A Florida jury awarded plaintiff, David Milian just over $1 million Thursday afternoon in his suit against Miami nightspot Nikki Beach Club. Specifically, the jury awarded $150,000 for loss of earnings, $100,000 for hospital and medical bills from the past and into the future, and $800,000 for pain suffering and mental anguish.

On August 3, 2008 Milian visited Nikki Beach Club with his girlfriend. Near the club’s bathrooms Milian exchanged words with Guido Trinidad and their interactions escalated into a physical altercation. Trinidad hit Milian in the face with a bar glass, creating serious injury and severing the nerves on the right side of his face. Milian brought suit against Nikki Beach Club for pain, suffering, his resulting disability and medical bills of approximately $50,000.

Plaintiff’s attorney, Philip Gerson, stated that a nightclub is required to keep its property reasonably safe by providing adequate security. In his opening statement he alleged that the fight was “both foreseeable and preventable by the nightclub. There was a needless danger. They knew fights, including attacks with glasses, had happened before. They could have prevented the crime but didn’t.”

Mitchel Chusid, of Ritter, Chusid, Bizona & Cohen, represented the defendant night club. Chusid asserted that while the plaintiff did receive injuries on defendant’s property, Nikki Beach Club took the proper precautions to make the nightspot safe. He further stated that the incident happened very quickly while Trinidad was enraged and that club security responded quickly.

Today, while asking for damages between 1 and 2 million dollars, Gerson told the jury, “You are like cashiers at a supermarket. You just add up the items. The amount can be large or the amount can be small. It is whatever comes to you, and you should not be embarrassed if the amount that comes to you in total in this case is large.”  

CVN webcast the Milian v. Nikki Beach Club trial live, gavel-to-gavel.

Subscribe to CVN and watch real live trial video for low monthly prices.

 TCW v. Gundlach (Los Angeles, California)

Trust Company of the West (TCW) sued Jeffrey Gundlach and three other defendants for allegedly stealing the company’s trade secrets and using them to open a rival asset management company, DoubleLine Capital. Gundlach counterclaimed for hundreds of millions of dollars for breach of his employment contract.

Jonathan Quinn (Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Sullivan), counsel for TCW, stated, “Gundlach stole so many trade secrets and confidential information that, if you printed it out, it would be 2½ times the height of the Empire State building.” According to Mr. Quinn, TCW “owed Mr. Gundlach nothing” because he and the other defendants “plotted the destruction of TCW.”

DoubleLine’s attorney, Brad Brian (Munger Tolles & Olson), told the jury about TCW’s alleged plot to force Mr. Gundlach out of the company as early as June 2009. According to Mr. Brian, TCW wanted to avoid having to pay Mr. Gundlach “hundreds of millions in dollars in performance fees for asset funds that had gone through the roof.” Mr. Brian told the jury, “They knew they were going to owe him a lot of money.”

Mr. Brian emphasized that Mr. Gundlach and the other defendants did not use any of TCW’s confidential information when they formed DoubleLine Capital LP. He also told the jury that Mr. Gundlach and the other defendants were entitled to unpaid wages from TCW.

The jury sided with Mr. Gundlach on his breach of contract claim, and awarded Mr. Gundlach $66.7M in unpaid wages.  However, the jury also found that Mr. Gundlach stole TCW’s trade secrets.  Judge Carl West may award damages for the trade secrets violation at a future hearing.

John Quinn (Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Sullivan), Steve Madison (Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Sullivan), and Dominic Suprenant (Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Sullivan) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, TCW. Mark Helm (Munger Tolles & Olson) and Brad Brian (Munger Tolles & Olson) appeared on behalf of the defendants, Jeffrey Gundlach, Jeffrey Mayberry, Chris Santa Ana, and Barbara Van Every.

Gavel-to-gavel coverage is available from Courtroom View Network.

CVN webcast Trust Company of the West, Inc. v. Jeffrey Gundlach live. 

Timmons v. Ohio Power Company and American Electric Power Service Corporation (Marshall County, West Virginia) 

A Marshall County, West Virginia jury awarded a verdict of $6,998,940 to the family of Lewis Timmons, a 61-year old resident of Tyler County, West Virginia, who was killed as a result of an explosion in the hydrogen storage area of the Muskingum River power plant owned by the American Electric Power Services Corporation. The jury awarded the family of Lewis Timmons nearly $2,000,000 in compensatory damages, and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. The jury also declared that the estate was entitled to attorney fees.

