According to the court staff we were working with at the time you are incorrect, at least in Manitoba.
The closest thing to a cite I can find is here, Communications Media Information & Articles. Probably won’t convince you of what I was saying, but given my (I know, only anecdotal) knowledge that we needed Judicial permission to take photos of the inside and outside of the courthouse. However, I would often see tourists taking pictures of the courthouse and Legislative buildings and the security guards wouldn’t do anything.
My guess is that it’s a law/rule in the books so it can be used if needed. Let’s say a couple of Hell’s Angels are snapping pics two weeks before their boss is on trial for murder, let’s say
Of course the Supreme Court would say that, they don’t want cameras.
As for witnesses not hearing other witnesses, if that is true, than I would have to give little credibility to their testimony in any case, if they can be influenced to lie that easily.
Curiously, my cell phone takes pretty good video and does so silently.
No ‘click snap’
Now I do have to tell the phone to be quiet but that is easy… if you the right app.
heh heh heh
Who can forget the LA riots after the cops were acquitted in the Rodney King case? I can’t recall if that trial had camera feeds or not. But there was certainly a tremendous amount of pre-trail coverage that created a toxic atmosphere which exploded when the public didn’t like the verdict.
I can understand judges concerns if the national media wants live camera coverage of a trial.
If thats the case then I hope that you do never serve on a jury. Witnesses not being permitted to hear other witnesses (at least until own testimony is completed) is done so witnesses don’t improve their own versions (consciously or subconsciously). Its to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Oh, Canada! I missed your reference to ‘province’.
Never mind; my comment was in regard to public photography in the US.
I recall touring the Parliament building a few years ago; the House of Commons was in session, and I had to surrender my cameras to security before I could sit in the gallery.
Sometimes when you have a broad, all-encompassing prohibition, it’s a sign that the authorities don’t want to bother with having to explain why the line was drawn where it was drawn. His Honor would rather not spend time justifying to CNN/Fox why their cameraman can’t go in but the guy from the Times/Daily News can.
Besides by now, most digital still cameras (and my mobile phone) are capable of recording video just as well, and the mobile 'net makes it so it could be spread around the world within the minute after being recorded. So it becomes no cameras of any kind at all, period.
One alternative would be to provide sole-source “pool” photo/video coverage* at the end of each day’s proceedings* so nobody scoops anyone . As I understand it in most jurisdictions that allow live video coverage it’s not that every channel sends its own camera crew, they just all tap one feed.
I never understood the “lawyers playing to the camera” argument. Trials are public anyways. Just pretend like it is a gallery that seats 10 million people.
If a lawyer is doing something inappropriate, the judge can admonish him. Why is there no problem of lawyers performing for spectators in the courtroom?
The lawyer in the courtroom is not performing for the spectators’ gallery, but for the jury. If every single other person in the room buys it ("ooh… that meanie Judge! He won’t let her nail the bastards! He keeps sustaining objections! How can he even let them argue that!") except for those twelve, well too bad for her side. But then take into account how in many states of the US the judges and/or the prosecutors are elected by popular vote. As it is quite a few prosecutors, even appointed ones, have made a name in the courtroom and then moved on up to partisan elected office (e.g. Giuliani, Spitzer), usually due to a record of succesful high-profile cases, and there have been cases of prosecutors seeking to railroad someone to make a career-defining move (e.g. Nifong). More conservative court administrators worry about further encouraging that (though one could fairly argue* that* ship sailed long ago and by now is lying on its side on a reef… plus AFAIK states that do allow cameras haven’t yet got around to electing Judge Dredd to the bench).
Right to a public trial =/= entitlement of the masses to entertain their morbid curiosity w/o getting off the couch.
Cameras and all recording equipment are prohibited in Quebec courtrooms, as is all other extraneous activity (reading, writing, or really doing anything other than quietly watching the proceedings), unless you are doing a specific job (journalists can take notes, and courtroom sketch artists can sketch, although I’ve not actually seen one in action yet). It’s to preserve decorum. They are not absurdly strict, but they are strict. Frankly, I agree that a bunch of people wielding electronic equipment would be disruptive far in excess of any good it would do.
They’ve set up specific areas (in the Montreal courthouse, the concourses near the elevators on each floor leading to the courtroom wings) where photography and video taping are permitted.
There is no earthly problem with photographing the outside of the building, except that the building is fugly.
