Cameras in the Courtroom 2.0
The prohibition on sending out “any verbatim account of the proceedings” raised concerns among members of the press, who questioned whether the language of the decorum order permitted direct quotations in their courtroom dispatches.115 As a result, several media entities moved to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking clarification of the decorum order.116 The media intervenors argued that they understood the provision only prohibited transmitting photos, audio, and video, but they were advised by a court administrator that the order barred the press from using direct quotations in text-based reports sent from inside the courtroom.117 The media argued that the administrator’s interpretation was inconsistent with the order, which permitted direct quotations on its face, and that other reasons warranted unrestricted transmissions of direct quotes.118 A prohibition on direct quotes would result in less accurate coverage, impose an impractical burden on reporters, and would be unconstitutional, the media argued in its motion.119 Furthermore, direct quotes published during the trial would not prejudice any interest at stake in the trial or impede the judicial process.120 Judge Cleland ultimately decided to relieve the press of the burdens of a restriction on sending direct quotations from the courtroom, albeit not in the way the press intended.121 In response to the motion for clarification, Judge Cleland still allowed credentialed reporters to have electronic devices in the courtroom, but with the following restriction: Such devices shall not be used during trial for electronic based communications, and shall not be set in a mode that permits transmission of any form of communication to any person or device either in or out of the Courthouse or Courthouse Annex.122
As the proceedings moved forward, reporters would be able to use devices as “tools of the trade,” presumably for note-taking purposes, but not as tools to provide real-time coverage.123 In explaining the change, Judge Cleland first explained how he came to the initial 115. Commonwealth v. Sandusky, Case No. CP-14-CR-2421-2011 and CP-14-CR-2422-2011, Expedited Motion to Intervene and to Clarify Decorum Order, (Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, June 1, 2012), available at http://centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?NID=506 . 116. Id. The media entities were: ABC, Inc. (on behalf of WPVI-TV); Advanced Publications, Inc. (publisher of the Harrisburg Patriot-News), The Associated Press, CNN, The Daily Collegian, Dow Jones & Company, inc. (publisher of The Wall Street Journal), ESPN, NBCUniversal, Inc. (on behalf of WCAU-TV), The New York Times Co. (publisher of The New York Times), Philadelphia Media Network, Inc. (publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer); The Scranton Times, L.P. (on behalf of The Citizen’s Voice and Standard-Speaker) and Tribune Company (on behalf of The Morning Call). Id. 117. Id. 118. Id. 119. Id. In discussing the difficulties of implementing a restriction on direct quotations, the media wrote: Would a 140-character tweet that contains a single sentence from a witnesses’ testimony be considered a “verbatim account”? Would a blog that contains a quoted phrase from a lawyer’s question cross the line? Would an email from a reporter that uses the single word “overruled” after Your Honor rules on an evidentiary objection, or “yes” or “no” in quoting a response to a question be prohibited? There is simply no workable way for reporters to avoid using any direct quotes in their text-based reports, and there is no clear line that can be drawn to inform them about what is permissible and what is prohibited, which will possibly subject them to serious sanctions. 120. Id. 121. Commonwealth v. Sandusky, Case No. CP-14-CR-2421-2011 and CP-14-CR-2422-2011, Memorandum and Order, (Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, June 4, 2012), available at http:// centrecountypa.gov/index.aspx?NID=506. 122. Commonwealth v. Sandusky, Case No. CP-14-CR-2421-2011 and CP-14-CR-2422-2011, Order, (Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, June 4, 2012), available at http://centrecountypa.gov/index. aspx?NID=506. (emphasis in original). 123. In his order directing that the decorum order be amended, Judge Cleland wrote that the order “shall
18
Volume 3, I ssue 1