stress to you is that it's not that it's going to change the behavior of lawyers or even others in the trial process but the greatest threat i think to the right of a fair trial is that in a courtroom and the representative spoke to this, it is a search for the truth and what happens is rigorous examination of witnesses direct and cross-examination. we don't want a situation where the witness testimony is affected by the fact that not only are people in the courtroom going to hear it, but now hundreds of thousands if not millions are going to hear it on television or on the internet, perhaps her boss or minister or the next-door neighbor that would not hear that testimony. in every case there are situations where personal information becomes a part of

the record and as you have all talked about, the fact that we have these open files already, all of these are open to the public as are the trial transcripts. but imagine as an employment case one claims as emotional distress. i think you'll remember this from being a trial lawyer on cross-examination that someone has made that kind of claim and is going to be examined extensively about everything about personality and mental health and etc. and this includes someone being cross examined as well about their sexual practices with their spouse or partner. in a criminal case, a confidential informant is going to be rigorously cross-examined to identify who that person is. even if they are fakes. we have legitimate and can

serious concerns about impediment to a fair trial and this is why we have the pilot and these are the many questions that we are looking at in that we hope will be answered for us in terms of guidance and best practices whether it is possible for a judge to use this and yet not impede or impaired someone's right to a fair trial. >> the gentleman's time has expired, but please would you briefly like to respond? >> i would hope that we would not shoot the messenger. there are no less than four cameras in the courtroom right now. that is what happens in the courtroom. that is what my experience has been. so in new york doing this experiment, there is a telling

statistic. on the fact that someone did not receive a fair trial because that speaks while ames. so in terms of what other information we are going to obtain, i look back to 1991 to 1994 and they talk about they are in peer poll data. and they along with the case management committee recommended it and get at the end of the day they were supporting the continuation of cameras in the courtroom and electronic coverage in the judicial committee decided to not go forward with it. so i'm not really sure how much more data we need to convince

people. i know that the honorable judge put some statistics in her written report and if you look at them, i believe that there are 17 points that were addressed in only three of those were over 60% concerned by the people filling out whatever type of question there was. and unfortunately what we see is that it could and it might end its possible and i think that this is all speculative, but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it just hasn't happened in the experience throughout the state and even the experimental time that they had two thank you, sir. taking a moment to enter this into the record. i request permission to submit materials from c-span for radio and television news directors

association and marie mahoney of laymen and walk-ins. these materials have been circulated to all the members of the sub committee. so the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for being here. following up on what you're both talking about, which is a pilot program and the need for additional investigation at this whether this could work in long term. and judge, i'm asking you to look at some of the cases that are the most highly publicized that were televised and the oj trial, ted bundy, others. and in those cases certainly was

there evidence of what you raised that would undermine the fair trial throughout this for nonparties? we have a lot of history of state level of cases that have been tried in public and on television but are we waiting to see what we learn from the pilot from our history and your concerns, have they been addressed in any of these cases or to what extent do we see this come into play? >> the cases that have been televised, my perception i think in the perception of many were those concerns. what's more important is to survey the people that we are

involved in, the lawyers and witnesses and the things that are we'll going real going to have done. their perceptions are much more compelling than someone who is watching it on tv that doesn't know all the facts or perhaps without witness testified to in a deposition and whether they are shaving testimony now on front of the television. >> viewers may not know the. but the parties involved and concerns of the parties involved these are issues that would've come up time and time again or would come up time and time again as we televised trials and many of them high-profile. >> i'm not aware of those participants were surveyed or that their views were called upon. we think it is important that the process residents are part of what we consider once the trial is over and then they move on and they let someone speak

with them and we want those concerns in the context of the survey and that is why we are doing this. >> i know, judge, that you are not taking a position on the supreme court. >> the judicial conference does not take a position. that is correct. >> but it seems that -- it seems that, judge robinson, but this is all these others -- simply appearing is intimidating within itself and this doesn't seem to really apply at all and you have

talked to many who have been a part of supreme court arguments and you listen to many. is that a valid concern? >> the only thing that you care about is persuading those justices that are setting up their at the position, i really think that it does a disservice to the people in the lawyers and the judges. to really say that people become aware and play to the cameras. i sat in the courtroom during the o.j. simpson trial and the lawyers there were going to do whatever they were going to do regardless of whether there were cameras or not. and as a matter of fact, and i'd use this as a comparison, i believe the public takes a wonderful opportunity to see the judge that oversees the oklahoma city bombing.

