Judges' reactions to media cameras and recorders in the courtroom
INDIANAPOLIS — Special Judge Frances Gull likely will face a flurry of media requests to video and audio record and maybe even live stream the trial of Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen.
The Indiana Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it was dropping its long-standing order barring cameras and recordings from the state's courtrooms. Video, still photography, broadcasting and audio recordings may be made by members of the established media who attend court hearings and trials.
The caveat is that judges have to agree to the recordings, and there are certain cases that cannot be recorded.
It is, of course, Gull's discretion how she rules on media members' request to use cameras and recorders in Allen's hearings and trials, but Gull's Allen Superior courtroom was one of the most recent pilot program for cameras in the courtroom.
The Indiana Supreme Court's new rule, however, does not apply to private citizens and the curious bloggers. It is unclear how it might apply to podcasters.
The new rule also has restrictions.
“There are some things that can’t be broadcast," Tippecanoe Circuit Judge Sean Persin said. "Anything that’s confidential — adoptions, mental health commitment hearings, juvenile proceedings."
Photography or videos of jurors would be forbidden, Persin said.
“The Supreme Court has moved towards more transparency both with online content … and to allow recordings, under some circumstances, to allow broadcasting, on some circumstances," Persin said. "You can see the judiciary is taking a big step forward toward transparency.”
More:Pilot program allows media to request using cameras and recording in five Indiana courtrooms
Like Gull, Persin opened his court to the most recent pilot program for cameras in the court. He's encouraged by the Supreme Court's new rule that allows the media to use audio and video recordings, as well as broadcasting from the courtroom.
“There are some things that can’t be broadcast," Persin said. "Anything that’s confidential — adoptions, mental health commitment hearings, juvenile proceedings.”
“We need to be sensitive to the fact that some of the things we do could have an impact on children, even if they’re not a witness in a case."
The use of audio recorders by reporters is the least intrusive, Persin said. If reporters use a recorder solely to make sure they correctly quote witnesses, attorneys and judges, there's no harm in that.
“Instead of writing notes the whole time, they could look up and watch everything that’s happening," Persin said.
“Why would somebody not want a journalist to be able to do that?" he asked. "To improve their job and have more accurate reporting? “What’s the drawback there?”
Taking photographs, recording video or broadcasting from the courtroom Persin said, admittedly is a little more complicated and will be a case-by-case decision.
The concerns
In theory, most the judges interviewed by the Journal & Courier thought it was a good idea to allow journalists to record and photograph in the courtroom. But as with anything new, the Supreme Court's decision causes gives rise to some concerns.
“I would expect most judges will go into this slowly,” Persin said. “I did not find the presence of media to impact our proceedings in any way. I don’t expect it to moving forward. And if it did, we’d tap the brakes.”
“Obviously in a courtroom, you value transparency," Tippecanoe Superior 4 Judge Matt Sandy said. "That’s a good thing. I think there are alternatives to cameras in the courtroom for transparency.
“I’ve got concerns about it, particularly in Superior Court 4," Sandy said. "It’s an extremely tight courtroom. It would be difficult to try to do it without showing jurors. Obviously, there’d have to be safeguards in place.”
Cameras in the courtrooms are not new in other states, but the country all watched how high-profile cases turned into TV dramas.
Sandy mentioned the OJ Simpson murder trial and William Kennedy Smith rape trial from the 1990s, and Tippecanoe Superior 1 Judge Randy Williams took note of last summer's Johnny Depp defamation trial.
“That was a made-for-TV,” Williams said of the Depp and Amber Heard trial.
“I’ve seen the way it affects everybody in the courtroom," Sandy said. "Everybody. Court reporters. Judges. Attorneys. Jurors. I don’t like that.
“I don’t know that I would ever let media bring cameras in," Sandy continued. "We’re able to stream. I can see where I’m control the camera. You can hear everything, but it’s going to be pretty tight knit about what you can see.”
Williams expressed confidence that professional rules and ethics can curtail officers of the court.
“Will certain judges do that? I don’t think so," Williams said of playing to the camera. "Once you get started, you’re so focused on what’s happening that you won’t think about that.
“Will attorneys try to take advantage of it?" he rhetorically asked. "Possibly. But they have certain duties and obligations to their clients. That would come first.
“Might there be clients who want to make a show out of it? That might happen,” he said.
All of the judges noted that if media cameras or recordings become problems, they can suspend their use to maintain order in the courtroom.
The path forward
“I think a lot of judges will want to meet with other judges in their county to try to come up with a consistent plan," Persin said. "Some will adopt a uniform plan, some will have a procedure that’s different in each court.
“I think the May 1 start time gives us some lead time to confer with each other to see if there’s some consensus on how to address this.”
“I’m eager to talk with my colleagues and see what things we agree on and what things we don’t agree on,” Persin said.
“I don’t have a problem with it," Williams said. "Obviously, the judges are the gate keeper. We’re going to decide when it can be used an when it can’t be used. So long as both parties don’t have a problem with it.”
“I’m optimistic," Persin said. "This will be beneficial to the community.”
“This is the type of thing that may be able to educate people, in theory,” Williams said, noting that the public's perception of the courts is skewed by TV shows and movies. “They’ll get to see what’s really happening.”
The judges interviewed for this report all noted that the decision to allow the media's cameras and recorders into the courtroom will be case-by-case rulings.
“I think it depends on the case,” said John Feick, judge of Delaware Circuit Court 4 for the past two decades. “I’ll take it on a case by case basis.”
“I think after the initial interest dies down, we’re all just going to do our job,” Williams said.
Reach Ron Wilkins at rwilkins@jconline.com. Follow on Twitter: @RonWilkins2.
This article originally appeared on Lafayette Journal & Courier: Judges' reactions to media cameras and recorders in the courtroom
