New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, like his predecessor Judith Kaye, gives a firm thumbs up for allowing camera coverage of court proceedings in his state.
But New York doesn’t permit courtroom camera coverage, except in isolated and pilot-project situations. So what’s the hold up?
Here’s what Lippman is quoted as saying in the Poughkeepsie Journal. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130212/OPINION01/302120009/Cameras-courtroom-You-bet
“Like others before him, Lippman said he believes some lawmakers and lawyers have been reluctant to allow cameras in the courtroom ever since the O.J. Simpson trial, deemed an out-of-control media circus by many.
Lippman’s sage advice? ‘Let’s get over it.’”
Well, where have I heard that before!
Another judge said pretty much the same thing six years ago when he permitted camera access to court proceedings of Hollywood record producer Phil Spector’s murder case.
Here’s what I wrote in my book, “Anatomy of a Trial”:
“We have to get by [the Simpson] case,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler said in announcing his decision to allow camera coverage of Spector’s trial. “There’s going to come a time that it will be commonplace to televise trials. If it had not been for Simpson, we’d be there now.” http://www.anatomyofatrial.com/
What’s head-shaking is that we aren’t there yet. The courts, and the New York legislature, seem to be stuck in 1995.
And, as I keep pointing out and as evidence shows, any “media circus” associated with high-profile trials occur outside the courtroom, not inside.
Technological advancements in the past 15-plus years since Simpson have made the possibility even more unlikely. But judges and lawmakers don’t seem to get it.
Although I understand some judges might want as little public scrutiny as possible when they’re on the bench, but legislators? What’s their hangup?
Trying to put some light on the process here forward, but what about here back? Some injustices never have recompense.
I agree.Injustices are tragic. Options available to aggrieved parties are few; a writ to an appellate court or try to get the initial case refiled. Despite sins of the past, more openness and transparency from now on might at least help avert more of the same. Thank you for your comment.
May I simply say what a comfort to discover
a person that truly understands what they are discussing on the internet.
You definitely understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important.
A lot more people must check this out and understand this side of your
story. I was surprised that you are not more popular because you surely have the gift.
Thank you, Rolando. I appreciate your comment.