Videotaped recordings of court hearings are public records, a state judicial task force concluded Monday.
But that doesn't mean the public will see videos of cases involving capital murder or first-degree felonies. And television viewers can forget about ever watching live broadcasts of any trial in Utah.The latter question was never on the table during the task force's year-long debate about cameras in the courtroom, which was to con-clude Monday with a report to the Judicial Council.
The Utah Supreme Court simply does not allow TV cameras in the trial courts and refused to let the group deal with the question. Despite that, the task force composed of judges and court administrators had its hands full debating questions raised by new technology in the courtroom.
Until recently, court reporters with steno machines were the only recorders of hearings in trial courts. Now, more than 20 courtrooms statewide are equipped with video/audio systems that take down the words and actions of the judge, attorneys and witnesses.
Officials hope to one day outfit every trial court in Utah with the systems and save about $50,000 per year per court in reporters' costs. But the money-pinching advance raised questions for the Judicial Council, the governing board of the state's judiciary:
- Should the videotapes be public records?
- If so, would victims/witnesses appreciate having their pictures and testimony broadcast on the 10 o'clock news?
The task force heard testimony from more than a dozen sources during its study of the issues.
In the end, it decided that the tapes were public records, just like a reporter's transcript. But members of the group buffered their decision with the recommendation that judges be allowed to choose the method of recording a high-profile case where privacy interests outweigh public access.
For example, a judge in a capital murder trial could choose to make the reporter's transcript the official record, instead of the video recording, thus shielding witnesses from possible broadcast.
"Technology has made public in a real sense that which has traditionally been public in name only," wrote task force chairman Gordon J. Low, a judge in the 1st District. "The ability of the news media to copy a videotape of a court hearing and broadcast it puts a potentially huge audience in the courtroom."
The invasion of privacy faced by a victim or witness in such a case is potentially far greater than the same person in a non-video case whose image, actions and words could not be broadcast statewide or nationwide, he said.
"The struggle of victims of violent crime, and of crime generally, to rebuild their lives is, according to unanimous testimony, made significantly more difficult by the repeated (public) re-creation of events in the courtroom," the report states.
Therefore, a judge must have the ultimate say in deciding which case is appropriate for video recording and which is not.
The conclusions of the task force are a win-lose situation for broadcast media and the public, said Jeffery J. Hunt, who represents Utah's four major TV stations and the Society of Professional Journalists.
On one hand, the public and reporters now have a clear statement that videotapes are public records, assuming the Supreme Court accepts that conclusion. But the recordings would be available in so few cases with appeal to the masses.
"It's such a narrow segment of cases we're talking about that will ever get media attention. People generally have the greatest interest in capital and first-degree cases and big civil cases - all of which can be excluded by the judge under these recommendations," Hunt said.
Despite that caveat, some new members of the Judicial Council balked at the task force's recommendations on Monday.
"What you're really saying is we're going to start seeing these things on the 10 o'clock news," 4th District Judge Anthony W. Schofield asked incredulously.
Second District Judge Robert T. Braithwaite wondered whether the council was "just going to rubber-stamp this thing or re-debate it?"
Low responded that judges who fear the release of videotapes could be "overworried."
Several states and federal courts have never had any problems making the tapes available to the public, he said. "These kind of issues have been debated for a long time. I know we're (judges) generally conservative about this sort of thing, and we're used to having control of the courtroom. But I don't think it's the problem we all envision it to be . . . it's the '90s, and we have to accept change," Low said.
The council is charged with changing court rules to implement task force recommendations and conclusions. The Supreme Court would also have to amend judicial canons to adhere to the recommendations.
Rather than accept the report as is, Braithwaite moved to send it to the boards of district and juvenile court judges for feedback. Council members unanimously agreed, although the report and recommended rule changes will eventually return to the council for final action.