USA Today
Some federal trials could be televised under a plan approved Tuesday by the U.S. Judicial Conference.
The conference — the policymaking arm of the U.S. judiciary — voted for a pilot project that would allow video recordings of civil trials. Proceedings would be recorded only if the participants in the case consent. The faces of jurors would not be recorded.
The plan, which was approved in a closed meeting Tuesday, would not affect the Supreme Court, which has been the subject of bipartisan criticism in Congress for keeping its proceedings off-camera. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in June, several senators, including Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the high court would benefit from televised proceedings.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Sentelle of Washington, D.C., said the project arose from interest among judges who wanted to try broadcasting trials. He said the conference was also responding to interest among members of Congress who have pushed to open courtrooms to television broadcasts.
The 27-member conference sets policy only for the lower trial and appeals courts, not the Supreme Court.
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., lead sponsor of a bill to televise Supreme Court hearings, said Tuesday that the pilot project fails to address "the real core" issue of the closed federal judiciary.
"The core problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States decides all the cutting-edge questions of the day," he said, stressing that people would be best informed about the U.S. judicial system by seeing how its highest court operates.
Every state allows its courts to broadcast some trials. Federal courts generally ban cameras.
Sentelle, who offered only the sketchiest of details, noted that the U.S. judiciary had tried and abandoned a similar pilot project in the 1990s. He said judges now wanted "to retest the waters."
Sentelle said he did not know when the project would begin, whether video would be put up on court websites, nor how the recordings would be released to the public. Participating courts, not outside media, would record the proceedings.
Sentelle had no recorded vote but said that after "significant" debate, approval was "overwhelming."
The conference — the policymaking arm of the U.S. judiciary — voted for a pilot project that would allow video recordings of civil trials. Proceedings would be recorded only if the participants in the case consent. The faces of jurors would not be recorded.
The plan, which was approved in a closed meeting Tuesday, would not affect the Supreme Court, which has been the subject of bipartisan criticism in Congress for keeping its proceedings off-camera. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in June, several senators, including Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the high court would benefit from televised proceedings.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Sentelle of Washington, D.C., said the project arose from interest among judges who wanted to try broadcasting trials. He said the conference was also responding to interest among members of Congress who have pushed to open courtrooms to television broadcasts.
The 27-member conference sets policy only for the lower trial and appeals courts, not the Supreme Court.
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., lead sponsor of a bill to televise Supreme Court hearings, said Tuesday that the pilot project fails to address "the real core" issue of the closed federal judiciary.
"The core problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States decides all the cutting-edge questions of the day," he said, stressing that people would be best informed about the U.S. judicial system by seeing how its highest court operates.
Every state allows its courts to broadcast some trials. Federal courts generally ban cameras.
Sentelle, who offered only the sketchiest of details, noted that the U.S. judiciary had tried and abandoned a similar pilot project in the 1990s. He said judges now wanted "to retest the waters."
Sentelle said he did not know when the project would begin, whether video would be put up on court websites, nor how the recordings would be released to the public. Participating courts, not outside media, would record the proceedings.
Sentelle had no recorded vote but said that after "significant" debate, approval was "overwhelming."
No comments:
Post a Comment