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

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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT