Cameras in the Supreme Court?

The Senate had hearings today on this issue, and SCOTUS Blog has the scoop here. You know my views -- it makes no sense to me that the court proceedings are closed. Sunshine and all that...

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it heard argument today on another confrontation clause case. Here's Tom Goldstein's summary of what the case is all about:

Tomorrow, the Justices will hear argument in Williams v. Illinois, the next in the line of cases involving the Court’s more defendant-friendly interpretation of the Confrontation Clause. The question is whether the Confrontation Clause is violated if an expert testifies about the results of testing conducted by a non-testifying third party, if the report itself is not introduced at trial.

Here, an expert testified about the results of a DNA test conducted by an analyst, but the DNA test was not admitted. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that there was no constitutional violation. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over the Confrontation Clause’s application in these circumstances.

***
One could say with a fair degree of confidence that the five Justices who started the revolution in the Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence in Crawford v. Washington in 2004 and then adhered to their strong view in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in 2009 would rule for Williams here. As a practical matter, it is hard to say that the underlying DNA report is not being used for its truth. But since then, two Justices in the majority – Justices Souter and Stevens – have been replaced by Justices Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. Although the latter two Justices joined the Bullcoming majority, they may have a lessened commitment to a robust application of the Confrontation Clause. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Bullcoming in particular signals that these facts may approach or pass the end of the line to which five Justices are willing to extend the Confrontation Clause.

En banc day

The 11th Circuit has decided to hear the Fair Sentencing Act cases (Rojas and Hudson) en banc. The Federal Public Defender's office represents both defendants. The two en banc orders are here and here.

Rojas was the case that was on the 11th Circuit webpage and then off and then on again. Should be interesting...

In other news:

-- Justice Stevens has a new book out, Five Chiefs, that looks really interesting.

-- Kenneth Starr says open up the Supreme Court to cameras. He's 100% right. Why not:

The benefits of increased access and transparency are many. Democracy’s first principles strongly support the people’s right to know how their government works. This would seem to be underscored by this court’s stubborn insistence on freedom of communication in a democratic society. Recall that earlier this year, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of protesters to hector a military family during a funeral service for their son, who was killed in Iraq. And the court decided that the same societal interest in free speech outweighed California’s interest in protecting minors from extremely violent video games. These are but two of many examples in which the current court has made plain its view that, in extreme cases, the force of First Amendment rights shall outweigh all else.

Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation. Think of civics classes. The retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is one of many who have lately lamented the apparent collapse of civic literacy in public schools. Think of older Americans affected by President Obama’s health care program. Think of women or other groups affected by important class-action cases, like the Wal-Mart discrimination case last term. These citizens should have a chance to hear what the justices think about important questions that touch their lives.

The issue of cameras in the courtroom is one of precious few on which conservative Republicans, like Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and liberal Democrats, like Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, agree.

Monday baby!

A couple quick items to start off your week:

1. Cameras in the federal courtroooms in the SDFLA! But only in civil cases for now. We are part of a pilot program for 14 districts. From the press release:

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage.

Districts volunteering for the pilot must follow guidelines (pdf) adopted by CACM. The pilot is limited to civil proceedings in which the parties have consented to recording.

No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge, and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. The recordings will be made publicly available on www.uscourts.gov and on local participating court websites at the court's discretion.

The pilot recordings will not be simulcast, but will be made available as soon as possible. The presiding judge can choose to stop a recording if it is necessary, for example, to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses, preserve the dignity of the court, or choose not to post the video for public view. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is prohibited, as is coverage of jurors or alternate jurors.

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage. In the early 1990s the Judicial Conference conducted a pilot program permitting electronic media coverage of civil proceeding in six district courts and two courts of appeals.

As I have previously argued on this blog, I see no good reason why cameras shouldn't be allowed in federal court. The public should see what goes on in our courthouses...

2. The NY Times reviews the Supreme Court Term that just concluded. Justice Kennedy was in the majority more than any other Justice, 94% of the time, followed by the Chief Justice, 91%. Ginsburg brought up the rear.

