by U.S Senator Chuck Grassley
A profound heartache burns deeply for the rescuers, survivors and victims who will observe this month the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing spree. Just two years ago, a massive search for two suspects alleged to have detonated twin blasts at the race’s finish line shut down the entire metropolitan area for four days.
Twenty-three months later, the wheels of justice are churning in the U.S. District Court in Boston where where a jury just found the accused guilty on all 30 counts of a federal indictment. In 15 days of testimony calling upon 92 witnesses, the prosecution detailed how the defendant and his late brother detonated pressure cooker bombs, which took the lives of three people, including an 8-year-old boy, and injured 264 people, of whom 14 required amputations from the violent explosions. The defense worked to portray the deceased brother as the mastermind of the crime and humanize the defendant for the jury.
In this high-profile case and countless others, the mechanics of our criminal justice system work day in and day out to provide equal justice under the law. Before a jury of peers, prosecutors make the government’s case on behalf of the people, and the defense works to give the accused a fair trial. America’s system of justice, including our bedrock constitutional principles guaranteeing due process, a fair and speedy trial, and the right to counsel, is a tangible right of citizenship that too often goes unnoticed. That’s because a majority of Americans aren’t able to look under the hood to see it—at least not in federal courts, which ban cameras from their courtrooms.
The federal trial in Boston carries significant public interest. And yet, the ban on cameras disallows the public to bear witness to the public proceeding. Courtroom sketches and tweets from reporters arguably don’t do justice for most people, especially those who have a keen interest to see justice served.
In this day and age when the American public is hard-wired to access what they want to see, when they want to see it, it’s hard to square the injustice of essentially banning broad civic engagement from our judicial system by banning cameras from the federal courtroom.
Blockbuster trials certainly generate a lot of attention. They renew interest in something I’ve been working to achieve for nearly two decades. And that is to unlock the federal courtroom door to cameras. As a co-equal branch of the federal government, the federal judiciary serves a fundamental function in our system of self-government. It alone interprets the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and managed by the executive branch. Although removed from electoral politics by constitutional design, the federal judiciary and Article III judges are not part of a royal class or monarchy. The federal judiciary is the custodian of constitutional rights and providing equal justice under the law. If anything, the federal judiciary ought to be the first to throw open the shutters to bring this extraordinary branch of government to life for ordinary Americans.
As a longtime crusader for more transparency, I’ve worked to spread sunshine through the halls of the federal government. Transparency, and the accountability that comes with it, renews credibility in our institutions of government and strengthens our free and open society. The same goes for civic engagement. Allowing courtroom proceedings to be broadcast would give more citizens an opportunity to develop a better appreciation for the federal judiciary and how the wheels of justice serve the public good.
With very few exceptions, the public’s business ought to be public. Period. My leadership on this issue has prompted a few steps in the right direction, such as the adoption of pilot programs to allow cameras into some federal courts. The most recent program launched in 2011 and includes 14 federal trial courts. So far, the sky has not fallen and the program will wrap up this summer. The courts will report back to Congress next year.
Each of the 50 states allows some level of camera access in their courtrooms. As far as I know, the recording and broadcasting of state trials haven’t turned the carriage of justice into a pumpkin.
To me, it’s a miscarriage of justice that the 20th century courtroom camera ban still exists in the 21st century at the federal level.
Critics of my bipartisan proposal fret that cameras will cause judges or attorneys to “grandstand” for the cameras. Others cite privacy concerns for witnesses and jurors. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have great respect for the federal judiciary.
That’s why my bipartisan bill would allow the presiding judge discretion to protect the privacy of witnesses and private conversations among clients, lawyers and the judge. It prohibits the televising of jurors and includes measures to protect due process rights.
The bipartisan verdict on this issue exceeds reasonable doubt. Allowing cameras into the federal courtroom would foster better civic engagement with our courts of law and ultimately, strengthen the court of public opinion about the integrity of our judicial system in American society.
The burden of proof is clear. It’s time to lift this arbitrary barrier to transparency. Let’s end the camera ban and raise the bar on good government.