Spring Break
Media Will Benefit From Open Courts
Adam Himmelberger
Issue date: 9/21/06 Section: Commentary
The report suggests a pilot program at one district court to see how cameras in the courts will play out. Understandable, considering there is debate as to the effects caused by such coverage - remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Sensationalism, trial complications and even the compromising of the judicial process are possible outcomes. However, the two years allotted for the program is a bit long for a trial run. The analysis and implementation should occur much sooner. As a result responsible and logical news media will be able to more thoroughly cover important court decisions throughout the state and legal participants should be able to continue to do their job as if the cameras weren't there.
One downside to the camera issue is the added litigation it could eventually add to an already lengthy court process. The task force report stipulates pertinent parties can object to the recording of the trial and if the argument is found to be reasonable by the judge, the use of such cameras is prohibited. Likewise with remote access to online court records - courts and parties can order information to be sealed pursuant to current law if there is reasonable cause to do so, according to the report.
There is also the concern by some committee members, expressed in the report, over the posting of information on the Internet, specifically criminal dockets and police reports used in trials when probable cause is not found. Chancellor Emeritus of the Connecticut State University system and taskforce member, Dr. William Cibes, Jr., said in his minority statement, posting criminal dockets as well as criminal convictions online could cause "collateral damage" to the accused. Having "The fact of arrest, not balanced by a record of the outcome of the case," could be available to anyone online, hindering rehabilitation and reintegration. The concern over published police reports where probable cause was not found was raised by Judge William Lavery. He noted in his minority position these records would essentially be unsubstantiated and false allegations open to anyone. These points should be taken into consideration when the state decides what should be open to the public. Anything that can potentially violate the rights of those who stand trial or open up unwarranted embarrassment should be scrutinized.
One downside to the camera issue is the added litigation it could eventually add to an already lengthy court process. The task force report stipulates pertinent parties can object to the recording of the trial and if the argument is found to be reasonable by the judge, the use of such cameras is prohibited. Likewise with remote access to online court records - courts and parties can order information to be sealed pursuant to current law if there is reasonable cause to do so, according to the report.
There is also the concern by some committee members, expressed in the report, over the posting of information on the Internet, specifically criminal dockets and police reports used in trials when probable cause is not found. Chancellor Emeritus of the Connecticut State University system and taskforce member, Dr. William Cibes, Jr., said in his minority statement, posting criminal dockets as well as criminal convictions online could cause "collateral damage" to the accused. Having "The fact of arrest, not balanced by a record of the outcome of the case," could be available to anyone online, hindering rehabilitation and reintegration. The concern over published police reports where probable cause was not found was raised by Judge William Lavery. He noted in his minority position these records would essentially be unsubstantiated and false allegations open to anyone. These points should be taken into consideration when the state decides what should be open to the public. Anything that can potentially violate the rights of those who stand trial or open up unwarranted embarrassment should be scrutinized.
Be the first to comment on this story