The state's judges and mainstream media are considering whether to change rules, adopted in 1998, that govern how cameras can be used in courtrooms during trials. Well, and now me - I've been asked to join the committee that will make recommendations to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has the final say.
The rules, which seek to balance the public's right to know with the rights of defendants and other people in the courtroom, and with preserving decorum during trials, did a decent job ten years ago, when only bigfoot media organizations ever seemed to cover court proceedings.
But now? The rules bar more than one video and one still camera from a courtroom. This might make sense when all the media outlets have agreed beforehand to share these "pool" images, but what if a blogger covers a hearing or trial and wants to run a photo? And if a defendant objects to photo coverage and wants to have it barred, he's supposed to send a written objection to "the Bureau Chief or Newspaper Editor or Broadcast Editor of the Associated Press, Boston."
Read the current rules and let me know how you'd think they should be changed.
Also see:
Proposed Nevada rules, which would change "representatives of the media" to "news reporters."
Blogging and the courts - A federal court's experience with bloggers during a high-profile trial.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Flash photography
By Ron Newman
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 10:07am
I'm surprised there isn't a rule against it, since it can be distracting and disruptive to everyone in a courtroom.
I think everyone should be able to bring cameras
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 7:33pm
Cell phones, recording devices, whatever. I think the cellphone/camera ban was a terrible idea, a vaguely unconstitutional over-reaction to the "stop snitchin" idiots or something. It makes it seem like the courts have something to hide, and I don't think defendants or victims are better served because of the ban. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
i think the ban can serve victims...
By bandit
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 7:40pm
...having accompanied numerous victims of sexual assault to court, i can't imagine these men and women having to give their testimony, of a very private and personal nature, in front of a camera. it's hard enough to do it in front of judge, jury, lawyers, defendant, and crowds.
not saying that's true for everyone, but definitely for some.
unfortunately...
By Brett
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 8:21pm
...the lack of accountability is one of the problems with accusations of sexual assault and restraining orders.
For example: to get a restraining order in MA, you need only go before a judge, look scared, say Mr. So And So is the boogeyman, and bam- restraining order. Mr. So And So is not notified of the hearing, is not allowed to confront his accuser or present evidence in his defense, and is notified post-facto. Even better, it shows up on a criminal background check (I think), which many employers do these days.
As for sexual assault- there are wildly ranging estimates on the percentage of false accusations. Some studies focused only on cases where the accuser was proven to be lying (things like the accused being elsewhere with dozens of witnesses, DNA evidence, etc); the conservative figure seems to be 1/4 to 1/3rd, though in one study of a fairly small community, they found it was almost 90%. The FBI did its own study; I believe it was on the low end, but still, the false accusation rate was higher than almost any other crime by a significant margin. I'm pulling this all from memory, so some disclaimers, but the material is out there with some obvious google searches.
Opening up the courts to video and photo will no doubt impact victims, but that's the fault of the feminist movement for failing to understand there's a reason we have a Constitution. If they hadn't gone so overboard with protecting rape accusers (and spent decades conditioning society to think of men as violent animals who will rape at the drop of a hat), we wouldn't have a problem with revenge charges in the first place.
dear brett... some facts.
By bandit
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 9:05pm
i am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never gotten a restraining order in massachusetts? it's not that easy, although even if it were, i wouldn't have a problem with it. in fact, we *just* changed the law. up until last month, to get an order of protection in massachusetts you had to be either family, living together, married, have children together, or be in a "substantial dating relationship". that's it. so, for example, i could not have gone into a court and said "OHMYGOD INTERNET TOUGH GUY SO-AND-SO THREATENED ME", even if he had, and get a restraining order. could not do it. the law finally changed last month so that people who are threatened, stalked, abused, and harassed can get them.
a restraining order will not show up on an official CORI in massachusetts. it shows only criminal felony convictions, and a protection order is a civil matter. it could show up on a different background check, depending on how a potential employer went about it. for example, it shows up in my business. but we do an insanely thorough background.
the FBI study, which was completed in 1996, showed an "unfounded" rate of 8%. unfounded can mean it was a flat out lie, or it could mean there were no physical findings, the victim didn't physically fight back, or the victim and the perpetrator had a previous relationship. it's a bit of a catch all. other studies do show everything from as low as 2% to as high as 90%. which is why you need to look at the studies in question, and how they were done. it's an almost impossible thing to get numbers on, giving that you are starting out with rape being grossly under-reported and sort of a touchy subject.
fwiw, i don't think of all men as violent animals. which is why you will note in my post i referred to men as victims as well. i have gone to court with both genders. and it sucks whether you're a man or a woman, and no matter who hurt you. this isn't about gender. it's about respecting victims.
If all businesses have the right to do
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 9:32pm
an "insanely thorough background check", then why won't they? So for all practical purposes, a restraining order is public information that can be used against a person in hiring, housing, etc. My answer would be to make filing a false police report a felony (if it isn't already?) and aggressively prosecute these rare cases of "vindictive false reporting", if and when they ever occur.
