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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT