Camera in courtroom committee needs more info
Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2008
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A committee exploring the idea of allowing cameras in South Dakota trials decided Friday it cannot continue without first hearing experiences of people in other states where cameras are permitted in courts.
A state law that takes effect July 1 repeals a ban on broadcasting and photos in South Dakota's circuit courts. But it does not say cameras will be allowed.
A 22-member committee was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice David Gilbertson to study the concept.
The panel of judges, lawyers, media representatives, law officers and others eventually will advise the state Supreme Court, which will decide whether to allow photos, video and audio during trials.
Gilbertson encouraged the committee to fully study the issue and make whatever recommendations it deems appropriate.
"We will not be looking over your shoulder," he assured the group at its initial meeting.
The committee is chaired by Robert A. Miller, past chief justice of the state Supreme Court and a member of the high court for 15 years. Miller earlier presided over an untold number of trials as a circuit judge for 16 years.
The issue of cameras in courts will require much study, and people with experience from other states will be brought in to enlighten the committee, Miller said. Those people will be sought for the committee's next meeting on Oct. 6 in Sioux Falls.
"We need to hear from people who've had experience with cameras in the courtroom," said Dave Nelson, Minnehaha County state's attorney.
The veteran prosecutor said his initial inclination is to allow cameras in courtrooms. That would provide the public an expanded view of the criminal justice system, Nelson said.
"Cameras may be a legitimate way to do that," he said.
Other committee members worried cameras may be obtrusive and affect the courtroom behavior of lawyers, victims and other witnesses or be a distraction for jurors.
Tim Rensch, a criminal defense lawyer from Rapid City, said something as simple as someone walking into a courtroom during witness testimony can distract jurors.
It may be prudent to seek input on courtroom cameras from crime victims and people who have served as jurors, committee members said.
An offer Friday on behalf of the media to develop a proposal for expanded courtroom coverage was withdrawn after other committee members said it was premature and assumes that the panel will recommend cameras in courtrooms.
Judith Roberts, legal counsel and press relations officer for the state court system, said no proposal should be made until the committee fully understands all concerns and everything that would be involved in the process. Other committee members agreed.
"What are we trying to accomplish with cameras in the courtroom?" asked Circuit Judge Glen Severson of Sioux Falls. "What's the problem, and what's the purpose?"
Tena Haraldson, chief of bureau for The Associated Press in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska, said allowing cameras in the courtroom will enhance public confidence in the court system.
"It's good for the public to see the wonderful job our courts do," she said.
Haraldson made and later withdrew the offer to develop a proposal for cameras and broadcasting from courts. She said media have led the way in other states where cameras are allowed in trial courts.
A trial project allowing cameras in trials is under way in Nebraska, and it could be used as a pattern in South Dakota if all goes well, Haraldson added.
Haraldson and Mark Millage, former news director of KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, asked legislative leaders this year to introduce the bill repealing the ban on cameras in courtrooms. Millage, who is also on the study committee, has since become president of Kilian College.
"Part of the reason we're here is because the media is asking for more access," Haraldson said.
Every state in the nation allows cameras in at least some courtrooms.
South Dakota is one of 15 states allowing them only in appellate court. The state Supreme Court has let electronic recording equipment and television and still cameras cover its oral arguments since 2001.
If the South Dakota Supreme Court decides expanded media coverage in the courtroom is a good idea, it would establish the rules for photo journalists.
The rules, for example, could do such things as prohibit cameras from being moved around in the courtroom during testimony, or they could bar taking images of victims and jurors. An overriding concern will be courtroom decorum and the importance of not distracting jurors and witnesses during trials.
Although juvenile court proceedings generally are not open to the public, allowing cameras in those courtrooms also may be considered by the committee, Miller said.
"The door is totally wide open," he said of the study's scope. "We're free to look at whatever we want."
If the committee recommends opening circuit courts to cameras, it also should define those media allowed to do it, Haraldson said.
