San Francisco Chronicle
May 25, 2010
By Bob Egelko
In a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign committee said federal court officials have found that “public broadcast has negative effects on some judges and attorneys, including distraction, grandstanding and avoidance of unpopular decisions or positions.”
The lawyer, Charles Cooper, didn’t spell out what he meant by avoiding unpopular decisions. But he argued that camera coverage of the arguments would violate his clients’ right to a fair trial – indicating that he feared a telecast would increase the prospect of an unfavorable ruling.
Cooper also told Walker that allowing cameras to record lawyers’ closing arguments would violate the “letter and spirit” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in January that barred camera coverage of trial testimony.
The court said Walker had not allowed enough time for public comment before approving telecasts. The 5-4 majority also said cameras might intimidate witnesses and that a controversial, high-profile case was “not a good one for a pilot program” on cameras at federal trials.
Walker has scheduled closing arguments for June 16 in a lawsuit by same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco challenging Prop. 8, the November 2008 state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
No federal trial in California has been shown on television or the Internet. After the federal appeals court in San Francisco authorized a pilot project in December allowing cameras at selected civil, nonjury trials, Walker approved closed-circuit telecasts of the Prop. 8 trial to a few other federal courthouses. He also ordered videotaping for Internet viewing in delayed uploads on YouTube.
After the Supreme Court intervened, the federal court in San Francisco allowed additional public comment before again authorizing camera coverage during trials, with the approval of the judge and the appeals court’s chief judge.
Last week, a group of media organizations including Hearst Corp., which owns The Chronicle, asked Walker to allow telecasting of the Prop. 8 case’s closing arguments. They noted that witness intimidation was not an issue because only lawyers would participate in the hearing, and said cameras would expand access to a case of intense public interest.
Prop. 8’s sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, have argued that camera coverage would distort the trial proceedings. Cooper’s letter Monday also said telecasting could endanger lawyers and judges.
Thomas Burke, lawyer for the media organizations, said Cooper’s concerns were based on unfounded speculation. In a case that has already drawn broad coverage, he said, the question is whether members of the public who are interested in the proceedings will have “a greater opportunity to see them firsthand.”