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 just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT