Cal Law
December 18, 2009
By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO — The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit authorized television cameras in certain district court proceedings Thursday, reviving a national controversy just weeks before a groundbreaking trial over same-sex marriage is slated to begin in San Francisco.
The Ninth Circuit currently allows cameras to televise appellate arguments, as does the Second Circuit. A private vendor has also recorded a handful of district court proceedings in New York.
But under the Ninth Circuit’s new experimental program — in which only civil, non-jury trials would qualify — district courts would be likely to use their own camera equipment, said Circuit Executive Cathy Catterson. The method of distribution would be figured out on a case-by-case basis.
“It might be posted later in the day, it could be edited, or it could be live. It would depend on the nature of the case,” Catterson said.
Cases to be considered for the pilot program, and the distribution details, will be decided by each district’s chief judge, in consultation with Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. In San Francisco it is the Northern District’s chief judge, Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the federal challenge to Prop 8.
Walker first raised the possibility of a televised broadcast several weeks ago, and lawyers representing pro-same-sex-marriage plaintiffs support the idea. The defendants oppose it, saying anti-gay-marriage witnesses could be subject to harassment and retribution. When the topic arose again this week, Walker alluded to possible Ninth Circuit action and asked for another discussion with the parties should authorization occur.
The U.S. Judicial Conference officially opposes cameras in the court, and it has “strongly urged” each circuit council to prohibit the practice, said Karen Redmond, a spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of the Courts. Only the Second and Ninth Circuits have broken ranks.
Last April, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made news when he denounced the idea for his tribunal. And Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook recently rebuked a district court judge for authorizing cameras at a proceeding in Peoria, Ill.
In a press release, Kozinski said the court hopes cameras will lead to enhanced confidence in the rule of law.
“The experiment is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding,” Kozinski said.
Berkeley defense lawyer Cris Arguedas, who sits on the state’s Bench Bar Media Committee, said that while cameras in the court are good for the public, it does not improve the quality of litigation — as evinced in the O.J. Simpson and Lyle and Erik Menendez trials.
“When there’s a camera in the courtroom, most lawyers and witnesses are conscious of the camera and wind up playing to the camera,” said Arguedas, who was on Simpson’s trial team. “That’s not good, because the audience should be the judge, the appellate court, maybe, and the jury if there is one.”
But even though she said she objects every time the issue comes up in state court, Arguedas thinks the Prop 8 trial is fit for broadcast.
“It’s an extremely important issue to the public, and I think it’s right to have it be available in this way,” she said, “as opposed to some little bank robbery case that doesn’t matter to the public, but might matter to the guy on trial.”
Copyright 2009 ALM Media Properties, LLC.