Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting in the Courtroom
Table of Contents | A | B | C | D | E | F
Section A
A Brief History of California Rules of Court, Rule
980
The Judicial Council first adopted rule 980 on
November 9, 1965, under the leadership of Chief Justice
Roger Traynor. Several years of study had led the council
to conclude that media coverage of court proceedings
interfered with the individual's right to a fair trial,
so the original rule 980 prohibited photographing,
recording, and broadcasting in the courtroom during
session or recesses. Exceptions were made for media
coverage during ceremonial proceedings and coverage
before and after daily court sessions.
In 1966, at the request of the Assembly Interim
Committee on Fair Trial and Free Press, the council
adopted temporary rule 981, which permitted a limited
number of experiments in courtroom photography for use in
connection with the committee's studies. These
experiments were held from June 1 to December 31, 1966,
with the permission of all trial participants. The
photographs taken during the experiments could not be
used for general broadcast or commercial purposes.
The issue of cameras in courtrooms resurfaced in 1979,
when Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird appointed the
Special Committee on the Courts and the Media to consider
the question of media coverage of court proceedings. The
council adopted an experimental rule specifying a trial
period of film and electronic coverage beginning on July
1, 1980, after which the effects of film and electronic
media coverage were evaluated. This study culminated in
the adoption of a new California Rules of Court, rule
980, which allowed film and electronic media coverage of
criminal and civil courtoom proceedings at the trial and
appellate levels. The new rule took effect on July 1,
1984.
In October 1995, rule 980 again came under examination
by the Judicial Council when a 13-member task force was
appointed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and charged
with evaluating:
- whether rule 980 should be amended;
- if criteria to be applied by the court in
determining whether to allow film and electronic
equipment in courtrooms should be revised;
- whether film and electronic media coverage should
be prohibited in all state court proceedings, in
certain types of proceedings, or in certain
portions of proceedings;
- whether there should be an expansion of the
circumstances under which film and electronic
media coverage of state court proceedings is now
permitted; and
- the criteria for the operation of cameras and
other electronic recording equipment, including
pool cameras, in courtrooms.
The 13-member task force, chaired by Associate Justice
Richard D. Huffman of the Court of Appeal, Fourth
Appellate District, Division One (San Diego), consisted
of judges, attorneys, and court administrators who had
extensive experience with high-profile cases covered by
the media. The final report of the task force was issued
in May 1996.
After considering the final report and recommendations
of the task force, the Judicial Council on May 17, 1996,
voted to retain judicial discretion over the use of
cameras in state courts. Rule 980, which specifies the
conditions under which electronic media coverage is
permitted in state courtrooms, was amended, effective
January 1, 1997. The amended rule:
- retains judges' discretion over the use of
cameras in all areas, including all pretrial
hearings in criminal cases;
- prohibits camera coverage of jury selection,
jurors, or spectators in the courtroom; and
- lists 19 factors a judge must consider in ruling
on a request for camera coverage, including the
importance of maintaining public access to the
courtroom, the privacy rights of the participants
in the proceedings, and the effect on the
parties, ability to select an unbiased jury.
Cameras will continue to be banned from proceedings
held in chambers or closed to the public; conferences
between an attorney and a client, a witness, or an aide
or between attorneys; and conferences between counsel and
the judge at the bench.
<< back
