Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Today’s project
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Campaign Updates
Posted in:
* Illinois Statehouse News had the scoop late yesterday afternoon about a new policy announcement by the Illinois Supreme Court. Cameras will be allowed into courtrooms on a pilot project basis…
On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court is expected to announce it will allow trial court proceedings to be filmed and tape recorded for the first time in the state’s 194-year history, Kilbride said.
Illinois is one of 14 states where cameras in trial courtrooms are either not allowed or not used, according to the Radio Television Digital News Association, a professional organization serving the electronic news profession and dedicated to setting standards for news gathering and reporting.
“The idea behind this is simple. We need to have the courts be more open. By having the public keeping an eye on what is going on in the courtroom, it can act as a check in the balance of power,” Kilbride said.
* From the Court’s press release…
The policy provides that the media, through a media coordinator, must request extended media coverage at least 14 days in advance of the time the proceeding is scheduled, although the time frame may be expanded or reduced by the judge. It allows for no more than two video cameras and no more than two still photographers. It encourages media pooling in all regards, and requires media pooling when there are more media requesting extended coverage than the number the judge allows.
In the case of a media member promising coverage of a proceeding from beginning to end, that member of the media shall receive priority consideration for placing its equipment in the courtroom. If the media cannot agree among themselves on the pooling arrangements, extended media coverage will be disallowed.
The policy allows for a witness or a party to object to a request for extended media coverage, but it is not intended that such objection, while in the discretion of the judge, will be automatically granted.
In prosecutions for sexual abuse, or when sexual abuse is an essential element, there will be no extended media coverage of the testimony of a victim unless the testifying victim consents. An objection to extended media coverage by a testifying victim in any other forcible felony prosecution, and by police informants, undercover agents and relocated witnesses shall be presumed valid.
The policy also prohibits media coverage in any juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody, evidence suppression and trade secret cases, as well as in any court proceeding required under Illinois law to be held in private.
Extended media coverage of jury selection, the jury and individual jurors also is prohibited under the policy. Any decision by a chief judge or judge to deny, limit or terminate extended media coverage is not appealable.
* The policy itself includes live broadcasts. So, trials could be on TV if the judge and everybody else agrees. Still cameras “must be unobtrusive without distracting lighting or sound.” Media will have to pool equipment if there are several requests. Media insignias are also prohibited on clothing, and media members “must be properly attired” and maintain proper decorum, with the judge having discretion about what that means.
* I have one concern, however…
The new policy only allows for members of the “established” news media to photograph, film or tape record sessions. Residents and those working for non-traditional news organizations, such as Internet blogs, initially are being excluded from filming or recording court sessions.
But the high court may review the policy later regarding electronic coverage of courts by residents and non-traditional media.
Some blogs are “established” news media in their communities. Peoria Pundit is a prime example of this, as his HuffPo Chicago. The policy itself has a broader definition of “news media” than the article implies…
“News Media,” in general, means established news gathering and reporting agencies and their representatives whose function is to inform the public.
But since the judge will have total discretion, online media could easily be excluded by a luddite.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** From the Tribune…
Cook County’s chief judge is giving the thumbs up to a new policy that will allow cameras and recorders inside courts on an experimental basis. […]
Judge Timothy Evans,, head of the busiest court system in the state, says he’ll apply to participate in the pilot project.
Evans says greater media access will help address misconceptions about courtroom procedures fostered by popular TV shows.
Evans says he’ll appoint an advisory committee to recommend how to implement the policy. It’ll include judges, attorneys, reporters and members of the public.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Today’s project
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Campaign Updates
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I can only imagine a politician in court performing for the news cameras, but on balance this is a very good move.
Comment by mark walker Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:38 am
Politician A received massive campaign contributions from Law Firm X. The relationship soured and Politician A sacked Law Firm X for “overbilling”. Partner at X told Politician A (according to A’s pleadings in another matter) that the overbilling paid for the campaign contributions.
I wrote, “I speculate…” that the arrangement was well understood by both parties on the front end of the deal.
And a judge issued an injunction that I had to remove the speculation from my blog… because the people I was reporting on were politically connected and I did not have a lawyer.
The problem of the Illinois courts is that they are simply corrupt in too many instances. If the Tribune and Sun-Times were interested in fighting for the little guy, the courts would not be as corrupt as they are.
I support the Illinois Supreme Court moving in the right direction, but this bogus distinction between establishment media and other media simply shows how completely clueless the Illinois Supreme Court is.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:40 am
Hon. Timothy Evans
Chief Justice - Cook County Courts
Chicago, IL 60602
Dear Justice Evans,
After extensive review, and painstaking research, I have come to the conclusion that my right side is my best profile for a camera in my courtroom.
Since my Courtroom Room 412, has the bench set in a way that a camera will only get my left side, I am asking that I move to room 413 across the hall to take full advantage of my right side, which, again, is my better side.
Yours in the Law,
Judge Michael Patrick Burke O’Shaunessey Daley Madigan
Cook County Judge - Overnight Traffic Court
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:43 am
Justice Theis appeared before IVI-IPO and I asked her a question about the ARDC.
The premise of my question was that law firms are major enablers of political corruption in Illinois. They are financially intertwined with the politicians (in a way that would not be allowed with private sector clients). The politicians with the support of counsel manufacture unnecessary legal work which is then billed at exhorbitant rates and a fraction of the money kicked-back to political allies of the politicians.
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission gets complaints about these law firms, but makes 101 excuses not to investigate the law firms.
If the ARDC simply enforced the existing rules against politically connected law firms, a huge amount of corruption would go away.
