California task force reviews cameras in courts.

A Judicial Council of California task force was expected to ask for changes to Court Rule 980 last month, possibly stripping trial judges of their authority to determine whether television cameras are allowed in state courtrooms during trial.

At a hearing in San Francisco January 8, critics urged that cameras be banned at least from criminal trials and that stricter rules apply to their use in civil trials. "Rule 980 is a bold experiment that has failed," said Judge Mary Ann Murphy, speaking for a group of judges. "It is time for the judiciary to make it clear that we are not a part of the entertainment industry." (Phillip Carrizosa, Critics Call for Ban on Cameras in Courtrooms, L.A. Daily J., Jan. 9,1996, at 1.)

Critics of cameras in the courts who attended the hearing included representatives for Gov. Pete Wilson, State Sen. Quentin Kopp, and San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne. Dan Kolkey, representing Wilson, reacted negatively to the concept that decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, stating that a flat ban was the only effective way to ensure that cameras would not have adverse effects on witnesses and jurors. The governor called for the policy review.

A large number of speakers, mostly broadcasters and representatives of other news media, voiced their opposition to changing the rule.

They said a ban on cameras would infringe on the public's right to know what happens in court and would not prevent courtroom histrionics. "Flamboyant lawyers ... behave the same way with or without cameras," said a spokesman for the Society of Professional Journalists. (Judges, Media Clash over Cameras, Chi. Daily L. Bull., Jan. 9, 1996, at 1.)

If any changes were made, the journalists argued, firm guidelines should be established to clarify what is permissible and what is not.

Rule 980, in effect for 12 years, has come under attack only since the controversial O.J. Simpson murder trial. The rule allows film or electronic coverage of proceedings with written permission of the court. It prohibits photography of proceedings in chambers and of jurors and prohibits recording bench or client conferences during a trial. The trial judge may refuse, limit, or terminate coverage at any time to protect the rights of parties or the dignity of the court.

The task force's recommendations when reported will be considered by the Judicial Council of California, the policy-setting agency for state courts.

The Simpson case has stimulated debate over the cameras-in-court issue in several states, but no rules have been changed. However, judges who probably would have allowed cameras in their court a year ago have recently denied coverage in high-profile cases in California (Menendez brothers), South Carolina (Susan Smith), and Texas (murder of Tejano music star Selena). A committee proposal to allow cameras into federal courts, where they are now banned, was shelved at the September 1995 meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference and seems unlikely to be accepted at the March 1996 meeting.