Thursday, April 29, 2010

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.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ace Criminal Defense Attorney Tom Mesereau, who once said that cameras and the media are intoxicating for lawyers. Man needs to humble himself before God and acknowledge that this world is not about us as individual people. We were placed here to serve the Most High and to have a relationship with him. As a practical matter, cameras in the federal courtrooms would cause federal prosecutors to want to indict every famous person there is in order to build themselves up. Have some humility.

Anonymous said...

First cameras in the courtroom, next discovery in criminal cases:

Citizen 1:

I don't understand why in that case with the condo dispute they got to do all those depositon and preparation.

Citizen 2:

That is called discovery, I saw Nancy Grace talking about it. It's there so there are no surprises - you know, to make the case fair to everybody.

Citizen 1:

Well, that guy that was on trial for medicare fraud didn't even know who the witnesses were until the first day of trial.

Citizen 2:

That was a criminal case. They don't get discovery in criminal cases. Besides the condo case was about a lot of money.

Citizen 1:

Yeah, but the guy got 30 years!

Citizen 2:

So what? He's a criminal anyhow.

Citizen 1:

Well, that's what they said anyhow. I just hope they don't ever come for me.

Next Week

THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU and VOIR DIRE WHAT?

Anonymous said...

Courtrooms are open to the public. Just not for media hounds like some lawyers, who would love to show their camera shots on their websites, etc. Please. Kozinski is wrong. No one cares except media hounds, which is good reason not to have them.

NBC News Update said...

In case you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMOf8_lZT1U

Anonymous said...

we need cameras in the courtroom during the Goldman Sachs trial. Why are they being persecuted?

Anonymous said...

The man is terrified of ordinairy citizens learning how tilted the playing field is in fed criminal court.

Trial Counsel said...

Better that the public perception of the trial be distorted than the trial itself. Can anyone who has done a trial with wire-to-wire cameras really claim that the process was not distorted?

Rumpole said...

Personally I cannot afford any more publicity, what with the blog groupies chasing me now as it is. If they put cameras in the courtroom I won't be able to get a seat at the sushi bar without people pointing and staring.