Spring Break
Media Will Benefit From Open Courts
Adam Himmelberger
Issue date: 9/21/06 Section: Commentary
The sun will shine a little brighter into Connecticut courts if the recommendations of a judicial public access taskforce are approved. The biggest changes would affect how the courts are covered by the Connecticut media and would create a wide range of measures to ensure public access to trials, meetings and records. Many of these recommendations explicitly define what the public has a right to and should be implemented, while other suggestions in the report require further analysis and possible amendments before implementation. Regardless, the time spent doing so should be completed faster than proposed in the report.
The majority of the general public will not be taking advantage of these recommendations if implemented, such as Internet databases of criminal dockets, convictions and financial documents regarding family matter cases. I would dispute that many UConn students have been discouraged by not being able to spend their weekend looking at trial statuses and are eagerly waiting for these changes. The public however, would benefit from the effects indirectly through the news media, whose courtroom coverage would benefit greatly, should the task force report be favorably adopted.
Aside from other media-friendly services such as the establishment of a judicial-media committee, the report recommends, "All forms of media, including still cameras, video cameras and audio recordings, are to be allowed to cover all aspects of criminal trials and sentencing." There is also a proposal to expand the electronic coverage to the state Supreme and Appellate Courts and for an amendment permitting "broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of judicial branch meetings that are open to the public and scheduled in court facilities." Currently, according to the report, such broadcasting and recording is prohibited from courtrooms unless permission is specifically granted by a judicial authority and all involved parties consent. News media must currently request permission from a presiding judge to cover the Superior Court, according to the task force report.
The majority of the general public will not be taking advantage of these recommendations if implemented, such as Internet databases of criminal dockets, convictions and financial documents regarding family matter cases. I would dispute that many UConn students have been discouraged by not being able to spend their weekend looking at trial statuses and are eagerly waiting for these changes. The public however, would benefit from the effects indirectly through the news media, whose courtroom coverage would benefit greatly, should the task force report be favorably adopted.
Aside from other media-friendly services such as the establishment of a judicial-media committee, the report recommends, "All forms of media, including still cameras, video cameras and audio recordings, are to be allowed to cover all aspects of criminal trials and sentencing." There is also a proposal to expand the electronic coverage to the state Supreme and Appellate Courts and for an amendment permitting "broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of judicial branch meetings that are open to the public and scheduled in court facilities." Currently, according to the report, such broadcasting and recording is prohibited from courtrooms unless permission is specifically granted by a judicial authority and all involved parties consent. News media must currently request permission from a presiding judge to cover the Superior Court, according to the task force report.
Be the first to comment on this story