3. Curt Anderson covers the interesting lawsuit between NASA and former astronaut Edgar Mitchell:

NASA is suing former astronaut Edgar Mitchell to get back a camera that went to the moon on the Apollo 14 mission — a historic device Mitchell apparently tried to sell recently at an auction.

The lawsuit filed in federal court contends that the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera is NASA's property and there are no records showing it was transferred to Mitchell. NASA calls Mitchell, one of only 12 humans to walk the lunar surface, "a former NASA employee who is exercising improper dominion and control" over the camera.

"The United States has made numerous requests to defendant and defendant's counsel for return of the NASA camera to no avail," Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Macchiaroli wrote in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

"All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party," Macchiaroli added.

Mitchell, 80, has a home in the Lake Worth, just south of West Palm Beach, but a phone listing for him was disconnected. His attorney did not immediately respond to a phone message and email. A message was also left with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded in 1972 as an organization dedicated to exploring mysteries of the human mind and universe.

NASA contends in the lawsuit that it learned in March that the British auction house Bonhams was planning a "Space History Sale" that included an item labeled "movie camera from the lunar surface." Bonhams also provided a more detailed technical description and four photos of the camera.

The item, according to the auction house description, "came directly from the collection of Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell." The camera was one of two that went to the moon's surface on the mission, during which Mitchell and Alan Shepard spent about nine hours collecting 95 pounds of lunar samples.

Cameras in the 9th Circuit

Check it out today at 1pm on CSPAN -- it's the oral argument in the Prop 8 case in the 9th Circuit. From the LA Times:

Forget the latest episode of "House." The big TV event on Monday, at least in California, will be the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8, airing on C-SPAN. A panel of two appellate judges known to have liberal leanings and one with a more conservative reputation will consider the state's ban on same-sex marriage, passed by voters in 2008 but tossed out by a federal judge earlier this year.

We agree with U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling that found the proposition unconstitutional, and with his finding that gay men and lesbians have historically been targets of discrimination. As such, they are entitled to the highest level of protection from the courts under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against new laws that seek to strip them of their rights — including the right to marry. We also agree that there was no rational basis for Proposition 8. During the trial, even opponents of gay marriage were unable to articulate any ways in which such marriages would harm those of heterosexual couples, one of the contentions made by the defense. The defense's other claims — that heterosexual couples make better parents and that the purpose of marriage is responsible procreation — also fell apart under the lightest of scrutiny.

Judge Kozinski says we need cameras in the courtroom

And I wholeheartedly agree. From the Above the Law post on his comments:

Kozinski started his talk by going over some of the arguments he has made before [PDF] in support of cameras (e.g., studies show cameras don’t affect the proceedings, quoting his “old boss” Warren Burger — “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”).
It wouldn’t be like the O.J. trial, which decidedly set the cameras-in-the-courtroom movement back. Kozinski advocates stationary cameras that would not zoom in, zoom out, or otherwise overly dramatize the courtroom events. Kozinski acknowledged that if you were to choose between a O.J. media circus or reports from informed journalists like Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse, one might be happy to live without cameras.
But that’s not usually the choice one has. Kozinski pointed to the “long, slow decline of the newspaper industry” and the “rise of a much more diffuse style of coverage” as a major reason why cameras should be brought into courtrooms. Increasingly, the public is relying on “pseudo-journalists” (aka bloggers) for their instantaneous legal news.
“On the Internet, the loudest voice gets the most attention,” said Kozinski, who said that tends to lead to a distortion of the coverage of a case. He also raised the risks of relying on unknown bloggers, pointing to the case of “Dr. Flea.”

Someone explain to me why our federal courtrooms should be closed to the public.

