11

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

Pennsylvania

In Commonwealth v. Davis, 635 A.2d 1062, 1065 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a trial court’s order, pursuant to a local rule, prohibiting the media from photographing or videotaping a jury view of the crime scene was a permissible “time, manner, place” restriction and did not violate the First Amendment inasmuch as the press and public were fully able to witness the jury view.

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

Illinois

In Illinois, courts have allowed cameras in the courtroom with greater frequency since 2012.  In a court order entered January, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court authorized the trial courts of Illinois (known as circuit courts) to allow extended media coverage in courtrooms on an experimental, circuit-by-circuit basis.  See Administrative Order for Extended Media Coverage in the Circuit Courts of Illinois on an Experimental Basis, M.R. 2634 (2012).  Under the order the definition of ‘extended media coverage’ is “any media recording or broadcasting of proceedings by the use of television, radio, photographic, or recording equipment for the purpose of gathering and disseminating news to the public.” Id., Sec. 1.1.  The Illinois Supreme Court has allowed media coverage of proceedings in the Supreme Court and in appellate courts under certain conditions. See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 63 cmt. ¶ A(8).

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

Texas

Broadcast media have a right of access to criminal proceedings. See State v. Dunn, 28 Media L. Rep. 1861 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 2000).  The presence of cameras and other recording equipment at a criminal trial do not violate a defendant’s Due Process rights. See Wright v. State, 41 Med. L. Rep. 1533 (Tex. App. 2012). 

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

6th Cir.

The Sixth Circuit adheres to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, prohibiting photographing or broadcasting judicial proceedings. See Conway v. United States, 852 F.2d 187 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 370 (1988). 

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

California

California has set reasonable requirements with which the press must comply in order to be granted permission to take photos and video. A statutory requirement the requests be filed at least give days before a hearing has been upheld. See Ryan v. Ryan, 33 Media L. Rep. 1847 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2004).

The media has the right to access and copy audiovisual evidence that was entered into evidence during trial. See KNSD Channels 7/39 v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 595 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

 

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

Kansas

See State v. McNaught, 238 Kan. 567, 574 (Kan. 1986):

XI. Cameras and other technology in the courtroom

Overview

New Mexico

Pursuant to New Mexico SupremeCourt Rule 23-107, cameras and recording devices are allowed in thecourtroom as long as they comply with the guidelines set forth in the Rule. Additionally,the media coverage must not “detract from the dignity of the court proceedings” orinterfere with a fair and impartial hearing.