there were cameras there. but they were cameras that allowed the broadcast of the proceedings that were occurring in denver to be seen by the people in the courtroom in oklahoma city. and so it again, has that been allowed to happen, we might have seemed what does look like compared to what i meant was a circus. but that had nothing to do with the fact that there were cameras in the courtroom. >> of the supreme court, or our courtrooms have voiced in public. couldn't the argument be made that if the concern is linked to the cameras that with the current system where there are a handful of individuals from the network and the major publications who are known to

the justices, isn't it just as likely that that is really the concern that the justices would play to them knowing that they will be the ones that describe what happens in the room? >> i think that obviously sometimes justices get playful and they really don't care that there's cameras there were no cameras there. that is what they are doing there. they are trying to ask insightful questions or be clever. and so certainly it's good if you're arguing a case if you can come back with a good answer and i know in some of the cases that we have actually submitted, i am always in awe and disbelief that i am sitting in this room, the highest court in the land where they will decide how the rest of us are going to live and there's only this handful of people. i'm fortunate that i'm admitted to the bar, but even then they

cut people off and they have to sit in the overflow room and they don't actually get to see people. and i think that that's really important also in terms of getting to see people. and when people testify in court and it's only before the people in that courtroom, they might testify differently if it was on tv. but i would assert that they might testify more honestly because of their neighbors that happen to know something about them who get to see it. they don't want to not be truthful and if we are in search of the truth in the courtroom, then isn't that much better to have everybody enact that is really what the founders thought about when they were talking about court day when people could come in and watch. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

judge, know that there are different practitioners in federal and state court, part of the reason because people like you get through this process and it seems to be well qualified and sometimes that's not always the case in various state systems. and obviously there are states where they do allow this at the trial level and you agree to concern about the due process and fairness in those cases is part of this. given that we do have experience, does the conference believe that prejudice will affect use of cameras there and if so, what is the basis for that we've to . >> they haven't taken a position to make in the valuation as to what is going on. but i would characterize what the state courts are doing which some of them have had this and there are so many different models. we are concerned, obviously,

about ensuring that there is due process and the federal courts and i don't think we are in a position to a value at what is owing on in the individual state courts. >> with respect to the bill to give the presiding judge the ability to decide whether or not this is a proceeding, aren't they in the best position to differentiate where it may be appropriate to record this than those that could be susceptible to undue interference? >> it's very important that they provide this to the discretion because the presiding judge knows the case in the evidence in the case and they can anticipate often times what will happen in the trial. on the other hand there are times that they cannot anticipate things that could happen in the trial. at the same time, i think that we would all benefit from a policy that is shaped around the results of our study and colleagues across the country in terms of what happens and why this will educate and inform us

by nature of the case and what some of the specific concerns are and i just think that this shows us what are the concerns of those and others in the case and we are all going to be informed by that and ultimately whatever policy we have an adopt, i think we will be well informed because of this. we ask that we be allowed to continue this, it goes for another year and we want to look at the results of that policy. >> is there evidence you can pointed it shows that the proceedings were you do have cameras have made state officials more accountable in the proceedings? >> i don't know that i could address all of those things. but i would like to talk a little bit about what went on in the first experiment in federal court. as you recall and as i

mentioned, those cases were covered by the media and this experiment that is operating between 1991 and 1993, according to the summary, there were 257 cases that the media applied to cover an 82% of those applications were approved. unfortunately under the new guidelines in this one, not only does everybody consent to the coverage but it's not just the coverage of the trial but of each and every proceeding. were they can object and then there is no coverage. so i don't know if any of you have had the opportunity to look at the recordings on file. in many is done with split

screen or quad screen cameras and it's like watching somebody on a surveillance camera. from my experience being in the courtroom, for the most part it's not anything that watching paint dry. it takes forever for things to happen. when you add to the mix the video that could not be broadcast anywhere where things are not happening, i just don't think that what we will end up with is something of value when this is over and that is what concerns me even after the first experiment when we had the media doing it. all of the recommendations were in favor and we still don't have this report and that is a big concern for us. >> my time has expired and i

