The committee requested Newsom develop proposed solutions to be presented to all Marion Superior judges during a General Term meeting.

Judges expressed frustration that signs in court notifying observers of the prohibition on recording with handheld devices haven’t deterred some, nor have judges’ admonitions in court. Criminal Division Judge James Osborn said that even if judges discover video or photos have been taken, there’s little that can be done if the images appear online. “Once it’s out, it’s out,” he said.

Newsom said Indiana Supreme Court administration advises judges who become aware of a violation to create a record entry noting that the recording has occurred. Material recorded in violation of Rule 2.17 that appears online can be removed by court order, she said.

Also Friday, the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee:

  • Approved a grant-funded pilot program allowing juvenile probation to collect drug screens through an oral cheek swab rather than the customary urine sample. Chief probation officer Christine Kerl said the division hopes to make the alternate test available within 60 days for those subject to mandated drug screens. Probation staff said the swab is more convenient and can be administered anywhere at any time by probation officers. The new tests should increase participation, since about 40 percent of juveniles fail to show up for required screens currently taken at lab facilities, according to the probation division.  
  • Granted a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to access public records of criminal offenders from Marion County’s JUSTIS case management system.


 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT