Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on the need for greater openness in the federal courts. As the members of this Committee know, I've long championed legislation to open the federal courts to television cameras and other broadcast formats. Senator Schumer and I introduced the first Sunshine in the Courtroom Act in the 106th Congress. Over the years, the bill has enjoyed bi-partisan co-sponsorship. In fact, the Judiciary Committee passed the Grassley/Schumer bill three times since the 106th Congress.
Just a couple of months ago, Chief Justice Roberts, in his confirmation hearings, testified that he is open-minded about allowing cameras in the courtroom. Today's hearing should help supply him with the facts needed to make the decision to open the Supreme Court, as well as other federal courts, to cameras.
In fact, the House Judiciary Committee just passed out, by a vote of 20 to 12, the House companion bill introduced by Congressman Chabot.
The Grassley/Schumer Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will give federal judges the discretion to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, and televising of federal court proceedings. The bill will help the public become better informed about the judiciary process and produce a healthier judiciary. Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the federal courts.
In this room we often talk of the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Well, allowing cameras in federal courtrooms is absolutely consistent with our Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news media.
As the United States Supreme Court articulated in its 1947 decision in Craig v. Harney, "A trial is a public event." "What transpires in the court room," said the Court, "is public property." And as the Supreme Court stated in its 1980 ruling in Richmond Newspapers, Inc., v. Commonwealth of Virginia, "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it's difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing."
Beyond the First Amendment implications, enactment of our bill would assist in the implementation of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials in criminal cases. As the Supreme Court said in its 1948 In re Oliver opinion, "Whatever other benefits the guarantee to an accused that his trial be conducted in public may confer upon society, the guarantee has always been recognized as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution." The Court stressed that "The knowledge, that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power."
Justice Louis Brandeis perfectly captured the essence of our bill when he wrote that, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."
During this morning's hearing, we'll hear from opponents of cameras in the courtroom. Much of their opposition is based on speculation and faulty assumptions. That criticism ignores the findings of at least 15 state studies and a large federal pilot program.
The widespread use of cameras in state court proceedings shows that still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center for State Courts, all 50 states allow for some modern audio-visual coverage of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 years.
There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. Fifteen states conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial system.
Further, at the federal level, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras in a select number of federal courts. That study found "small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice."
However, in order to be certain of the safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the provisions of the bill permanent.
It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony.
So, the bill doesn't require cameras, but allows judges to exercise their discretion to permit cameras in appropriate cases. The bill protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the experience of the states and the federal courts. And the bill's net result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial system is to let the sun shine in by opening up the federal courtrooms to public view through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring the judiciary into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for affording me this opportunity to testify about the need for cameras in our federal courtrooms. I know that you share my goal of opening the federal courts to the public. Through the years, I have appreciated your support and co-sponsorship of the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. Working together I hope we will see our goal accomplished.
-30-