think the witnesses and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the distinguishing gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses and with respect to the privacy expectations of the witness under hr 917, including the obscuring of his or her image during the court proceedings. in your mind, does this protect the privacy expectations of a witness? >> it is not as much as we believe. i want to wait for the outcome of the study and i will give you

an example that i think the most trial judges believe is an issue. confidential informants and a common type of witness in criminal cases. this is an issue that we are working on and we have worked on for 10 years because when we made our electronic filings opening to the public through the internet, please agreements are now public documents and there has been fallout from that and they have been threatened, there are all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people being injured, perhaps even killed and we are trying to figure out a solution to this in terms of the public records in written form. if that testifies in the courtroom and their voice and face is obscured, they are being cross examined and examine about who they are and what their name as and etc.

and that is of particular concern and that includes the criminal justice system yet they are at risk. and that includes the presence of cameras that we think is a very heightened risk. >> thank you so much. addressing the same question to you. do you think the obscuring of imaging and voices are sufficient protection for the privacy expectations of the witness? >> as you said before, this is a bold but open courtroom. i'm not sure that there are expectations that this certainly should be the one to make that decision whether to obscuring or alter the voice or whether they testify behind the screen in

terms of identification and all of these things are being made public and if someone wants to do someone harm, all they have to do is go get the transcript and they can find out the same information about where they live and what they do and what their habits are. and i don't think that blaming electronic coverage will identify that is the culprit here. >> thank you. >> let me ask the judge. would you -- would your concerns about hr 917 be modified if it was limited to appellate proceedings only?

>> most of our concerns are about what happened at the trial court level. and that is by virtue of the way the courts govern themselves that they make their own rules of practice and case management as a corporate body. that is our only objection in the bill calls for each individual panel on a case-by-case or argument by argument basis to make the decision which is inconsistent with the way that they govern themselves and they don't have the ability to make these decisions about how they will be conducted. and that is the status quo and that is what they would like to see continue. >> let me ask the attorney about these proceedings.

.. the reporters can come in. you can report all you want. you just can't bring the cameras with you. this should be in evolving standard of openness. a public trial in 2014, and

i think there is huge a huge difference between the case that was mentioned earlier. there were 12 cameras in that courtroom during that time. we are not talking about doing something like that here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, congressman. the chair the chair recognizes the general lady from washington. >> thank you, mr. chair. thanks to both of you for being with us today. i agree with my colleague who testified earlier and believe that our democracy is much stronger when we leverage technology. we need citizens to be engaged and informed. part of that means making sure that they have access to the government. allowing

cameras in the courtroom is one way to help educate the public about the workings of our judiciary. at the same time, making sure we implement in no way that is responsible. we need to make sure we don't compromise the safety of victims of violent crimes and maybe witnesses before the court or violate due process rights of defendants. striking the right balance is key. this bill takes a thoughtful approach, and i want to commend my colleagues for their work on it. it is it. it is important we look a step so we do increase transparency across all three branches of the government. this seems this seems to be a step in the right direction. the supreme court reports online audio recordings and has been releasing audio during the same week as arguments since 2010. before that audio was not available until the beginning of the next term. i was wondering, what is your view on the impact of

having these audio recordings available publicly within the same week of the argument? >> well, it certainly is a good first step. when we are talking about the age of the internet when somebody can tweet something and millions of people can see it and read it and share it seconds after it has been sent, especially in news when you're talking about something that we will be released that week a week later is really yesterday's news. for the people that are interested, and there are a surprising amount of them, people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary. i think at least having simultaneous broadcasts of the audio might be a good first start. i have a problem again with

the audio, not the courtroom artists. they perform a good function , but in 2014 2014 to be relegated to something that is more akin to cave drawings than high definition television just seems to be wrong to me. >> judge robinson, do you have a a view of the difference between audio and video? >> i i can only speak to that in terms of the trial court. posting audio recordings, digital audio recordings, and there are some trial courts, district and bankruptcy court that are doing the same. recording by audio rather than by court reporter. a number of them are posting whatever the proceeding might be, posting those to the internet. obviously it improves public access.

