Calls increase for courtroom cameras

By Steve LeBlanc
Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — Boston has seen its share of headline-grabbing federal trials, from the 2013 conviction of notorious gangster James “Whitey” Bulger to the ongoing prosecution of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. There’s just one hitch. With cameras banned in the courtrooms, Boston residents haven’t actually seen either trial, instead having to rely on the drawings of courtroom artists or descriptions by reporters.

––––––––––

Q: Why ban cameras in courtrooms?

A: Those who favor banning cameras point to a number of reasons — from protecting the privacy of witnesses and jurors to safeguarding the integrity of the judicial system. Opponents also worry that allowing the recording and broadcasting of images from inside courtrooms could turn trials into public spectacles. Perhaps the most notorious was the 1995 trial of O.J. Simpson for the murders ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman, which turned lawyers, witnesses and the presiding judge into TV and tabloid celebrities.

––––––––––

Q: Given those drawbacks, why push to open courtrooms to cameras?

A: Supporters say cameras serve a critical civic function by allowing the public to view trials that are often being prosecuted in their name by the government. They say the public interest is even more important when the crime, like the Boston Marathon bombing, shocked an entire city, with three killed, hundreds injured, and thousands rattled. In those cases, supporters say, the public should be able to see the trial. Supporters also point out that states have allowed cameras in courtrooms for years, and that federal courts are lagging.

––––––––––

Q: Are there any efforts to allow cameras in federal courts?

A: A number of bills have been filed in Congress aimed at loosening restrictions on cameras. A Senate bill sponsored by Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley and co-sponsored by eight Republicans and Democrats would let the presiding judge in all federal courts — including the Supreme Court — allow cameras while barring coverage of private conversations between clients, lawyers and the judge. A House bill would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of open sessions unless the justices decide it would violate due process rights.

––––––––––

Q: How likely is it that any of the bills will become law?
A: Given all the other pressing matters facing Washington — and the fact that some of the bills have been filed year after year — it’s unclear whether any has the momentum to reach President Barack Obama’s desk and be signed into law.

––––––––––

Q: What keeps the federal court, especially the Supreme Court, from deciding on its own to allow cameras?

A: That’s up to the judges. Two of the nine Supreme Court justices — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — appeared warm to the idea. During her 2009 confirmation hearings, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras while Kagan had said that when she argued cases before the court as solicitor general, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were. The two have since said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could change the nature of the court.