MinnLawyer Blog

The Star Tribune published an editorial today favoring cameras in the courtroom. In a sense, that’s a dog-bites-man story because the Strib has long been a proponent of cameras in the courtroom, going so far as to argue in favor of it before the Minnesota Supreme Court. (In fact, many media outlets are pushing for the change.)  Here’s a paragraph in the Strib piece that I found interesting:

In the YouTube age, that bar to judicial transparency is obsolescent. Arguments are still mounted that the presence of video cameras would alter behavior, stifle candor and ultimately distort the administration of justice in courtrooms. But those arguments presume in trial participants a self-consciousness in the presence of cameras that is much reduced today, when cameras are almost as ubiquitous as cell phones. (In fact, in many cases, they are cell phones.)

That statement characterizing the opposition is one of those things you have to respond to with a, “Well, yes, but ….” I think right now there are many cases where it doesn’t really matter to participants if their testimony is, say, live-streaming on the Web. As the Strib points out, in this age of YouTube and cell-phone video, everyone is getting used used to getting their 15 minutes of fame on a daily basis. (Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up now.) However there are cases, for example gang prosecutions, where there were be consequences to a witnesses knowing that everyone in his/her neighborhood might be watching in real time on a laptop. A case involving the testimony of a traumatized domestic-violence victim would be another instance in which the presence of cameras might have a chilling effect. 

In short, I am not so sure that the decision is a “no-brainer.” Under our current rules, cameras are allowed in trial court proceedings only if both parties and the judge sign off. Since this almost never happens, there is a good argument to be made that the rules are too restrictive. On the other hand, I don’t want to marginalize the legitimate concerns of some prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges who point out that there are cases where the cameras could have a negative impact on the administration of justice (see, e.g. this January 2008 Minnesota Lawyer article).

I think our Supreme Court is wisely taking a measured approach, using pilot projects to assess the pros and cons and to see first hand the real-world impact. I suspect that proponents of cameras in the courtroom are right that in many instances the cameras will not have a meaningful impact on trial court proceedings, and may, in fact, boost public confidence in government’s most misunderstood branch. As we saw with the Franken/Coleman recount proceeding, cameras can serve as a valuable public informational tool that reaffirms the legitimacy of what courts do. (It’s hard for anyone who watched significant amounts of the streaming video of the proceedings on The Uptake to argue that those presiding over the different stages did anything but bend over backward to ensure fairness. Yet I suspect countless partisan bloggers and talking heads would have implied otherwise if  the video footage had not been made so readily available to disprove them.)

On the other hand, there  clearly will be situations in which cameras may have a detrimental impact (the O.J. case being the most widely cited example nationally). Whatever approach we adopt to cameras in the courtroom, we must have an effective out for cases in which the fairness of the proceeding is likely to be compromised. Given a choice between YouTube and your rights, I think we all know which way the scale should tip.

Perhaps the ultimate answer will be to have a presumption in favor of cameras with an out for exceptional cases — so long as the exception is not so broad as to wind up swallowing the rule. In the meantime, I eagerly anticipate the results of the pilot projects.

I can’t end this post on cameras in the courtroom without bringing up one of my favorite quotes on the omipresence of television (and now video) from the excellent 1995 Nicole Kidman movie “To Die For.” (In the movie a career-obsessed “weather girl” from a cable-access station convinces students at a local high school to help her off her husband, whom Kidman’s character, named Suzanne, believes is standing in the way of her broadcast media career. The quote is from one of those students talking to the camera and mulling her own new-found fame after the plot unravels).

Suzanne used to say that you’re not really anybody in America unless you’re on TV… ’cause what’s the point of doing anything worthwhile if there’s nobody watching? So when people are watching, it makes you a better person. So if everybody was on TV all the time, everybody would be better people. But, if everybody was on TV all the time, there wouldn’t be anybody left to watch, and that’s where I get confused.