Resistant to courtroom cameras, Minnesota takes another look

Minnesota's longtime resistance to cameras in the courtroom for criminal cases is getting a second take.

While most states allow access, Minnesota's current policy is so restrictive that it guarantees almost no broadcasts, legal and media experts say. Attorneys on each side must agree to cameras and get a judge's approval, witnesses can object to being shown, and the kinds of cases that can be aired are limited.

Three years ago, a state Supreme Court advisory committee almost unanimously rejected a push to televise criminal court cases. Then, in late 2013, the court made a major shift and accepted a proposal for courtroom cameras with audio for civil cases without consent from all parties.

That court is now dipping a toe into the criminal-case pool by approving a statewide pilot program for video and audio coverage of sentencing or procedural hearings after a plea or conviction.

The decision to do so has brought a tidal wave of criticism from those who fear cameras will have a chilling effect on victims and witnesses. But proponents see it as an important tool to improve courtroom transparency and public understanding of the criminal justice system.

"I'm always ready to listen to arguments to support cameras in the courtroom, but there hasn't been a demand from the public for this," said Daniel Lew, chief public defender for northern Minnesota. "The real demand is by television and social media to have access to capture Jerry Springer-like snippets. I wish I had insight why this is a priority for the Supreme Court."

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea is unable to comment because the proposed pilot program will be discussed at a public hearing next month, then returned to the court for further tweaking or a vote to shelve it. A 17-member advisory committee consisting of attorneys, judges and professors debated the merits and parameters of courtroom cameras for six months before giving the Supreme Court the thumbs-up to move forward with it.

How eager the media will be in requesting cameras is unclear. But after the recent two-year pilot program for camera use in civil cases, the Supreme Court said it received fewer requests "than may have been anticipated."

Cameras are allowed for hearings at the state's Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court arguments are taped and made available later on the same day on the Internet. The U.S. Supreme Court, where the most important and interesting legal decisions are made, doesn't allow cameras.

The question of whether cameras should be in courtrooms has been bandied about for years. Steve Simon, emeritus professor of clinical education at the University of Minnesota Law School, had several of his trials videotaped in a study on courtroom cameras 20 years ago. The biggest concern then was that attorneys might play to the camera, which didn't happen, he said.

"It wasn't like the O.J. Simpson trial. That was just totally out of control, including the judge," he said. "You forget the cameras are in the room. This is a first step, and soon people will see the sky won't fall."

The rules for the criminal case pilot program will be identical to those now in place for civil cases. Jurors won't be shown and witnesses can ask that their faces not be aired.

"Having camera access doesn't mean the media is demanding blanket coverage," said Gabe Roth, manager of the Coalition for Court Transparency, based in Chicago. "If you are in a city that's hundreds of miles away from where an important case is taking place, you should be able to cover it by watching it on the Internet."

Paul Young, head of the criminal division for the Anoka County attorney's office, readily admits his opinion isn't going to be the same as all prosecutors. Like all players in the criminal justice system, he said takes pride in his work and "we shouldn't be ashamed to have it broadcast."

"I just don't think people have a real true understanding of the work that we do. Many cases have meaningful impact on the community," Young said. "It's sometimes hard to reconcile how the media has access to jail booking photos, can sit in the courtroom and take video and pictures when victims leave the courthouse, yet cameras are prohibited in the courtroom."

Another advocate for cameras in the courtroom is usually at the center of criticism on the topic. Jim du Bois, president of the Minnesota Broadcasters Association, said if there is abuse by news organizations or only sensational coverage, it will be exposed during the pilot program and potentially shut down future camera access.

"The arguments have remained the same for years, pro and con. But I don't think any states have reverted to no cameras in the courtroom once they've been allowed," he said.

"At sentencing, some are begging for their lives and talk about the trauma, addiction, abuse or mental illness that brought them here," he said. "That person may now decide they can't talk about these things."

Retired Anoka County District Judge Mike Roith said broader sharing of a defendant's story, such as how an addiction led to a drunken driving conviction, could be a positive effect of bringing cameras to the courtroom. But that story can still be told without cameras, said the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

"I don't like cameras in the courtroom," Freeman said. "For witnesses and victims, they are already reluctant to testify. They don't want their picture on the news."

Lolita Ulloa, an attorney and head of the domestic abuse division of the Hennepin County attorney's office, attended many of the advisory committee meetings for the pilot project. She appreciated the thoughtful arguments. But she believes cameras would undo some of Minnesota's good work in protecting victims' rights.

She would know.