Media Will Benefit From Open Courts

The sun will shine a little brighter into Connecticut courts if the recommendations of a judicial public access taskforce are approved. The biggest changes would affect how the courts are covered by the Connecticut media and would create a wide range of measures to ensure public access to trials, meetings and records. Many of these recommendations explicitly define what the public has a right to and should be implemented, while other suggestions in the report require further analysis and possible amendments before implementation. Regardless, the time spent doing so should be completed faster than proposed in the report.

The majority of the general public will not be taking advantage of these recommendations if implemented, such as Internet databases of criminal dockets, convictions and financial documents regarding family matter cases. I would dispute that many UConn students have been discouraged by not being able to spend their weekend looking at trial statuses and are eagerly waiting for these changes. The public however, would benefit from the effects indirectly through the news media, whose courtroom coverage would benefit greatly, should the task force report be favorably adopted.

Aside from other media-friendly services such as the establishment of a judicial-media committee, the report recommends, "All forms of media, including still cameras, video cameras and audio recordings, are to be allowed to cover all aspects of criminal trials and sentencing." There is also a proposal to expand the electronic coverage to the state Supreme and Appellate Courts and for an amendment permitting "broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of judicial branch meetings that are open to the public and scheduled in court facilities." Currently, according to the report, such broadcasting and recording is prohibited from courtrooms unless permission is specifically granted by a judicial authority and all involved parties consent. News media must currently request permission from a presiding judge to cover the Superior Court, according to the task force report.

The report suggests a pilot program at one district court to see how cameras in the courts will play out. Understandable, considering there is debate as to the effects caused by such coverage - remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Sensationalism, trial complications and even the compromising of the judicial process are possible outcomes. However, the two years allotted for the program is a bit long for a trial run. The analysis and implementation should occur much sooner. As a result responsible and logical news media will be able to more thoroughly cover important court decisions throughout the state and legal participants should be able to continue to do their job as if the cameras weren't there.

One downside to the camera issue is the added litigation it could eventually add to an already lengthy court process. The task force report stipulates pertinent parties can object to the recording of the trial and if the argument is found to be reasonable by the judge, the use of such cameras is prohibited. Likewise with remote access to online court records - courts and parties can order information to be sealed pursuant to current law if there is reasonable cause to do so, according to the report.

There is also the concern by some committee members, expressed in the report, over the posting of information on the Internet, specifically criminal dockets and police reports used in trials when probable cause is not found. Chancellor Emeritus of the Connecticut State University system and taskforce member, Dr. William Cibes, Jr., said in his minority statement, posting criminal dockets as well as criminal convictions online could cause "collateral damage" to the accused. Having "The fact of arrest, not balanced by a record of the outcome of the case," could be available to anyone online, hindering rehabilitation and reintegration. The concern over published police reports where probable cause was not found was raised by Judge William Lavery. He noted in his minority position these records would essentially be unsubstantiated and false allegations open to anyone. These points should be taken into consideration when the state decides what should be open to the public. Anything that can potentially violate the rights of those who stand trial or open up unwarranted embarrassment should be scrutinized.

The task force committee, made up of judges, lawyers and reporters and appointed last May by acting Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court David Borden, released their final report Sept. 15. An AP story, appearing in the Hartford Courant, reported Borden plans to announce which recommendations he favors implementing Sept. 28. The recommendations should be carefully considered for possible complications and questions of constitutionality that may arise but ultimately should be implemented as soon as possible.

At a time when government secrecy is heightened and one senses reluctance from government, at least on a national level, to comply with releasing certain information, it is refreshing to see the Connecticut Judicial System actively look to increase public access to the courts. However, this task force was not exactly created through the good will and motivation to increase public access willingly, but was spurred by, according to the AP story, the "uproar" over former Chief Justice William Sullivan's holding of a decision intentionally to benefit Gov. M. Jodi Rell's nominee for chief justice. Sullivan was charged with violating state law and the judicial code of conduct which came on the heels of a slew of other secrecy issues, according to AP story. This seems to be the trend in Connecticut. From former Gov. Rowland to UConn 2000 mismanagement - progressive reforms, task forces and oversight committees spring into action only after malfeasance occurs. At least the state is learning from mistakes.

Adam Himmelberger is the Associate Commentary Editor and a 7th-semester political science and journalism double major. His column appears Thursdays.