Marna Anderson: Courtroom cameras can be beneficial

Recent news coverage showed Shawn Hornbeck's parents making their victim impact statements at the sentencing of Michael Devlin, the man who pled guilty to kidnapping and sexually abusing their son. There were no theatrics or shouted threats. Shawn's parents simply shared with the judge the extreme pain the defendant had put them through with his crimes.

Courtroom observers see how a judge's words and demeanor can influence proceedings, how a victim can be empowered through an impact statement, and how attorneys painstakingly detail their arguments -- important, but not entertaining. Seldom does a judge sound like the barking Judge Judy of daytime TV or the courtroom resemble that of "Law and Order."

Public access to the courts is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. Court monitoring groups around the country exercise this right daily. But for most people, recordings broadcast on the Internet and television are the closest they come to a real courtroom.

Minnesota is one of 15 states with restrictions so great that its courtrooms are, for all practical purposes, closed to cameras. An advisory committee of the Minnesota Supreme Court held a meeting in September to review a proposal to allow cameras into Minnesota's trial courts. The proposal excludes electronic media by the authority of the presiding judge and "where it is shown that the proceedings will be adversely affected."

In the 1990s, after the sensationalized coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, the debate about whether cameras should be allowed in courtrooms was more polarized than it is now. Many of the fears about attorneys and judges pandering to cameras, creating a circus atmosphere, have subsided. Although every once in a while the public is subjected to the likes of Florida's Judge Larry Seidlin in the Anna Nicole Smith case, with his inappropriate one-liners and on-the-bench-sobbing, many members of the justice system do not believe that cameras impair courtroom operations.

Nevertheless, it can be argued that cameras can undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial and cause harm to victims, witnesses and jurors, all of whom may be reluctant to appear on TV or YouTube.

Though some states grant a great deal of authority to the chief judge or the presiding judge, as the Minnesota proposal would do, several states have restrictions in place to ensure a uniform system. These include but are not limited to prohibiting videotaping of juveniles; victims of domestic violence and sexual assault; jurors, and judges' communications with lawyers or undercover agents. Many states also regulate the number of cameras permitted and their placement.

As the Minnesota Supreme Court reexamines the rules, it is important to balance the public's right to access against the rights of defendants, victims and jurors. It is possible to have rules that would provide greater opportunity for the public to learn about the court system while keeping it fair and un-sensationalized.

Public access to the courts through recordings can demystify the justice system and promote greater understanding of its complexities, while fostering greater accountability and trust.

Marna Anderson is executive director of WATCH, a court monitoring and research group focused on violence against women.