Why we need cameras in federal courts
It's time to "promote transparency and confidence" of our courts
It is high time the federal judiciary got over itself and joined the 20th century, much less the 21st. Here we are some 70 years after the invention of television, and our federal court system still operates behind a black curtain that keeps all of us from better understanding the critical decisions being made that affect our lives.
Look at what’s happening in our federal courts. This week, a federal judge in Texas held a four-hour hearing into whether he should ban the nationwide sale of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. We can read print accounts that the Trump-appointed conservative judge asked questions that indicated he might impose such a ban. We can read print versions telling us of the impassioned court arguments from both sides in the case. But imagine how much better informed we would be if we could watch the hearing, hear the context of the questions and answers, and make our own judgments about the case.
For many months now, federal juries have been hearing criminal cases against those charged with storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Those accused remain largely faceless because cameras are not allowed in federal court. Almost all of those charged have been convicted. Wouldn’t it help all Americans, regardless of their political views, to see and hear the evidence against the defendants?
Iowa’s court system has a presumption of openness to permit cameras in state courts, both criminal and civil. The Iowa system has worked well for more than 40 years, with few problems. There are common-sense rules that make the system work. The media cooperate to take a pool feed from one video camera and one still camera. The rules require the media to work out any conflicts and not burden the judge or attorneys with problems. The media doesn’t show the jury. We don’t cover jury selection. Sensitive testimony, such as from children, is usually prohibited. There is no legal reason not to be able to make this work in federal courts.
Minnesota courts have historically been more restrictive for cameras. If either attorney objected to a camera’s presence, the judge would keep cameras out. That made it far too easy to block camera access. But an amazing thing happened during the trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, charged with murdering George Floyd. Largely because of Covid restrictions, the judge allowed cameras so interested parties could watch without being jammed together in a courtroom. And guess what? It worked so well that Minnesota’s supreme court this week changed the rules to make it easier to allow cameras. Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote that the rules “will promote transparency and confidence in the basic fairness that is an essential component of our system of justice…”
Federal judges, do you hear that? At a time when more Americans are questioning the fairness of our courts, wondering why long-standing case law changes simply because the people putting on the robes have changed, isn’t it time to adopt rules that will “promote transparency and confidence in the basic fairness” of our federal court system?
If and when President Trump is ever indicted for federal crimes, I cannot imagine a more important case for ALL Americans – on all sides of the political spectrum - to be able to see and hear for themselves when a former president is for the first time brought before a jury of peers. Of course, it’s possible Trump may be charged in state courts in Georgia or New York, too. Georgia permits cameras. New York – the nation’s media capital – does not.
There are always objections. Opponents argue that lawyers may grandstand. Witnesses may be reluctant to testify. Do we really want Americans seeing for themselves what happens in court? All I know is that more than 40 years of experience in Iowa shows that all such issues can be managed successfully. And the benefits of an open and accessible courtroom far outweigh any issues that may arise.
I’m honored to be part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. The purpose of the collaborative is to counteract the reduction in editorial voices in Iowa due to newspaper cutbacks. This week, I recommend reading Bob Leonard’s passionate essay “Drowning Public Schools in the Bathtub…”
Lots of other great perspectives from these writers:
I couldn't agree more. Space here doesn't permit me to relate all the positives to come from "open" courtrooms but suffice it to say that the opportunities to educate and reassure (or not) the general public about the courts is essential in these times when government in general is held in such low regard. It would make judges better judges, attorneys better attorneys, prospective jurors more willing to serve, witnesses more willing to come forward, citizens more willing to accept their collective judgements and policy makers more sensitive to the fact that words put into law really do matter. Of course, we have to be careful what we wish for in our current age of things going viral on the internet of which this true story is but one example. Many years ago, in an Iowa county that shall remain unnamed, the county attorney was 10 minutes into his impassioned closing argument in a high-profile criminal case against a man accused of multiple acts of public indecent exposure. Defense counsel sent a note to the bench asking for a recess and requesting that counsel immediately meet in the judge's chambers. Seems defense counsel, as an officer of the court, felt compelled to suggest in private that the county attorney ought not to deliver his final argument with his own trousers unzipped! Seriously, I do fault the media today for almost always reporting that a particular federal judge was appointed by a Republican or Democratic President. More often than not, that the judge was appointed by a specific President. Direct media and public access to judicial proceedings would allow the public itself to make those judgements and, most importantly, to do so after having seen or heard the trial the precedes a judicial decision. The current abortion medication case in Texas is a perfect example.
Totally agree!