On August 16, 2011, attorney Geoffrey Brown (Bordas and Bordas) told Judge David W. Hummel a panel of eight jurors during his opening statement, “You will hear that both the Ohio Power Company and the American Electric Power Service Corporation violated their duty of due care and caused the explosion to happen resulting in the death of Mr. Timmons and the destruction of his personal property.”

Mr. Brown explained the inner workings of hydrogen storage systems at power plants and noted specifically the inherent dangers in the defendant’s roof above its hydrogen system and its use of weak copper relief stacks. He also described a similar explosion that occurred in December 2005 at a plant in Moundsville, West Virginia, which prompted safety recommendations that were not acted upon by either defendant.

According to Mr. Brown, the defendant’s decision to neglect known safety concerns at the plant resulted in the fatal explosion that took place on January 8, 2007.

Representing the defendants, defense attorney, Brian Swiger (Jackson Kelly) claimed that the American Electric Power Service Corporation was not provided with notice of any dangers present in its roof or its copper relief stacks.

Mr. Swiger told jurors that the defendants, instead, relied on the expertise of General Hydrogen, the inspector for their hydrogen gas system. He claimed that General Hydrogen never gave the American Electric Power Service Corporation any notice of dangers or “urgent needs” for improvement.

Geoffrey Brown (Bordas and Bordas) and Chris Regan (Bordas and Bordas) appeared on behalf of the plaintiff’s estate. Brian Swiger (Jackson Kelly) appeared on behalf of the defendants. 

A two-week civil trial ensued with testimony from numerous experts, including compressed gas experts. Gavel to gavel coverage is available from Courtroom View Network.

CVN webcast Family and Estate of Lewis Timmons v. Ohio Power Company and American Electric Power Service Corporation

Tags: Negligence, Utility Company liability, Personal injury, Wrongful death, Electric Power Liability, Explosion, Power Plant Liability, Power Plant explosion, Verdict, Punitive Damages, safety, Hydrogen

Both state and federal courts took steps to improve camera access in 2010, amid a growing public consensus that courts should be more open.

In the states, proposed rules in California and Massachusetts would expand courtroom camera access.

For the federal courts, the United States Judicial Conference authorized a pilot study that would allow cameras in all federal district courts.

In addition to these substantive gains for cameras, there is a growing public consensus in favor of courtroom cameras, as evidenced by editorials in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times both arguing strongly in favor of expanded camera access in courts.

California.  In August, 2010, after two years of study, the Judicial Council of California’s Bench-Bar-Media Committee issued a comprehensive draft report proposing many recommended rule changes that would improve media access to courtrooms, including improved camera access, and limits on both gag orders and orders sealing records.

The Committee said,

“A free and open society relies, in part, on an independent and accountable judiciary, a fair and just legal system, and a free and robust media…[T]he public’s understanding of the justice system depends in large part on information provided by the media. There are times when the rights to fair trial and free press are at odds with each other. The ultimate duty of our judges is to balance these competing interests and find the best solution for all concerned.”

In an effort to address the competing interests of the bench, bar, and media, the committee proposes recommendations that would increase media access to court proceedings and records, enhance education about the roles and responsibilities of each group, and help resolve inevitable conflicts in an effective manner that protects and promotes the administration of justice.

The Committee recommended “an explicit presumption” that cameras would be allowed in the courtroom. Orders limiting camera access would have to be based on specific findings and would be appealable. A dissenting committee member noted that there was “substantial opposition” to courtroom cameras among the judiciary.

The committee will finish reviewing public comments this month and will present a final version of its recommendations to the Judicial Council in spring 2011.

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has proposed changes to Rule 1:19, which governs media coverage of courtroom proceedings.  According to the Court, the proposed rule changes are designed to accommodate the changing nature of both journalists and the ways news is reported while still maintaining order and decorum in the courts.

Among the proposed changes, the definition of news media would include citizen journalists and bloggers who regularly report and publish news or information about matters of public interest. The rules specifically provide for an additional video camera to be permitted for media other than broadcast television and still photographers.

Apparently to prevent judges from having to make ad hoc determinations about whether a particular reporter was entitled to access, the proposed rule provides for journalists to register with the Public Information Officer, although judges could in their discretion also permit unregistered journalists to cover proceedings. The proposed rule also gives journalists the right to use laptops in court if not disruptive.

The Court is accepting public comments until January 28, 2011.