Justice Theis’ answer was that she hasn’t heard the ARDC report this is a problem. (The ARDC is supervised by the Illinois Supreme Court.)
Aurelia Pucinski understood the question. Joy Cunningham understood the question.
But the Democratic Party nominee–who is a smart attorney and judge–was unable to even consider the possibility the ARDC actively covers for politically connected law firms.
So, I don’t trust the Illinois judiciary at all. It is led by politicians who choose to look the other way on corruption, and are therefore shirking their responsibilities to create a legal establishment that follows its own rules.
We need cameras in court, but we need much more to reduce the rampant corruption in the Illinois judiciary and legal establishment.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:48 am
“Please be seated.
Before we begin the proceedings before this Court today, I want everyone to know my Press Kits are available with my Clerk, and the autograph session scheduled for today will be pushed back to 4pm after my radio interviews are completed.
Counselor, you may begin.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:49 am
Stop the Cap Fax lock out!!!!!!!
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:57 am
Too bad the federal courts aren’t participating, that’s where the more interesting political trials take place.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:59 am
Here’s an example of how corrupt the Illinois judiciary is.
One of these clown elected judges was serving in court in the Melrose Park village hall (aka the police station, not exactly a neutral site).
A Latina woman was being charged with her car having tinted windows and her son being out after curfew. She only spoke Spanish at the proceedings.
The translator was a uniformed Melrose Park cop.
The defendant was complaining that she shouldn’t be held responsible for her son because she couldn’t control him.
The Village of Melrose Park’s case was defective because they were having trouble locating the arresting officer.
So the prosecuting attorney for the village–an individual who never represented himself as speaking Spanish–told the judge, “It sounds like she’s pleading guilty,” when it was clear she was vigorously contesting the charges (although on the point of having a right to confront her accuser).
The clown who is a Cook County judge accepted the prosecuting attorney’s statement and found the woman guilty and fined her.
These judges are perfectly willing to violate the citizen’s rights if the politically powerful ask for it and the judges think they can get away with it.
The Illinois Supreme Court has for ages served as enablers to not just injustice, but outright illegal activity, including corruption.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 11:03 am
(although NOT on the point of having a right to confront her accuser).
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 11:04 am
It seems that the court has realized its time to come out of the dark ages. They’re working on two things that could lead to more transparency: electronic filing and cameras in courtroom. Media has been trying to get access to the courtroom for decades and the court finally realized its time to open up. Kudos to Kilbride for making these his priorities as Chief.
Comment by Goodmove Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 11:12 am
I’m selling my stock in artist charcoal pencils.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 11:41 am
Since myself and this blog got dragged into this (thanks for the link, Rich) I’ll give my two cents worth. Normally, I’m in favor of transparency. But for every good things that comes out of cameras in the court room, there will be two bad things. Lawyers and judges are politicians. Point a camera at them, and they begin campaigning. The jails are filled with people who are serving extra time because the judge and prosecutor were running for office. Put more print reporters in courtrooms with notebooks and lease the damn TV cameras at home.
Comment by Billy Dennis Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:24 pm
After thirty years as an attorney in Illinois, I advocate a live feed from every courtroom in Illinois, 24/7. In particular, citizens should see what transpires in the motion courts, long before they ever reach trial. The feeds should be embedded with info re the judge, the attorneys and the litigants, so folks can go back years in the future and look back to see what happened. Only cases of generally accepted sensitivity, such as issues involving minors or national security, should be exempt. If someone is running for judge, we could look back and see their performance as attorneys. The feed should also be linked to court records pertaining to the matter in view. People wonder why costs of our criminal and civil justice systems are out of control? Give them an eyeful. Block out the jurors if that becomes concern. If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. A few years of this and I suspect many folks will get a bit more rational about settling civil and marital disputes among themselves. And more than a few law professors could explore other interests.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:25 pm
Bad move. Allowing cameras into the courtroom encourages showmanship which does not necessarily coincide with justice. Also, although the policy as drafted put some of the cost on the news media outlets don’t think for a minute that the local jurisdictions won’t have costs of their own that are unaccounted for.
Comment by Stones Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:32 pm
Every Supreme Court case should be televised and recorded. You can do it in a dignified and respectful way with remotely-operated pool cameras feeding the media, like C-SPAN. I would trust the justices to maintain decorum from their bench.
Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 12:55 pm
===I would trust the justices to maintain decorum from their bench.===
Amen! It is silly to think we judges can not act with decorum and not play to cameras in our roles on the bench. Thank you, Newsclown!
Sincerely,
Judge Lance Ito
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:36 pm
Careful what you wish for. Even the most dramatic trials are about as interesting as watching grass grow. Still, a victory for open government.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 1:53 pm
= Allowing cameras into the courtroom encourages showmanship which does not necessarily coincide with justice. =
Yeah, because keeping the cameras out of the courtroom has surely helped keep showmanship out.
Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 2:08 pm
I suspect, but don’t know, that adding cameras to the chambers of the legislature, increased the politicking on the floor, and moved more decision processes elsewhere. I wonder if this will result in even more legal settlements and bargainings behind closed doors.
Comment by mark walker Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:16 pm
Put cameras in the cattle call courtrooms (traffic, small claims, child support, to name a few) and broadcast on the public access cable channel all day (and night, if they do that). That’s what we need. Let the people see — not filtered by the media — what really goes on.
Comment by Marie Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:18 pm
I would be pleased to have an outside observer compare McHenry County Blog’s coverage of court cases with those of the “established media.”
Comment by Cal Skinner Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:32 pm