JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Federal judges approve pilot project to televise civil trials
Sarah Miley at 12:12 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] US federal judges reached an agreement Tuesday on a pilot project allowing certain civil trials to be televised [press release]. Federal appellate judge David Sentelle [official profile] said that, while the details still needed to be worked out, the judges agreed that the faces of jurors and witnesses will not be recorded and that either party to the suit can opt out of the trial being televised. The Judicial Conference [official website], the principle policy-making institution for the federal courts, decided to commence the project after the US Supreme Court [official website] denied a request [JURIST report] by California district judge Vaughn Walker to have cameras record the trial that overturned Proposition 8, the California ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archives]. Sentelle stated that, even if the project was up and running during the trial, it would not have been televised since defenders of the ban refused cameras in the court room. A similar pilot project was initiated in the early 1990s and received welcoming reviews from many judges, but the Judicial Conference reinstated its ban on televised proceedings in 1994.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January that the Proposition 8 trial could not be broadcast on YouTube [website] because the district court did not follow proper procedure when enacting a rule permitting the broadcast. In staying the broadcast, the court ruled that there was a significant likelihood that the district court had not allowed enough time for the public to comment between proposing and enacting the rule, which ended a ban on recording court proceedings in certain cases. The court also found that the high-profile nature of the trial might intimidate witnesses and cause irreparable harm if the rule were not stayed. The Supreme Court itself has a longstanding ban on the use of cameras, but began releasing audio tapes of the proceedings after the Bush v. Gore [text] decision in 2000. Last month, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) [official website], who has long advocated televised Supreme Court proceedings, pledged a floor vote [Post-Gazette report] on the issue before he leaves office at the end of this term.




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Federal appeals court rules on standard for disability discrimination claim
3:07 PM ET, May 26

 Somalia to set up assembly to adopt new constitution
2:19 PM ET, May 26

 Kosovo organ trafficking suspect arrested
11:17 AM ET, May 26

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

FDA Regulation of Antibiotic Use in Agricultural Animals
DOMESTIC
Margaret Riley
University of Virginia School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org