"What do you do when a one-man band with an Internet site shows up?" she asked.
A state law that takes effect July 1 repeals a ban on broadcasting and photos in South Dakota's circuit courts. But it does not say cameras will be allowed.
A 22-member committee was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice David Gilbertson to study the concept.
The panel of judges, lawyers, media representatives, law officers and others eventually will advise the state Supreme Court, which will decide whether to allow photos, video and audio during trials.
Gilbertson encouraged the committee to fully study the issue and make whatever recommendations it deems appropriate.
"We will not be looking over your shoulder," he assured the group at its initial meeting.
The committee is chaired by Robert A. Miller, past chief justice of the state Supreme Court and a member of the high court for 15 years. Miller earlier presided over an untold number of trials as a circuit judge for 16 years.
The issue of cameras in courts will require much study, and people with experience from other states will be brought in to enlighten the committee, Miller said. Those people will be sought for the committee's next meeting on Oct. 6 in Sioux Falls.
"We need to hear from people who've had experience with cameras in the courtroom," said Dave Nelson, Minnehaha County state's attorney.
The veteran prosecutor said his initial inclination is to allow cameras in courtrooms. That would provide the public an expanded view of the criminal justice system, Nelson said.
"Cameras may be a legitimate way to do that," he said.
Other committee members worried cameras may be obtrusive and affect the courtroom behavior of lawyers, victims and other witnesses or be a distraction for jurors.
Tim Rensch, a criminal defense lawyer from Rapid City, said something as simple as someone walking into a courtroom during witness testimony can distract jurors.
It may be prudent to seek input on courtroom cameras from crime victims and people who have served as jurors, committee members said.
An offer Friday on behalf of the media to develop a proposal for expanded courtroom coverage was withdrawn after other committee members said it was premature and assumes that the panel will recommend cameras in courtrooms.
Judith Roberts, legal counsel and press relations officer for the state court system, said no proposal should be made until the committee fully understands all concerns and everything that would be involved in the process. Other committee members agreed.
"What are we trying to accomplish with cameras in the courtroom?" asked Circuit Judge Glen Severson of Sioux Falls. "What's the problem, and what's the purpose?"
Tena Haraldson, chief of bureau for The Associated Press in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska, said allowing cameras in the courtroom will enhance public confidence in the court system.
"It's good for the public to see the wonderful job our courts do," she said.
Haraldson made and later withdrew the offer to develop a proposal for cameras and broadcasting from courts. She said media have led the way in other states where cameras are allowed in trial courts.
A trial project allowing cameras in trials is under way in Nebraska, and it could be used as a pattern in South Dakota if all goes well, Haraldson added.
Haraldson and Mark Millage, former news director of KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, asked legislative leaders this year to introduce the bill repealing the ban on cameras in courtrooms. Millage, who is also on the study committee, has since become president of Kilian College.
"Part of the reason we're here is because the media is asking for more access," Haraldson said.
Every state in the nation allows cameras in at least some courtrooms.
South Dakota is one of 15 states allowing them only in appellate court. The state Supreme Court has let electronic recording equipment and television and still cameras cover its oral arguments since 2001.
If the South Dakota Supreme Court decides expanded media coverage in the courtroom is a good idea, it would establish the rules for photo journalists.
The rules, for example, could do such things as prohibit cameras from being moved around in the courtroom during testimony, or they could bar taking images of victims and jurors. An overriding concern will be courtroom decorum and the importance of not distracting jurors and witnesses during trials.
Although juvenile court proceedings generally are not open to the public, allowing cameras in those courtrooms also may be considered by the committee, Miller said.
"The door is totally wide open," he said of the study's scope. "We're free to look at whatever we want."
If the committee recommends opening circuit courts to cameras, it also should define those media allowed to do it, Haraldson said.
"What do you do when a one-man band with an Internet site shows up?" she asked.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