we recognize we recognize and revere the right of the public to access open courtrooms. the federal courts have evolved. in the right direction. unlike state courts camilla because of what we have done such now readily available. we are focusing on proceedings themselves,, the small percentage of civil cases that go to trial, but in those many cases that do not the public right now has access. and there's a lot of information and a lot of public education that happens in the context of what we are already providing. >> we also no that access to actually get in, the supreme

court is probably a good example. very very few members of the public can get in. people pay people to stand in line for them to secure spots in a long line. the opportunity to have access to live arguments. that doesn't seem like that is great public access. as was pointed out, in many cases you might be sitting in a room watching on video anyway. it seems like we could do a better job their of improving access. do you agree? >> i would. as was was mentioned earlier, this morning the supreme court was hearing arguments. i can only imagine how many people would have been very

interested hearing those arguments this morning while we have been sitting talking here. seeing how the proponents argue the case,, the justices react to those arguments, i think that is an important part of this process. people people much better understanding how the judicial system works. i would almost go so far as to make a comparison. we talked we talked about things and ferguson. the discussion. i was there dealing with issues of photographers being molested and interfered with. my.here is that even though grand jury proceedings are secret, and they should be, i think as an analogy, those grand jury proceedings have been open and people have been able to see and

understand what went on in that proceeding we might not have had the same reaction as after the grand jury handed up a nobel. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman. the chair recognizes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, congressman jeffries. >> thank you, you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses for their presence here today. we have three branches of government, all of which are coequal and are incredibly important our democracy, but we also have a fourth estate and sometimes the media has been colloquially referred to which also plays a very good role in our democracy and projecting that outward and making sure people are informed about the things that are occurring, certainly with the executive

branch and with the legislative branch and hopefully increasingly as it relates to the judicial branch. so do you think that the role that the media plays in the context of helping to bring our democracy to life is a.worthy of consideration as we determine the best way to proceed? >> absolutely. that is an easy answer for me to give, but also it is important to note that our pilot, this pilot provides for video recording pushed out on the us courts website available to everyone, not just those recordings that the media have decided to record that they think are interesting enough for people to test listen to. we have evolved as a nation. twenty years ago when we do

that first it was based on media recordings. recordings. we made a deliberate decision this time to not have reporting space bar what the media wanted to record. people that report and people that create youtube videos and all that. sometimes they actually find themselves in the hands of the media and are used by professional journalists to report. >> separate and co- equal. take a position on whether it's appropriate for congress to be making determinations about the best way for a separate and entirely coequal branch to proceed as it relates to cameras in the courtroom?

in other words, is there a separation of powers concerns that should legitimately be considered in the context of this debate? >> with respect to the circuit courts of appeal we have not raised the separation of powers argument. study and formulate policy as further informed by the study itself. we -- case management -- while it is clear that congress promulgates rules that governs what goes on in federal litigation, at the same time we also need to be in control of our case management practices and how we can best go about controlling what happens to ensure the parties receive a fair trial.

not to mention the separation of powers argument, but when you give credence to the fact that we are studying this, our experts, if you will, and you will, and want to make sure that whatever policies formulate are shaped and informed by our experience. >> is there a legitimate distinction that can be drawn between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings thus that a greater degree of access is allowed on the civil side? 's we need to think through particularly as it relates to confidentiality and privacy and the adverse implications of unwanted exposure don't necessarily exist on the civil side. >> we have concerns with respect to the affect on witnesses and particularly the effect on the substance of the witness's testimony, witnesses testimony, but we have more concerns on the criminal side. that is because we have witnesses that are confidential informants and cooperators, undercover operative. they they routinely testify.

