The Role of Cameras

A public hearing was held in federal district court in Champaign on Sept. 15, 2009, on a final consent decree in a school racial discrimination case.  The issue was of great interest to the community, so local reports asked to cover the hearing live.

U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade reportedly agreed to allow television cameras to cover the hearing in which various parties were permitted to comment on the consent decree to settle the case.  Lawyers from the local newspaper, The News-Gazette, moved to intervene and successfully argued that the paper should also be permitted to bring in its own video and still cameras once McDade allowed the hearing to be open to the television medial.

On Sept. 15, “at least four video cameras, two audio recorders and one still camera” recorded the hearing, according to The news-Gazette.  The judge later wrote that because of the “considerable interest in the case by the Champaign community over the past seven years ... I wanted the widest possible dissemination of the hearing.”

Although in 1996 resolution of the 7th Circuit Judicial Counsel adopted the national Judicial Council’s ban on cameras in the courtroom, McDade wrote in an apology to the court “At the time, I erroneously thought that I had the authority to waive [Local] Rule [83.7] because of the great public interest.”  He found out from Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook that he could not.

Easterbrook set the record straight in a memorandum opinion to the Judicial Council on the 7th Circuit and held that 7th Circuit policy supercedes local court rules.  In part, he said, “[McDade] stated that he had believed that he could grant an exception to the local rule, but that he now realizes that this belief was mistaken.  Whether or not a single district judge is permitted to grant exceptions to a given local rule, no judge may disregard the Judicial Council’s resolution.”  In Re Complaint Against District Judge Joe Billy McDade, No. 07-09-90083 (7th Cir. Jud.  Coun., Sept. 28, 2009, slip op. At 2).  In response, McDade apologized and accepted responsibility for violating the court rules.

There is talk that cameras may be allowed in some courtrooms, but for now, 7th Circuit Court Rule 55 prohibits photography and broadcasts of the Court of Appeals’ proceedings.  Federal rules also forbid camera coverage of criminal cases.  Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 53.  The constitutionality of that rule was upheld in U.S. v. Kerley, 753 F2d 617 (7th Cir.1985).

Easterbrook went further in his opinion on the Champaign issue: “The role of cameras in the courtroom is a subject of ongoing debate in the legislative and judicial branches, and among members of the public.  People of good will advocate photography and broadcasts; other people of good will think that cameras would have ill effects.  No matter what one makes of these contentions, once the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of the 7th Circuit have adopted a policy, a judge must implement it without regard to his own views.”  In Re McDade, at 1-2.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer said publicly in her confirmation hearings that her experiences involving cameras in the courtroom have been positive.   She replaced retiring Justice David Souter, who said in 1996, “The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it’s going to roll over my dead body.”  On Nov. 5, Sen. Arlen Spector (D-Pa.) Introduced a resolution on the Senate floor urging the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of its open proceedings.

Cameras regularly cover president’s activities.  C-SPAN covers the House and Senate.  The Supreme Court releases transcripts of oral arguments within hours after arguments have concluded, and in high-profile cases, it releases time-delayed audiotapes of its proceedings.

In state court, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(7) governs judicial conduct regarding cameras in courtrooms.  In an effort to expand access to the courts, the Illinois Supreme Court recently announced that, starting in November, audio recordings of appellate court oral arguments will be available on its website the day following each argument.  In the Illinois Supreme Court, oral arguments are taped and posted on its website. 

But before any changes to telecasting judicial action are made on a state or federal level, much deliberation and thought will be involved.  Certainly, if cameras present a distraction to the proceedings, they will not be allowed.

In a July 23, 2009, letter, the Judicial Conference of the United States reiterated its strong opposition to the use of cameras in federal trial court proceedings for very valid and specific reasons, including privacy concerns of witnesses and victims, possible increased drama because of the presence of cameras and a possible “chilling effect” of avoiding a trial because of camera coverage.

An arguably self-serving poll taken in September by C-SPAN showed that 61 percent of American voters support cameras in the courts.  As technology improves, it is an issue that the courts need to continue to research so that, in the end, justice is achieved for all parties, the dignity of the system is maintained, and the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary is improved.