Modern Media in the Courts II have cameras cover a case over music downloads in Massachusetts6 and a constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8 against gay marriage.7 Meanwhile, the federal trial and circuit courts, spurred by a not-so-gentle push from Congress, are embarking on a second trial of cameras in selected courtrooms. And while the Supreme Court remains resistant to allowing cameras to be present at its proceedings, the Court has opened up a bit by posting recordings and transcripts of oral arguments on its website. While the technology has changed, the issues regarding cameras in the courts remain. So, as a follow up to the Journal’s last issue, which focused on questions regarding social media in the courts, this issue of the Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal focuses on the questions of the cameras that feed the media – traditional and new – coverage of the judicial system. In this issue, Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, revisits the history of the camera in the courtrooms issue, with a focus on recent developments including the new federal cameras experiment. Tony Mauro, who has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for more than 30 years, writes about the long-running battle over cameras in the High Court. And Paul Lambert proposes a way to use modern technology to finally answer one of the questions at the heart of the debate over cameras in the courts: are cameras really a distraction to trial participants? Finally, I have put together a compilation and analysis of the various federal and state jury instructions on juror exposure to information about cases, with an emphasis on how these instructions deal with and apply to activities such as texting, tweeting or posting Facebook updates about a case, and doing research online. Public access to the courts is a fundamental principle of democracy, as are the rights of litigants to fair trials. And there are legitimate concerns about trials becoming a “media circus.” But with the media – not just cameras, but also smartphones, tablets and other devices – coming into the courts, we hope that this issue of the Journal provides a framework for looking at these concerns, and how the courts and media can work together to play their separate but complementary roles.
6. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan, 593 F.Supp.2d 319 (D.Mass. 2009) (allowing cameras), mandamus granted, In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (disallowing cameras), cert. denied, Tenenbaum v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 130 S.Ct. 126, 175 L.Ed.2d 234 (2009). 7. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 588 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 705, 175 L. Ed. 2d 657 (Jan, 13, 2010) (barring cameras from trial). The subsequent appellate arguments in the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10-16696 (9th Cir. argued Dec, 6, 2010), were televised under the Ninth Circuit’s rule allowing such cameras.
220
Volume 1, Issue 3