In a separate proceeding also embracing new media and court video, the Supreme Judicial Court specifically determined that Courtroom View Network is a bona fide news media or news gathering organization entitled to webcast court proceedings in Massachusetts, Courtroom View Network v. Justices of the Superior Court, 2010 WL 4942139 (Mass.).

United States Judicial Conference. In September 2010, the United States Judicial Conference approved a new pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in federal district courtrooms, and the publication of video in some civil proceedings. The scope of the pilot will be nationwide. Courts wishing to participate will amend their local rules, if necessary. Interim reports on the pilot will be prepared each year.

A prior three-year pilot of cameras in federal court, from 1991 to 1994, involved six district courts and two courts of appeal. The Federal Judicial Center, which evaluated the pilot, reported in 1993 that it was “confident” that the media coverage did not cause a sufficient disruption to warrant a continued prohibition.

In 1994, the Federal Judicial Center issued a supplemental report concluding that there were minimal or no negative effects on jurors or witnesses, and any negative effects could be addressed by judges in individual cases. Based on this report, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Administration and Case Management recommended that camera coverage of federal civil proceedings be allowed. The American Bar Association’s Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements strongly supported the recommendation.

Nonetheless, the Judicial Conference disapproved the recommendation, thereby reaffirming its ban on electronic media coverage of federal proceedings.

The ubiquity of cameras now, as compared to 1994, as well as the wealth of experience accumulated during the last 15 years in the many states that do allow cameras in court, suggests that the outcome of the pilot may be different this time.

New York Times. A lead editorial in the New York Times in March argued, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works…Opponents of televising the lower courts argue — unpersuasively, in our opinion — that cameras could deprive defendants of a fair trial by intimidating witnesses and jurors…Congress should pass a law requiring that the [U.S. Supreme] court’s proceedings be televised.“

Los Angeles Times. This week a Los Angeles Times editorial argued, “Monday’s broadcast of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ hearing in the Proposition 8 case was a powerfully compelling argument for the camera’s indispensability” in helping Americans understand the true nature of the judicial process.  In contast to the “vulgar political kabuki” of commentary leading up to the hearing, court video revealed the truly deliberative, serious, and non-partisan nature of the legal process.

“It is one of the glories of our court system that it continues to permit a principled and civil debate over just such contentious issues, and the American people deserve to see that, as they did Monday,” said the Los Angeles Times.

The editorial concluded with a quote that 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski attributed to United States Supreme Court Justice Warren E. Burger: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult from them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.“

CVN, the leading provider of court video in the United States, is proud to help improve public access to the judiciary.

Court video on CVN lets legal professionals follow breaking events in litigation of interest, whether it be complex, billion-dollar mergers or simply the safety standards that apply in a given community.

Moreover, when a particular trial becomes newsworthy due to an unexpected result (for example, a $500M verdict in the Chanin v. Desert Shadow Endoscopy products liability case, or the $200M asbestos verdict against CertainTeed in Evans v. A.W. Chesterton), the availability of court video allows journalists, bar members, and the public to go back to the event and better understand what happened and how.

However, the availability of court video is so new that even most legal professionals are not aware of the many different ways that court video can be used both during and after trial, for practical, public, and educational purposes.

For example, CVN court video has been used by sick jurors who were unable to attend in person for a day or so, thus allowing the trial to continue without disruption or delay.

Court Video from CVN has also been used in closing argument by parties wishing to refresh the jury’s recollection of specific portions of in-court testimony with far more impact than could be achieved with the mere reading of a transcript or the display of text.

In fact, anyone who has seen CVN’s court video of Bill Gates’ deposition testimony in Comes v. Microsoft knows that juries will be at least as influenced  by a witness’s body language, demeanor, and emotional affect as by the actual words spoken, and in this respect transcripts can be much less accurate than video at capturing the events in question.

Court video’s educational uses of course abound, from including video in a traditional law school classroom setting, to a law firm’s senior partner watching portions of a trial from afar, and coaching the trial team each night.

Court video for trial preparation is a must-have litigation tool for many firms, whether they are considering the effectivess of a potential or opposing expert witness, or simply comparing how other attorneys have framed their opening statement in a prior, similar case.

During trial, court video brings together a virtual team of expert advisors and senior attorneys who can help guide a trial team confronted by any unexpected turn. In the war room, court video allows for rapid response. And virtual shadow jurors can provide real-time insight into the effectiveness of a direct or cross-examination.

