Please click the link above to read the whole thing. Here's the intro:
In the era of instantaneous 24-hour news, two of the most important and newsworthy events of the year just occurred: The president’s former campaign manager went to trial, and on the same day that the jury split its verdict, the president’s former personal lawyer pleaded guilty to federal crimes and implicated the president in the process. Shockingly, the public did not see any of it.
We were not able to see the government’s main cooperating witness, Rick Gates, and judge for ourselves whether he was telling the truth or lying. We were not able to see the lawyers debate about important legal issues related to the special counsel’s office. We were not able to see Michael Cohen’s expression as he told the judge that he broke the law at the instruction of the president of the United States.
Forget about cameras, reporters in the Paul Manafort trial were not even permitted in the courtroom with their phones, tablets or computers. That meant no live reporting on Twitter and no emails to the newsrooms with updates. In a world focused on information and news as it happens, this is unacceptable.
If this trial or the plea hearing took place in any state court in the country, or if related hearings were held by Congress, the public would have the benefit of watching what was happening, either live or on their DVRs or on the nightly news. They would be able to follow instant reports on social media. In other words, the public would have access to the courtrooms, as guaranteed by the Constitution. And there could be no allegation that the reporting was “fake.”
If there was a vote on whether cameras should be allowed in our federal courthouses, it would pass — overwhelmingly. In fact, the only group of people who seem to be against cameras in the courtroom are federal judges.
12 comments:
Did you see all the tile falling of the building? What a debacle.
Well said!
Judges don't want the public to see, your right.
Can you imagine some of the judges we have on camera pulling their stunts?
Completely disagree with your take. If a witness knows their being videotaped, they act differently. Think Kato from OJ trial. There is a marked difference between a deponent in a video deposition and a stenographic deposition.
Also, it's not entirely fair to say that federal judges are against cameras in the court room. The federal courts did an entire pilot program on this, and the SD Fla was one of the few participating districts: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Cameras%20in%20Courts%20Project%20Report%20(2016).pdf
I recall Judge Graham mentioning at an FBA event that very few attorneys and litigants opted into having their trial recorded.
Cameras would have both positive and negative impacts. Unlike Congressional hearings though, the judiciary is supposed to be insulated from the whims of popular sentiment. Letting cameras in would double down on the popular (and thus political) influence on the court. More and more cases would be sensationalized. More federal judges would turn into "hanging judges" to be seen as tough on crime, or would be influenced in other ways based on their desire to cultivate a particular public image. (Not that this doesn't already happen, but it would be multiplied by the presence of cameras)
While I see the general appeal of cameras in the court room, on balance, its a bad idea.
Rosenbaum or Carnes would have written it better.
All courtrooms in the USA should be open to cameras generally, and federal judges should be limited to one 15 year term
What do cameras have to do with limiting court tenure? Life time appointments help keep the judiciary independent.
Life time appointments lead to tyrants on the bench. I say 6 year terms.
319...lifetime appts lead to too much "independence" perhaps...10 years and move along
"too much independence"?! oh boy!
Post a Comment