Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Artists provide courtroom scenes in instances when cameras aren’t allowed.
Church
A sketch of Martha Stewart by artist Marilyn Church.
Submitted artwork
Marilyn Church is surprised that photography and televised broadcast of criminal trials is still taboo in many courtrooms in the United States, but she’s not unhappy about it.
“It’s self-serving for me, but” allowing cameras in all courtrooms “certainly would be the end of courtroom art,” the 60-something New York City artist said in a phone interview last week.
Pennsylvania is one of 15 states that prohibits photography and radio and TV broadcasts of trials under most circumstances, according to the Radio Television Digital News Association.
Nineteen states give presiding judges broad discretion in deciding on allowing cameras in their courts; the rest impose coverage restrictions on certain types of cases and prohibit photos or filming of all or large categories of witnesses who object to it.
Church, who worked for print and TV news outlets drawing scenes from high-profile trials over the past 36 years, believes the distraction of photography could compromise a case.
“We’re much less obvious than a camera,” she said of courtroom artists. “It seems to me to prejudice a case. If I was accused, I would not want to be photographed.”
But Church believes it’s inevitable that cameras eventually will be allowed at most, if not all, trials.
Pennsylvania and the other states that prohibit cameras follow the lead of the federal courts.
Following a 1991-94 pilot program that allowed cameras in six U.S. District Courts and two U.S. Courts of Appeals for civil cases, the Federal Judicial Center found that “most participants believe electronic media presence has minimal or no detrimental effects on jurors or witnesses.”
However, federal judges at a 1996 judicial conference “concluded that the potentially intimidating effect of cameras on witnesses and jurors was cause for concern and therefore decided not to go forward with cameras in court,” said David Sellers, spokesman for the federal courts.
But federal appellate courts can allow cameras in for civil cases, and the circuits based in San Francisco and New York City do.
The National Press Photographers Association supports efforts to open the federal courts and the Supreme Court to photography and video recording.
“We believe that the vision the founding fathers had for an open and public court is not currently realized in our federal court system,” the association posts on its website.
According to the association, all citizens are affected by Supreme Court rulings, yet a statistically insignificant number have access to the court. And because of significant technological advances, cameras can be unobtrusively placed in any courtroom in a soundproof box and even operated remotely if necessary.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said the PNA supports media access in courtrooms and, while current state judicial rules prohibit cameras and other media devices in general in courtrooms, the judicial system has begun to ease the restrictions.
The Pennsylvania appellate courts have begun to broadcast argument sessions on PCN and the equipment is completely integrated into the new Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Melewsky said.
“We also support access for media devices like laptops and smart phones provided they do not disrupt the judicial proceedings. It should not make a difference if a reporter takes notes using a pencil or an iPad as long as court proceedings aren’t disrupted. It is important for the public to be able to see the courts function; it promotes fairness to the litigants and confidence in the system,” Melewsky said.