Donnie Brasco

The Justice Building Blog is covering the John Connolly trial, which involves a former FBI agent in Boston (Connolly) who is accused of helping orchestrate a murder in Miami in 1982. The state tried to call the real Donnie Brasco to the stand yesterday, but he refused to testify (even in sunglasses and a hat) because he didn't want his picture taken (via Miami Herald). Is this an argument for or against cameras in the courtroom?

Round (week) one goes to...

... the prosecution or the defense?

You would expect that the first week of the Jose Padilla trial would be an overwhelming victory for the prosecution, but there has been a lot of debate about who has taken week one. The Chicago Tribune called the prosecutors "frustrated" with some of the inroads defense lawyers have made with their witnesses, most notably the training camp witness.

The Miami Herald today has two separate articles -- one by Jay Weaver saying: "Like savvy Hollywood directors, federal prosecutors opened the Jose Padilla terrorism trial in Miami with a grabber -- his alleged application to join al Qaeda."

The other by Ana Menedez, concluding: "Now the government must persuade jurors that the man who filled out his al Qaeda application as its No. 1 Slacker was really a dangerous terrorist. What emerged in week one was a slightly different picture: that of a former gang member adrift in the world. 'The Immigrant' admitted he hadn't worked in the military field and couldn't list any combat experience. From the application, he seems not so much a terrorist as the ultimate underachiever, the kind of guy who'd admit to carpentry skills, but would modestly leave blank the question asking him to list his 'intellectual abilities.' Maybe he just didn't want the job."

To get back to my theme for this trial -- This is why we need cameras in federal court. It's impossible to form your own opinion about what's really going on because we can't see it. We have to rely on newspapers which have all sorts of different opinions. Why no cameras?

And just for your enjoyment -- Slate now has this Padilla quiz. Take it.

Padilla trial day 2

Lots of good Jose Padilla coverage from opening statements yesterday.

But what caught my eye was this reporter's comments about the rules for press coverage:

But court security officers are enforcing an unusual rule for the trial, which is set to get under way with opening statements Monday. They are prepared to prevent members of the media from asking questions of defense lawyers or federal prosecutors at the trial.
In effect, newspaper, radio, and television reporters are being granted observer status – they may sit quietly, watch the trial, and take notes. But if during a court recess they approach a defense lawyer or prosecutor in the courtroom with a question, they risk being whisked away by security officials.
The ban on media questions also extends to the lobby outside US District Judge Marcia Cooke's courtroom and chambers.
If reporters need to ask questions for clarification or routine housekeeping matters during the trial, they must ask their questions somewhere else.

The reporter, Warren Richey, for Christian Science Monitor, then explains what happened to him:

I learned about this rule the hard way. During a recent five-minute recess during jury selection, I approached one of the prosecutors and asked who at the US Attorney's Office was handling questions from the press.
He gave me the name of a spokesperson and a telephone number. When I lifted my notebook to jot these down, a court security officer confronted me. He accused me of conducting an interview and asked me to step out of the courtroom.
I told him that I'd merely asked a question, but added that I'd never heard of a rule barring news reporters from asking questions, or even from conducting brief interviews in a courtroom at a public trial at a time when both the judge and jury were not in the courtroom.
Having covered scores of hearings and trials in the federal courts as a journalist, I am well acquainted with courtroom etiquette. But I have never heard of courtroom officials barring reporters from asking routine questions.

Other reporters spoke with Richey:

Neither has Associated Press correspondent Curt Anderson, who has covered the Padilla case closer than any other reporter. "I don't know of such a rule," he said in an e-mail. "I haven't had any problem talking with the various lawyers anywhere in the courthouse or outside, even in the courtroom itself during breaks."
Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald also says he is unaware of such a rule against journalist questions. "I would like to know what the ground rules are. It is going to come up," he says.

It will be interesting to see exactly what this rule is and how it's enforced. I'm all for protecting the rights of the defendant, and being especially careful in a trial like this is important. That said, the public has a right to see and understand this trial. I really believe we should have cameras in federal court. The Padilla trial should be watched in classrooms and studied. Instead, our country is left with images of OJ as how our justice system works.