Court video also allows for the possibility of reducing the cost of litigation, by allowing attorneys and clients to attend and monitor litigation with less travel and smaller in-court teams, which results in less courtroom crowding as well.

This improvement in judicial efficiency actually began long ago, with speaker-telephones in courts such as those used by CourtCall’s service, which allows telephonic appearances. However, the typical court video setup gathers sound from multiple high-quality microphones and lets the participant see what is going on in the courtroom, thus providing a far superior experience for remote participation.

Court video is still in its infancy, but many jurists and legal scholars are concluding that the presence of courtroom cameras is not merely to be tolerated, but actually improves the administration of justice.

And the historic concerns that witnesses or participants might be intimidated or otherwise affected by the presence of video cameras has been disproved by a mountain of empirical evidence drawn from the experience of dozens of states across the years. Florida, for example, has allowed video cameras in nearly all court proceedings for over thirty years to great public benefit and with no signficant adverse effects. And states like Kentucky are so familiar with court video that cameras are permanently installed in nearly all courtrooms by companies like JAVS. Kentucky has found that creating a permanent record of their trial proceedings by video is no more disruptive or intimidating to the participants than when a permanent record is created by a court reporter — which is to say, not intimidating at all.

CVN is proud to bring to the public the news and information that court video makes possible; proud to bring to law schools and all education instutitutions the learning benefits associated with court video (such as CVN’s video trial advocacy training library, developed with William & Mary Law School); and proud to bring to the bench and bar the improvements in efficiency and effectiveness resulting from court video that contribute to the continued improvement of what is rightly called the world’s best system of justice.

Cameras might be coming to the nation’s highest court if Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan were to have her say.  In a CSPAN interview last summer, Solicitor General Kagan said of cameras,

“I’ve thought about this question a bit. If cameras were in the courtroom, the American public would see an amazing and extraordinary event. This court is so smart and so prepared and so engaged. And everybody who gets up there at the podium is — the toughest questions, the most challenging questions are thrown at that person…I think if you put cameras in the courtroom people would see, ‘Wow,’ they would see an institution of government I think working at a really high level. So that’s one plus factor for doing it.”

Last year, when Senator Kohl asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about courtroom cameras, then-nominee Sotomayor gave a more guarded response:

“I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated…I would be a new voice in the discussion, and new voices often…consider taking different approaches.”

If Justice Sotomayor’s words were considered relatively supportive of opening the federal judiciary to cameras, nominee Kagan’s words suggest an even stronger commitment to openness — at least with respect to the Supreme Court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved three bills that would expand video coverage in federal courts:

• * S. Res. 339, which would express the sense of the Senate that televising the Supreme Court’s proceedings should be allowed;
• * S.446, which would require the Supreme Court to permit televising its proceedings;
• * S.657, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which would expand camera access throughout the federal judiciary.

According to the National Law Journal, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009,

“…asks the Judicial Conference to devise guidelines that judges can use in deciding whether to permit cameras. And the bill also instructs the Judicial Conference to craft guidelines that address the protection of undercover officers and crime victims among other people.

A sponsor of the bill, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement Thursday: “Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. This bill is the best way to maintain confidence and accountability in the judicial system and help judges do a better job.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the federal courts have ‘lagged behind’ Congress and its committees when it comes to televising proceedings.”

Indeed, the federal courts also lag behind state courts. Nearly all states allow some sort of camera coverage, and at least 37 allow media to provide video coverage of trials.

Florida has for more than 30 years allowed video coverage of nearly all proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court recently stated, “Cameras in the courts have become so much a part of Florida public culture that few question the idea any more.” 

In Kentucky, video cameras are permanently mounted in 98% of courtrooms, to provide an official record of the proceedings. 

A judge in California recently approved video coverage of an asbestos trial over the objections of all parties. The court concluded that it could condition the coverage so as to prevent prejudicial effect, and if any negative impact nonetheless materialized, the camera coverage could be further restricted at that time to mitigate the negative effect. Baker v. A.W. Chesterton, 2010 WL 1734635 (Cal.Superior).

Given the ubiquity of court video in state courts – CVN alone has covered hundreds of cases in 30 states — the empirical objections to camera coverage (e.g., intimidation of witnesses, disruption of proceedings, confusion of jurors) have no basis in fact. Instead, the opposite has been proven: video cameras can improve public access to judicial proceedings without detrimental effect.

