|
03/11/07
Sunshine Week 2007
Courtroom
camera effort stalls
By EMILY UDELL
Associated Press Writer
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A pilot project to allow cameras into
Indiana civil and criminal courts has stalled eight months
into the effort, with only a few broadcasters gaining access
to the courtrooms the project was intended to open.
Only five cases have been recorded since the program's July
2006 launch, and some access proponents worry there won't
be enough cases to evaluate by the project's Dec. 31 conclusion.
Coordinators attribute the low participation to the fact that
the program requires written consent from all parties involved
in a case, including attorneys on both sides. In January,
the Indiana Broadcasters Association sent a letter to the
Indiana Supreme Court, asking that the program be amended
so the judge has sole discretion in deciding to let the media
film court proceedings.
Most states allow cameras some level of access to courtrooms.
Nearly 20 states require only the judge's consent, said Dan
Byron, general counsel for the Indiana Broadcasters Association.
"For this to be a fair test, the Supreme Court is going
to have to hand down an order that will take the attorneys
and prosecutors out of the loop," said Randy Wheeler,
news director at WIKY in Evansville and media pool coordinator
for Vanderburgh and Warrick counties.
Approximately 350 requests for media access to state courtrooms
have been rejected since the project began, Byron said. In
most cases, criminal defense attorneys said their clients
did not want to be photographed or filmed.
"The project proposed by broadcasters was really restrictive,
in fact, more restrictive than most states," said David
Remondini, an Indiana Supreme Court spokesman and liaison
for the program. "I knew it was not going to be an easy
sell."
Remondini declined to comment on when the court would respond
to the broadcast group's letter.
Under the current order, one video camera, one still camera
and three audio tape recorders are allowed in a courtroom.
News organizations cannot record certain people, including
minors, victims of sex-related offenses and police informants,
and must agree to share coverage.
"I think the benefits far outweigh any detriment, if
there is any detriment, because my own view is that courthouse
doors are open," said Superior Court Judge Wayne Trockman,
the first judge to oversee a case recorded under the state's
test program. "These are public proceedings. We now have
the ability to have cameras in the courtroom without disruption.
That wasn't the case 20 or 30 years ago."
But critics worry that cameras will disrupt court proceedings,
affect trial outcomes, encourage courtroom theatrics or taint
potential jury pools.
"It's hard enough now to find jurors for high-profile
cases who haven't been exposed to information about the case
already," said Katharine Liell, a criminal defense attorney
based in Bloomington.
Liell declined to take part in the program when media requested
permission to film a court hearing held after her client David
Camm, a former Indiana state trooper, was convicted last year
of killing his family.
"We thought long and hard about it," she said. "I
was not convinced that cameras in the courtroom could ever
serve our client's best interest."
No cases have been overturned on appeal because of the presence
of cameras in the courtroom, according to the Radio Television
News Directors Association.
Proponents say giving cameras courtroom access makes the judicial
system more transparent.
"We have cameras in the Legislature showing the lawmakers
doing the people's business, following around the governor,
showing him doing the people's business," said Kevin
Finch, WISH-TV news director and media coordinator for Criminal
Court 2 in Marion County. "This is also part of the people's
business, and we'd like the opportunity to show them how that
business is conducted."
Cameras have been allowed to cover hearings before the Indiana
Supreme Court and the state appeals court since the mid-1990s.
|