Having worked with offenders
By eeka
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 10:23pm
This is anecdotal, but in my work as a clinician having worked with many many populations including offenders, I've run across one person ever who talked about having made a blatantly false report against another person. I've never run into anyone else who mentioned doing this, or had been caught doing this, or who I or any other evaluator suspected of doing this. I've run into about three or four whose perception of things didn't quite jive with reality and had thought things had happened that seemed to the rest of us to not have happened, and these were cut off at the pass pretty early on. I've also run into hundreds of people who've been sexually assaulted and never reported it to the legal system. Come to think of it, I've had two clients ever who DID report a sexual assault, and both said that testifying and all was as traumatic or more so than the actual event. So, yes, this is anecdotal, but I think it's safe to say that sexual assaults are ridiculously underreported. And we have pretty good research showing that skilled psychopaths who can lie to the extent that a court entertains their lies are extremely uncommon.
It's common sense really -- nearly all people who have the super-strong people skills and high level of intelligence and organization required to pull off something like a false accustation also have strong self-esteem and high levels of empathy, so they use their skills to do good things rather than to commit crimes. And the sort of impulsive, reactive people whose inclination is to "make him pay" don't usually have the maturity or skills to present a consistent story and follow through flawlessly with their plans. I mean, if they could relate well with people and set goals and achieve them, they'd be in a happier place and not want to spend their time harming other people.
Well said
By fenwayguy
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 11:10pm
While anecdotal, your seasoned insights are interesting and sensible. (:o)
One thing I don't get is how the first, in their professional lives, can stand to deal with the second, morning to night, day in and day out. I would soon be wearing a thick armor of cynicism, I'm afraid.
But back to courtroom cameras, allowing them in a particular case should be an opt-in agreed to by all parties, including potential witnesses. Any party should also be able to have cameras banned from the courtroom at any point in the proceedings.
Not saying they even need to "pull it off"
By Dan Farnkoff
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 11:29pm
for it to be disruptive or damaging to someone else. Any idiot can call the cops- are police trained to be skeptical? I would sort of hope that they are not. An arrest, even for a charge that is dismissed, stays on certain records forever, AFAIK.
I haven't seen the false report like Brett indicates either...
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/27/2010 - 12:29am
What I have seen more of is the woman who has too much to drink, wakes up and realizes she had sex with someone who she doesn't remember, feels horrible about herself, calls a friend and tells the friend she thinks she was raped, the friend calls the police and encourages the girl to prosecute, the girl comes into the police station with tears, the girl goes to the hospital and has possible signs of some sort of sexual encounter, and then the male party gets arrested. Then it comes out that the girl really did have consensual sex with the male because of phone calls or text messages expressing a different situation than what she initially reported.
Those cases are uncommon, but do happen more than you would think.
And active and expired restraining orders do show up on a Board of Probation check that a police officer would get. I would asssume a regular cori check would reveal the same.
false accusations
By anon
Thu, 05/27/2010 - 9:23am
I Don't know, Eeka, IINAL and my info is at second hand. But I know of cases where people whose perception of reality was awry and yet they were able to get restraining orders and extensions, prevent child visits,interfere with employment etc. In the examples I am thinking about the person making the allegations were very believable to others (including victim advocates,judges, attorneys) because the accuser truly believed what they said. It was extremely frustrating to the person who represented the accused because this attorney has an extensive background in DV prevention, counseling and in representing victims of DV. It can take a few years before it becomes apparent that the accuser is not credible. Often the accuser is not speaking directly, but through an attorney which gives a better impression than if you heard the person's words unfiltered. You might get a hint that there is a credibility gap when the person keeps retaining different attorneys. At some point the lawyer can't file yet another contempt for violating the restraining order once they realize it is untrue. Often the lawyer withdraws from the case citing communication breakdown with their client. It does help when you appear in front of the same judge on the issue, but very often that does not happen and you get a situation where Judge B does not actively intervene because they assume Judge A must have been convinced by something credible.
I can only think of several examples of this but I would not agree with your statement that these issues get screened out early. Probably, that is true for sexual assualts where there is a different burden of proof. But at least for restraining orders people can create havoc. In my (limited) opinion I do not agree with the father's rights groups that it is rampant but it is not rare either.
in this case...
By bandit
Wed, 05/26/2010 - 11:28pm
... if you don't want the insanely thorough background search done, don't sign on to work for the government ;)
Meeting is tomorrow
By adamg
Wed, 06/16/2010 - 12:28pm
One interesting thing is that it seems like other states rely heavily on officially issued press passes for determining who gets preferred access - some bloggers in other states have actually sued over being denied press passes (in New York City, the police gave in and will now issue them to blogggers). But we don't really have that concept in Massachusetts, or at least, not in Boston. In the year and a half I've been doing UHub full time, I've never been denied access to anything because I don't have a press pass in the rim of my fedora (which are overrated, anyway - and way too warm in the summer; Sox caps are much better).
At the same time, though, there have been a few court sessions at which I would have loved to try to get a photo (and possibly failed because they typically have involved defendants who ask for permission to stand behind doors precisely so they don't get on camera), but didn't bother to try to get permission because I figured the one bigfoot-media video camera and the one bigfoot-media still camera would get precedent. But maybe I should have tried.
In any case, now that we do have bloggers covering court issues, how to accommodate them?