Overview
Constitutional concerns neither mandate, nor prohibit, televising of trials. The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that “there is no constitutional right to have [live witness] testimony recorded and broadcast …. Nor does the Sixth Amendment require that the trial – or any part of it – be broadcast live or on tape to the public.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 610 (1978). But in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 583 (1981), the Court confirmed that “the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with” cameras in the courtroom, and all states have done so to one extent or another. Jurisdictions vary widely, and the issue is governed by state law rather than a constitutional access right.
Judges often rely on Standard 8-3.8 of the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Standards. It provides that “under rules prescribed by a supervising appellate court or other appropriate authority, a judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording and photographing of judicial proceedings … consistent with the right to a fair trial and subject to express conditions, limitations, and guidelines which allow such coverage in a manner that will be unobtrusive, will not distract or otherwise adversely affect witnesses or other trial participants, and will not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.”
In federal criminal trials, Fed. R. Crim. P. 53 provides that generally “the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” Some federal districts allow broadcasting in civil cases. See S.D.N.Y. R. 1.8; E.D.N.Y. R. 1.8. But others follow the admonition of the Judicial Conference that “it would not be appropriate to require … non-ceremonial proceedings to be subject to media broadcasting.” In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, Vol. 1, Ch. 3, Pt. E.4.; in overturning decision of district court to allow webcast of hearing). The Judicial Conference allows federal appellate courts to permit cameras in appellate arguments if they chose to do so. The Second and Ninth Circuits have voted to allow recording of some oral arguments.
Trial courts increasingly also allow liveblogging or Twittering of proceedings. See Ahnalese Rushmann, Courtroom coverage in 140 characters, 33 News Med. & L. 2 at 28. These rules vary between (and often within) jurisdictions.
Georgia
The Supreme Court of Georgia has made clear that camera access is an essential component of Georgia’s constitutional commitment to an open court system. See, e.g., Morris Communications, LLC v. Griffin, 279 Ga. 735, 736 (2005) (reversing trial court order that denied camera access to criminal trial and stating that: “a trial court should bear in mind this State’s policy favoring open judicial proceedings.”).
U.S.C.R. 22 grants to the media the right to provide photographic coverage of judicial proceedings in the superior courts unless the court, after appropriate hearing, makes specific findings that such coverage is either not “within the requirements of due process of law” or cannot be “done without detracting from the dignity and decorum of the court.” Multimedia WMAZ, Inc. v. State, 256 Ga. 698, 699 (1987). See also Georgia Television Co. v. Napper, 258 Ga. 68, 69 (1988) (denying camera access because the trial court believes it may “stifle, inhibit, frustrate or prevent Socratic dialogue between court and counsel is improper.”). U.S.C.R. 22 is also repeated in the uniform rules of Georgia’s other trial courts. See, e.g., Uniform Magistrate Court Rule 11; Uniform Probate Court Rule 18; Uniform Juvenile Court Rule 26.
The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that the trial judge is specifically required to make the determination that coverage is either not “within the requirements of due process of law” or cannot be “done without detracting from the dignity and decorum of the court” before photographic coverage can be denied. See Multimedia WMAZ, Inc. v. State, 256 Ga. 698, 700 (1987). See also, Harris v. State, 260 Ga. 860, 866 (1991) (affirming trial court’s determination allowing criminal trial to be televised where defendant failed to point to any harm or prejudice arising from the lack of notice or the presence of television cameras); Georgia Television Co. v. Napper, 258 Ga. 68, 69 (1988) (“[u]nder Rule 22, the newsworthiness of the proceeding before the court is not a matter for the determination of the court, nor can the lack of newsworthiness constitute a basis for denial of coverage.”); Georgia Television Co. v. State, 257 Ga. 764, 765 (1988) (“Rule 22 requires specific findings.”). In order to record a court hearing, the press must file a timely written request on a form provided by the court, with the judge involved in the proceeding, where the coverage is sought. A U.S.C.R. 22 request by the public or the media may be considered pursuant to factors set forth in O.C.G.A. § 15 1 10.1. See WALB-TV v. Gibson, 269 Ga. 564 (1998) (holding that the trial court properly considered the Rule 22 request pursuant to factors set forth in O.C.G.A. § 15 1 10.1).
Federalcourts in Georgia, both at the trial and appellate level, prohibit recording devices and cameras in the courtroom.
