Thank you for this info. I admit this is not a topic I had thought much about. But you make some good points, particularly related to national figures like Trump. The cynical side of me thinks, oh, no - now that you have pointed out how Iowa courts are so transparent, our current legislature will trip over itself to find reasons to remove cameras from the courts!
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.
Funny story, Brice! I, too, don't particularly like the news story mentions of who appointed a judge, but I don't think this started with the media. It started with Trump calling out Obama or Clinton appointed judges, as if that was reason to doubt their trustworthiness. And when you have clearly awful rulings such as the Trump-appointed Florida judge who blocked the Justice Department from looking at the top secret documents seized from Trump's home - a ruling that nearly every judge ridiculed as a terrible decision - it's almost impossible to avoid. Long term, it hurts everyone's ability to trust the courts are independent.
Furthermore, when appellate judges overturn long-standing precedent simply because different people have put on the robes, that doesn't give us a lot of confidence.
Back in the day, cameras were bulky and difficult to use in non-studio settings. For the black-and-white cameras of the 1940s and 1950s, extensive banks of light were needed and necessary so that a usable picture could be obtained. With the advent of color television in the 1960s and 1970s, cameras were still large and required a significant amount of love and care by the engineers. Now, high definition color television cameras are small, light weight, and very easy to place, especially in a courtroom setting. In my opinion, as a former reporter, and as an active attorney, the Federal Courts are reluctant to have cameras in the courtroom because Federal judges tend to be conservative and protective of their turf. It is going to take a change of attitude, first at the United States Supreme Court, to get Federal Court coverage by cameras. In my further opinion, there are no questions that we would benefit as a society to see the Federal Court proceedings. This would allow us to reach conclusions based upon facts which we have watched and had time to consider.
You’re right, George. I opted not to get into the judges who stand in the way of electronic access. For a long time, I thought it was merely generational, and as younger judges were appointed, they would be more open. But it hasn’t worked out that way. It seems to be bred into them at the federal level.
I used to joke that the only way to create change was for courtroom artists to make the judges look as goofy as possible.
Thank you for this info. I admit this is not a topic I had thought much about. But you make some good points, particularly related to national figures like Trump. The cynical side of me thinks, oh, no - now that you have pointed out how Iowa courts are so transparent, our current legislature will trip over itself to find reasons to remove cameras from the courts!
ARGGHH! I hadn't considered that! Anything is possible these days.
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.
Funny story, Brice! I, too, don't particularly like the news story mentions of who appointed a judge, but I don't think this started with the media. It started with Trump calling out Obama or Clinton appointed judges, as if that was reason to doubt their trustworthiness. And when you have clearly awful rulings such as the Trump-appointed Florida judge who blocked the Justice Department from looking at the top secret documents seized from Trump's home - a ruling that nearly every judge ridiculed as a terrible decision - it's almost impossible to avoid. Long term, it hurts everyone's ability to trust the courts are independent.
Furthermore, when appellate judges overturn long-standing precedent simply because different people have put on the robes, that doesn't give us a lot of confidence.
Totally agree!
Back in the day, cameras were bulky and difficult to use in non-studio settings. For the black-and-white cameras of the 1940s and 1950s, extensive banks of light were needed and necessary so that a usable picture could be obtained. With the advent of color television in the 1960s and 1970s, cameras were still large and required a significant amount of love and care by the engineers. Now, high definition color television cameras are small, light weight, and very easy to place, especially in a courtroom setting. In my opinion, as a former reporter, and as an active attorney, the Federal Courts are reluctant to have cameras in the courtroom because Federal judges tend to be conservative and protective of their turf. It is going to take a change of attitude, first at the United States Supreme Court, to get Federal Court coverage by cameras. In my further opinion, there are no questions that we would benefit as a society to see the Federal Court proceedings. This would allow us to reach conclusions based upon facts which we have watched and had time to consider.
You’re right, George. I opted not to get into the judges who stand in the way of electronic access. For a long time, I thought it was merely generational, and as younger judges were appointed, they would be more open. But it hasn’t worked out that way. It seems to be bred into them at the federal level.
I used to joke that the only way to create change was for courtroom artists to make the judges look as goofy as possible.