By a 4-1 vote, Utah Supreme Court justices have decided to allow television cameras on a permanent basis within the Supreme Court but have denied TV cameras be used - even on an experimental basis - in state trial courtrooms.
While media attorney Randy Dryer is pleased that the justices apparently feel comfortable with cameras in their courtroom, he said he regrets that an opportunity to educate the public about the justice system is being missed.Dryer outlined the arguments in favor of video cameras in the petition he and attorney Pat Shea filed Aug. 9 on behalf of Utah television stations. But no oral arguments on the topic were heard. And no explanation for the rejection was offered in the order signed by the high court justices.
The decision puts Utah at odds with a trend in courtrooms across the nation to include video technology in courtroom coverage, Dryer said.
"By denying the access to spot news provided during a trial, the justices also give up a chance to use cameras for more in-depth coverage. Documentaries on the judiciary are difficult to produce without accompanying video," Dryer said.
In the petition, Dryer and Shea had asked that video cameras be permitted on an experimental basis for a year within Utah's trial courts.
In 1986, the Supreme Court justices agreed by a 4-to-1 vote to permit an experiment allowing TV cameras in their own courtroom but denied it at the trial level.
Because the same justices sit on the Supreme Court bench in 1991 as did in 1986, Dryer believes the justices will not likely change their minds in the near future. He doesn't plan to file another petition.
Speculating on why the justices approve of TV cameras on the appellate level but not in trial court, Dryer said their concern probably focused on protecting witnesses.
Victims, defendants and witnesses do not appear in the Supreme Court - only lawyers who likely would not be traumatized by TV cameras. But at the trial court level, witnesses - sometimes children - take the stand. The presence of a television camera could be intimidating, and justices may worry that fear and TV publicity may affect a fair trial, Dryer said.
But witnesses can be protected from the intimidation of TV cameras and permission of witnesses would be required, Dryer argues.
In a poll conducted by Dan Jones and Associates for the "Doing Utah Justice" project, 85 percent of Utahns disapprove of television broadcasts of rape or child-abuse victims on the witness stand. Fifty-one percent favor TV coverage of court proceedings and 45 percent disapprove.
GRAPHIC
The Media and the courts
Television broadcast of court proceedings should be permitted.
Approve: 51% Disapprove: 45%
Television broadcasts of court proceedings should be permitted even during testimony of rape or child abuse victims.
Approve: 13% Disapprove: 85%
"Doing Utah Justice" poll, conducted by Dan Jones & Associates, 612 interviews.