The next step for the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009 would be a vote by the full Senate. The House version of the bill, H.R. 3054, sponsored by William Delahunt (D-MA), is in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

A New York Times editorial argues in favor of expanding public access to judicial proceedings via video: 

Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works…Opponents of televising the lower courts argue — unpersuasively in our opinion — that cameras could deprive defendants of a fair trial by intimidating witnesses and jurors.

The Times was mostly focused on the U.S. Supreme Court, but it mentioned a claim made in lower courts — risk of witness or juror intimidation — with which CVN is exceedingly familiar. Parties regularly object to CVN’s coverage, asserting without evidence that jurors or witnesses will be intimidated, or that the presence of courtroom cameras will somehow prevent a fair trial.

The evidence is otherwise, overwhelmingly. CVN has a spotless record in webcasting legal proceedings. In covering literally hundreds of cases, and webcasting thousands of hours of legal proceedings, no judge has ever terminated CVN’s coverage, sanctioned CVN personnel, or disturbed any finding due to CVN’s activities.

This should come as no surprise. CVN understands courtroom decorum. CVN shoots proceedings with one or two small, silent cameras, using the courtroom’s normal lighting. The remainder of CVN’s equipment fits on a small table. That is why over 100 judges in 30 states have admitted CVN into their courtrooms.

CVN has covered matters civil and criminal, federal and state, jury trials and bench trials, proceedings at the trial level and the appellate level, as well as pretrial hearings and dispositive motions. The record is extensive, clear, and compelling.

And if CVN’s experience were not enough, Florida allows cameras into virtually all courtroom proceedings, and last year celebrated the 30th anniversary (pdf) of their successful experiment with public access to the judicial process.

The reason camera opponents’ speculative challenges to public access via the media’s video cameras should normally be disregarded by judges is because the public has a First Amendment right to observe judicial proceedings, and the media plays an important role in making that possible.

The United States Supreme Court has squarely recognized that the Constitution requires both the press and the public to be permitted to attend and to observe judicial proceedings absent the most compelling circumstances. These rights serve not only to educate the public about how the justice system works, but also to secure confidence in that system.

Historically, it has been the media that has brought this information to the public about trials because courtrooms are simply not large enough to accommodate everyone who may be interested in the proceedings, nor is it feasible for people to traverse the country to personally attend every trial of interest or concern.

There was perhaps a time when video coverage might have required substantial equipment, personnel, and lighting, which could have interfered with the proceedings. However, cameras have become so small and so commonplace, and CVN’s setup so unobtrusive (indeed, CVN can deploy remotely operated cameras so no personnel are in the courtroom), that it is difficult to fathom a less intrusive way to have a trial covered and meet the constitutional obligations of providing open courts.

Although judges are right to ensure that no sort of disruption interferes with a judicial proceeding, precluding access by CVN, or by any media entity that is similarly committed to being a respectful, passive observer of the judicial process, is unwarranted, and is inconsistent with the public’s constitutional right to understand its governmental institutions and responsibly participate in a democracy.

We hope that citizens, commentators, and legislators will join the New York Times in calling for improved public access to judicial proceedings.

The Los Angeles Times says that the anticipated webcast of today’s Proposition 8 trial has been delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The trial was to be webcast live to virtual overflow rooms in other courthouses, and later posted on YouTube.

“Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this court,” the justices said. They added that the temporary order “will remain in effect until Wednesday, Jan. 13.”

The high court did not explain its reasoning.

Only Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a San Francisco native, dissented. “In my view, the court’s standard for granting a stay is not met” in this case, he wrote. “In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of ‘irreparable harm.’ “

Under the court’s rules, lawyers can seek an emergency order only if they can show their clients will suffer “irreparable harm” if the justices fail to act. In this case, the defenders of Prop. 8 said their witnesses could be subjected to harassment and intimidation if they testified in favor of the ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples.  

It is surprising to see the U.S. Supreme Court make an extraordinary move against cameras, disagreeing with both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals, based on the speculative arguments posed.

It has long been argued that the presence of cameras in court will somehow taint the proceedings, even though the trial is a completely public proceeding in all other respects open to the public.  [For a complete history of the controversy, review White Papers by Boies Schiller and by Jim Lyons].

However, the time for such speculation is long past.  CVN has captured hundreds of civil trials, with no adverse impacts noted.

CVN’s experience with cameras is exceptionally broad, involving over a hundred judges in 30 different states, and more than 1,000 attorneys, in all kinds of proceedings, including hearings, bench trials, and jury trials.

