 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - October 18, 2002 Justices Hear Arguments on Cameras in the Courtroom THE NH ATTORNEY General’s Office and NH Public Defender almost never find themselves on the same side, but the two offices joined forces during oral arguments before the Supreme Court to advocate for maintaining a judge’s right to ban cameras and recording devices from the courtroom. In the case, Petition of WMUR Channel 9 & a., WMUR Channel 9, The Boston Globe, the New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters and other media outlets had petitioned to lift a trial judge’s blanket ban on still photography and video and audio recording during the trial of Robert Tulloch, one of two teens accused of murdering Dartmouth professors Half and Susanne Zantop in January 2001. Although the case never went to trial – Tulloch pled guilty to the murders – the Supreme Court issued an emergency order allowing media access to Tulloch’s plea hearing and agreed to address the underlying issue of cameras and recording devices in the courtroom. The court heard oral arguments in the case during a special session at Dover High School Oct. 2. Attorney James P. Bassett of Orr & Reno, Concord, represents the petitioner. He argued that instead of the current court rule that bans cameras, video and audio recording from the courtroom unless the judge rules otherwise, the rule should be reversed – cameras, etc., should be allowed unless a lawyer shows a compelling reason to ban them in a particular case, Bassett contended. In their questioning of Bassett, the Supreme Court justices seemed wary of creating a rule that would set a standard of allowing cameras in the courtroom. "Wouldn’t this open the door to the public being allowed to videotape or photograph court proceedings?" asked Justice Joseph P. Nadeau. Justice James E. Duggan said that the petitioner was asking for more than just access to the courts – something the media can already get if it demonstrates good cause. "You want to go beyond access to special access," Duggan said. Bassett said the court should help foster "expansive and open government and making information available to the greatest number of people possible, without impinging on other rights." "It’s a basic element of democracy that people have access to the information presented at trial," said Bassett. Justice Linda S. Dalianis asked if such open access were granted to the media in the name of informing the public, wouldn’t it in a sense oblige the media to cover all court proceedings toward that end? "The media is interested in only the sensational – why don’t they have a responsibility to inform on all court proceedings?" asked Dalianis. "Requiring the media to cover them all is like trying to regulate news coverage," responded Bassett. Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte and NH Public Defender attorney Richard C. Guerriero, Jr., found themselves on the same side of this issue; both argued that the media should not have the explicit right to bring cameras or other recording equipment into the courtroom. "The rule needs to leave discretion on this matter to the trial judge," said Ayotte. "What’s the matter with establishing a standard and having the presumption of access?" Justice Dalianis asked. Allowing pre-trial hearings to be televised, for example, could "infect the jury pool," Ayotte responded, and Guerriero pointed out that many witnesses find it intimidating to have their testimony televised, potentially making them less effective on the witness stand. "The burden now is on the TV media to [show cause to] allow them in – what’s wrong with making it the other way around?" asked Justice Nadeau. Guerriero responded that if the media were given the explicit right to bring cameras into the courts, the burden placed on the defense to show cause for denying electronic access would be "insurmountable." He explained, for example, that it would be difficult to prove that a witness’ testimony would be influenced by the testimony being televised. "Although we don’t advocate a per se ban on TV and cameras, we are against the presumption that the media has a right beyond that of the public," Guerriero said. The sitting justices took some time after oral arguments to confer on the two cases it heard during the special session, but a decision in the cases is not expected for several months. A visiting team lockeroom served as the justices’ makeshift conference room.
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
