WASHINGTON – Legislation written by Senator Chuck Grassley to allow cameras in federal courtrooms has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 12-6 margin. Grassley is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. The legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Chairman of the committee, as well as John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
“Cameras in federal courtrooms are at the very heart of an open and transparent government, and would contribute to the public’s understanding of America’s judicial system,” Grassley said. “Greater transparency leads to greater accountability, which is something our federal government can always use more of.”
The bipartisan “Sunshine in the Courtroom” bill would allow the chief judge of federal trial appellate courts to permit cameras in their courtrooms. The bill would also direct the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making entity for the federal courts, to draft nonbinding guidelines that judges can refer to in making a decision pertaining to the coverage of a particular case. It also instructs the Judicial Conference to issue mandatory guidelines for obscuring vulnerable witnesses such as undercover officers, victims of crime, and their families.
The bill also has safeguards in place to protect vulnerable witnesses, to exclude jurors from broadcast, and to allow a judge to use his or her discretion in determining whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.
Through their efforts, Grassley and Schumer have also helped open the Supreme Court to better transparency. Since first introducing the legislation, the Chief Justice has immediately released audio of oral arguments of compelling cases. The first release came when then Chief Justice William Rehnquist allowed for the release of audio immediately following oral arguments in the Florida election matter in 2000. Since then, Chief Justice John Roberts has released audio recordings the same day of the oral arguments for more than 20 cases, including Grutter v. Bollinger, D.C. v. Heller, the Guantanamo Cases and the Citizens United Case.
Studies and surveys conducted in many states which permit some form of audio-video coverage in their courtrooms have confirmed that electronic media coverage of trials boosts public understanding of the court system without interfering with court proceedings.
“Iowa and many other states have a long history of effectively using cameras in courtrooms. Their use of electronic media in state courtrooms is a perfect example of how cameras can be used to bring greater accountability and public scrutiny to the judiciary,” Grassley said.
One example of the positive effect of having cameras in the courtroom can be seen in the trial of the murderers of an Iowa toddler, named Shelby Duis. After that case, the news director for KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Dave Busiek, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative Oversight and the Courts on the impact of having cameras in the courtroom during that case. He testified, "I'm convinced that better public policy will be made about how to prevent future cases of severe child abuse because Iowans were allowed to see for themselves, and not through the filters of a few eyewitnesses in the crowded courtroom, how difficult were the issues involved and how justice was dispensed."
Here is Grassley’s prepared statement from today’s mark-up in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Executive Business Meeting
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to be here today to mark-up the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. I’d like to take a moment to thank the Chairman and the other co-sponsors of this bill who have helped build such a strong bipartisan effort in support of this important legislation. Senator Schumer, who is the lead cosponsor of this bill, and Senators Graham, Cornyn, Durbin, Klobuchar and Blumenthal.
For the new members, let me first begin with a brief explanation of this bill’s history in our committee. Then I’ll explain the necessity of this bill and why it’s so vital that we pass it.
Since 2001, the committee has marked-up this legislation five times and has reported it out of Committee each time with bipartisan support. In 2001, the Committee approved the legislation by a 12 to 7 vote. In 2003, it was approved by a vote of 14 to 4. It passed by a vote of 11 to 6 in 2006, by a vote of 10 to 8 in 2008 and by a vote of 13 to 6 in 2010. Each and every time the bill had coordinated efforts from both sides of the aisle to support its progress, just as it does today.
Cameras in federal courtrooms are at the very heart of an open and transparent government. In 1947, the Supreme Court stated, “what transpires in the courtroom is public property,” and I believe this is true. The Founders intended for trials to be held in front of all people who wished to attend. The First Amendment supports the notion that court proceedings be open to the public and by, extension, the news media and broadcast coverage, the same way C-SPAN opened Congress to the public.
Nothing could be more fundamental than the public’s knowledge of their Constitution. To see it, not as some dusty old document they read about in their history books, but to see it upheld daily by the actions of their federal judiciary. To that end, the public will become better informed about the federal judiciary and the judicial process. Further, this bill will bring greater accountability and public scrutiny to the federal judiciary, a system that includes judges with lifetime tenure.
There are many benefits and few detriments to allowing greater public access to the judiciary. At least fifteen states have conducted studies which determined that camera coverage contributed to a greater understanding of the court system. Presently, all 50 states allow some form of modern audio visual coverage of court proceedings, within reasonable limits. Two Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Second and the Ninth, currently allow selective coverage of appellate arguments.
The widespread use of electronic media coverage in state courts is evidence that cameras can be used without damaging the integrity of the trial process. Further, at the federal level, a 1994 Federal Judicial Center pilot program found no effects of camera presence on participants in the proceedings. Sixteen years later, the Judicial Conference launched another pilot program in September 2010, allowing cameras in federal district courts.
The courts have also recognized that there is a need to broadcast important cases. For instance, Chief Justice Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments in the 2000 presidential election dispute, in response to urging from Senator Schumer and myself to reconsider the decision to ban television coverage of the matter. This marked a historical step in the right direction for judicial branch transparency.
Chief Justice Roberts continued this precedent by releasing audio recordings of the oral arguments in the combined Guantanamo Detainee cases. This was another historic step forward.
Despite these instances, there is still a need for Congress to step in and legislate. For example, in January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a stay of an order by the Ninth Circuit allowing the real-time audiovisual streaming of the non-jury trial in Hollingsworth v. Perry. In issuing the stay, the court effectively halted the media coverage of the trial, but it was not on substantive grounds. Instead, the opinion expressly stated, “[w]e do not express here any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally.” The court went on further to find that the Ninth Circuit’s decision to amend the court rules violated federal law because they did not follow the proper notice and comment procedures.
Our legislation will help settle this question about media access to federal courts. To those here who oppose the bill, let me be clear, it does not mandate camera coverage. Instead, it simply gives judges the discretion to allow media coverage in federal courtrooms.
It also prohibits the presiding judge from permitting the photographing, recording, broadcasting or televising of the proceedings if it would violate the rights of the individuals involved in the trial.
In addition, the bill provides a number of procedural safeguards. It protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony. The bill also provides a 3-year sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how the process is working before making the legislation permanent. Finally, the bill gives the Judicial Conference the authority to issue guidelines on administration of media coverage to ensure uniformity across the federal judiciary
This bill strikes the right balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring open access to the judiciary. It allows judges the discretion to allow cameras in the federal courtroom should they so choose. It protects witnesses and doesn’t compromise the integrity of trials.
As it has proven in many different states, allowing media coverage of federal courtrooms will provide much needed sunshine in the least understood of the branches of the federal government. If federal judges are allowed to make life or death decisions for the individuals they try, we should respect their ability to make a decision to securely allow public access to their proceedings.
I urge my colleagues to support this bi-partisan legislation.
-30-