Plus, the nation’s experience with courtroom cameras is not limited to CVN’s activity.  Florida allows cameras into virtually all courtroom proceedings, and recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of their successful experiment with public access to the judicial process.  In fact, some states, including Kentucky and Arizona, have permanent cameras in their courtrooms.

Last year the First Circuit reversed a federal court order allowing cameras because, according to the Court, the local rule did not give the trial judge discretion to allow a webcast.  However, the First Circuit conceded that there were good reasons to allow a webcast, and that “emerging technologies may eventually change the way” the public learns about information from court cases.  A concurring opinion went even further, stating:

“Indeed, in my view, there are no sound policy reasons to prohibit the webcasting authorized by the district court.  Therefore, this case calls into question the continued relevance and vitality of a rule that requires such a disagreeable outcome.”

That is why it was so surprising to see extraordinary relief by the Supreme Court in an instance where there was no rule prohibiting cameras, and not even a jury to be potentially impacted.

Of course the Proposition 8 trial is high profile, and perhaps some witnesses are uncomfortable stating their views in a public forum. However, federal courts are exceptionally public forums.  Cameras do not create the public nature of the event, nor will their absence prevent detailed reporting of who said what and when.  

Indeed, the absence of cameras will not make this public event even slightly private.  But suppose it be true that some witnesses who were otherwise comfortable testifying in a high-profile federal trial would prefer that cameras not be present; it is not at all clear why that preference should outweigh the public’s interest in having access to its own judicial process.

The argument seems to come down to just that, because the real-world experience with cameras in court has provided voluminous evidence quite in conflict with the speculation that the judicial process suffers “irreparable harm” from exposure to light. 

The 15 federal district courts within the Ninth Circuit will be allowed to experiment with video coverage in civil, non-jury matters.  The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council announced the new policy on December 17, 2009.  

According to the announcement, the Ninth Circuit hopes that “being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law.“

The Ninth Circuit’s move is an important and laudable step.  Time will tell whether it represents only a baby step or in fact a giant leap forward (only about 1/3rd of 9th Circuit trials are bench trials, and the actual approval rate for media requests remains to be seen).  However, this move is consistent with a growing trend across the country favoring public access to judicial proceedings.

Because CVN has webcast hundreds of trials and hearings in 30 states, it is uniquely qualified to understand the concerns of camera opponents.  CVN frequently encounters opposition from litigants who, although engaged in a public dispute in a public forum with public implications, nonetheless wish to exclude the public.  

In our experience, the opponents of public access only occasionally argue that the public has no right to see the proceedings; rather, they emphasize all the ways in which cameras might taint the proceedings.  For example, they claim that witnesses will be intimidated, the equipment will interfere with the physical space, the camera operator will be disruptive, or the presence of the cameras will somehow confuse the jurors about the importance or nature of their duty.

Against all of these hypothetical bugaboos, weighs ponderously our actual experience of cameras in the court.  They simply do not interfere with the administration of justice.  CVN’s experience covers all types of proceedings — trials and hearings, civil and criminal, jury and non-jury, state and federal.  Our cameras have never been asked to leave, no case has been reversed (or even appealed) as a result of our media presence, nor even has there been a suggestion to our knowledge that the presence of cameras interfered with the administration of justice in any respect.

Augmenting CVN’s experience is the wisdom of the states.  Florida has for the past 30 years allowed cameras in nearly all proceedings without any impairment to the judicial system.  In fact, some states, including Kentucky and Arizona, use their own permanent, in-court cameras to capture trial proceedings.  Video cameras have become a regular part of every day life, and the courts are no exception.

There is a legitimate judicial concern with cameras, though, and that is to ensure that any media presence does not adversely impact the proceedings.  Courtrooms, like libraries, are very special public spaces, where custom requires a heightened civility, and words are sometimes spoken in a whisper.  The videographer used to covering rock concerts or sports events needs to approach judicial proceedings with an understanding of the required decorum.

CVN’s videographers, specially trained for and experienced in covering court proceedings, have proved in the past, and hopefully will demonstrate once again in the Ninth Circuit, that the benefits of improved public access far outweigh even the imagined risks, let alone the real ones.

Resources:

• Ninth Circuit Press Release on Camera Pilot Program
• Florida Press Release Commemorating Cameras in Court
• Florida Supreme Court Proclamation on Cameras 
• History and Future of Camera Access in Courtrooms (White Paper)