ILNews

Webcasting allowed in 3 Lake County courtrooms

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has announced a new 18-month pilot project allowing trial court proceedings to be webcast in three Lake County courtrooms.

Three civil judges – Circuit Judge George Paras and Superior Judges John Pera and Calvin Hawkins – have agreed to participate. The webcasting proposal was submitted in May 2009 by the Times of Northwest Indiana and now-retired Lake Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo, who was Paras’ predecessor.

Unlike a prior pilot project that allowed video and still cameras into eight trial courts throughout Indiana in 2006 and 2007, this project will eliminate most of the regular camera intrusion and won’t require litigant consent before the webcasting begins.

“What’s particularly intriguing is this reflects the dramatic changes we’ve seen in technology that allow people to see inside these trial court proceedings,” Chief Justice Randall Shepard said in announcing the project and signing the order Friday in the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom.

The proceedings won’t be broadcast live; they will have an expected delay of at least two hours before they appear on the NWI Times website for public viewing. The webcasts will only be available through the newspaper’s website.

The Supreme Court order prohibits the trial courts from webcasting cases involving police informants or undercover agents, children or child-related cases, sex-offense victims, attorney-client communications, bench conferences, jury selection, commitments, paternity, guardianship and adoptions, and no-contact orders. Jury trials may be webcast, but jurors can't be shown. Any other case before the trial courts that don’t fall under these prohibitions may be webcast at the judges’ discretion.

Litigants will be able to object to the webcasting, and the judge will be able to consider the objection at that time.

“Sometimes, the press and the courts conflict, but in order for our society to survive we need public access like this,” Paras said. “I’ve reviewed the Supreme Court order and I believe this protects both litigants and the press.”

Paras said the webcasting will begin in his court in the coming weeks once the technology is installed. Hawkins' and Pera’s courtrooms will be brought online after that. The three judges focus on civil proceedings, so at this time, no criminal proceedings will be broadcast. Criminal cases could be webcasted if the judges receive those cases and hear them in their courts, he said.

Some criminal court judges have voiced concerns about the webcasting, according to Paras, and they want to see how this materializes within the civil courts before deciding if they want to participate in the future.

Valparaiso University Law School students will monitor the project and evaluate participation as it proceeds, with students interviewing and questioning jurors, witnesses and attorneys as part of their pro bono requirement to graduate. Media law professors will oversee their work, and at the end of the 18-month project, a final report will be submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration.

NWI Times Managing Editor Paul Mullaney said he hopes this not only allows for public education about the judiciary, but that it also serves as a springboard for a standardized filming process in state trial courts.

Hoosier State Press Association legal counsel Steve Key attended the announcement and complimented the court’s action.

“We’ve reached a point now where cameras are so small that they won’t interfere with the courts delivering justice,” he said. “The Supreme Court has always had an eye on increasing the public access and letting people know what the courts are doing, and this is an extension of that.”

Justice Brent Dickson dissented from his colleagues, writing that his objections mirror the ones he had for the first pilot project in 2006. At the time, Dickson joined Justice Robert Rucker in writing that the camera process was too intrusive for courts and litigants and that lawyers could play to the cameras and influence the proceedings.

This webcast project doesn’t nullify other requests that have been submitted regarding cameras in court, including one in late 2009 from the Indiana Broadcasters Association that asked the justices to again allow cameras into trial courts statewides.


 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT