A Reversal on Cameras in Federal Courts
The U.S. Judicial Conference revives a committee considering television coverage of civil cases.
By
Lyle Denniston
A small crack has opened in the wall the federal courts built around themselves last year to block television and radio coverage. By a divided vote, the U.S. Judicial Conference has agreed to rethink its decision last year to black out all U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeals. The battle seemed lost last December, when a conference committee exploring electronic coverage voted to shut down, saying it "would make no further recommendations regarding cameras in the federal courts." The action followed a vote last September by thý full judicial conference – the policymaking arm of the federal courts – to end a modest three-year experiment (see "The Press and the Law," December 1994). The prospect then was that the only sights and sounds of justice-in-progress would come out of state court trials and appeals hearings. But the idea of equal time for cameras in federal courthouses is a hardy one. It keeps coming back despite the staunch resistance of federal judges, many of whom seem unable to overcome the fear that cameras will skew the judicial process – even though a number of studies indicate the fear is baseless. This time, the idea was revived not by the broadcast press but by a handful of influential federal appeals court judges unwilling to keep their courts in the dark. They persuaded the conference's leaders – its executive committee – to put the question on the agenda for a meeting in March. After 10 minutes of discussion, the conference voted 17-9 to tell the committee that had closed up shop that it was back in business. The resolution told the committee, in roundabout language, that it "is not prohibited from proposing pilot programs or conducting other studies necessary to the making of further recommendations on cameras in the courtroom." But like many of its predecessors, the proposal had a catch: The committee is only free to consider televising civil cases. No mention was made of criminal cases, which tend to attract far more interest from the press. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the chairman of the conference's executive committee is a judge who supports cameras in at least some federal courts: Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville. In fact, he was among the small group of judges who had been lobbying their colleagues to let the appeals courts, at least, start a new TV experiment. Merritt told reporters after the conference's latest vote that there are "lots of options" available for broadcast coverage and that opening up appeals courts was "still on the table." He did not spell out what was on the table as far as trial courts are concerned, although he did stress that criminal cases could not be included in any new experiment. It would be progress for the broadcast press to get into any federal courts, even if only at the appellate level. Merritt's own court illustrates the point: He and his colleagues presided over the appeal in the celebrated government case against alleged Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk. Civil appeals often involve some of the most significant constitutional fights. Whatever the conference decides will not affect access to the appeals court that the media would most like to televise: the Supreme Court. That's up to the justices themselves, and there's no sign that they will relax their ban on cameras. Perhaps the most hopeful thing to be said about the federal judges' latest vote is that they are unwilling to end the television age in their courts before it begins. The note of finality that seemed to emerge from last year's deliberations apparently made at least some judges uncomfortable. The conference has a record of secrecy about its own work that suggests it is not a vigorous partisan of openness. The conference conducts its meetings behind closed doors at the Supreme Court, providing a rather spare report to the news media after it finishes. It thus was no surprise when, in meeting with reporters after the March session, Merritt showed no interest in opening up the conference's meetings to the public. He said members think that "the exchanges of views will be enhanced" by continuing to meet in private, and that "posturing and playing to the crowd will be decreased." He noted that the Constitution was drafted in secret. For good measure, he pointed out that newspaper editorial boards hold their deliberations in private. çhe conference, nevertheless, has remained willing at least to listen to proposals from the press. Mer- ritt seemed, in fact, to be inviting the broadcast media to help shape the conference's approach to cameras in federal courts. In the past, broadcasters, fearful of offending the jurists, haven't asked for much. But the timid approach has borne no fruit. Broadcasters have little to lose by acting boldly now. l
###
|