we are concerned about their security and safety. >> is it legitimate for the parties who are participating in the actual trials to have an opportunity to object based on their determination that the presence of cameras in the courtroom will complicate the ability for them to receive a fair trial or should we completely dismissed the concerns? >> once again, i again, i think the trial court judge could make that decision. the problems that i see are if everybody objection not going to have very much of a pilot study for them to have some evaluations. so, you know, my experience in state court in new york, many times in the media made an application you could certainly expect out of hand that there would be an

objection. we would we would make those arguments to the judge and the judge would decide for the presumption of coverage whether or not the objection would overcome the presumption. that might be a good way to start. also wanted to go back to one other.in terms of the media deciding which cases to cover. what is true and my understanding of this pilot program is that none of the video that is recorded in any of these cases get posted to the website until and tell the judge in the case has reviewed the video. so if there is something there that might be problematic, that is something that, you know, he or she could do as well. >> my time has expired. >> thank you, congressman. the congressman. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sunshine in the courtroom act promises to provide greater access to the public into the inner workings of our justice system. as my colleague noted in her testimony, trials of always been open to the public. the enactment the enactment of this would expand upon our promise of transparency. it's hard for me to understand the argument, the fairness of our court is impaired or improved by limiting public access. i'll start with you because if you look at the history of the public trial, grounded in the anglo-saxon history of common law in the 17th century, and the idea

was the public proceedings would operate as a check against malevolent prosecution, corrupt or malleable judges are precarious witnesses, the idea that a public trial would aid the fact-finding mission and encourage citizens to come forward and speak truthfully whether providing inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. your testimony, the single greatest threat to underlying media exposure in the courtroom is to search for the truth. the rights of public trial got turned on its head. a whole idea was that it would be a check, provide assurances that people would be truthful. so why do you conclude or what does the judicial congress believe that that public, the public, the expansion of the public trial will undermine the search rather than advance it even more. >> the right to a public trial is sacrosanct. we are balancing those two. to the extent we have to worry command we don't no

how much. we have all experienced this, but to the extent we have to worry that a witness hedges or shaves the truth is not forthcoming with information that they would otherwise be forthcoming with when they are testifying in front of the courtroom with 20 people. if your boss or the pastor was her next-door neighbor who otherwise would not go online and get the transcript of the trial, we have to worry. i have had a case recently that i i thought the parties might agree to record. they did not. it was a case about trade secrets. if their the competitors are in there they have a right to be in their.

it comes up in terms of witnesses in concerned about hedging or shaving her testimony, and emotional stress claim or in a criminal case, a confidential informant. depending on the type of case and the nature. >> and general do you agree with the proposition that it is more likely people will testify truthfully when it is broadly exposed? this notion doesn't make any sense. the idea if you make an assertion and the whole world will here it and is not true there is someone who might feel to prove. so your argument or the argument of the judicial really undermines the basic notion of a public trial as being a very effective tool. i was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer, a lot

of state and federal practice. the notion of being subjected to cross examination broadly not in as sugar way or way that limits public access actually enhances. you also said in your written testimony the presence of cameras is likely to heighten the level and potential threats to judges. >> of course my study is focused on federal district court. >> is the source of that. >> the fact that your face is broadcast is a concern.

there were a number of concerns. it probably won't happen in a small number of cases. nonetheless, it's a concern. >> you look like you are about to say something. >> i certainly understand it being a concern, but is it any more of a concern? i never met you. last night i went on on the internet, googled you. i found a picture of you. i know who to look for. you don't need to have a proceeding of somebody testifying to find out what they look like. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you congressman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas,, congressman and former judge. >> take the chair. there are a couple of points

to begin with. with. as the chair mentioned, i served on criminal court i spent eight years at the trial prosecutor. when i took the bench along time ago the idea of cameras in the courtroom was just nonexistent. and i actually allow cameras in the courtroom very early on in my judicial career. it was based upon the philosophy, the belief, the frustration. i will agree with him on this, the public -- the mystery of the courthouse still exists.

why in the world did that happen in the courtroom? and it is because all they get is a little blip in the paper. they don't have access to the public trial. trial. the public trial. i agree. it's public. the star chamber of england when they did things in the background. the more the public knows the better they understand why the outcome turned out the way it is. we heard all those arguments, protected victims of crime. they were not televised. the media always worked with that. special cases. the jury was not televised. we we never had a problem. we heard the arguments. like to have always done.

whether it's a court or whether it's the jury. the judges didn't want cameras in the courtroom. why? maybe maybe they are doing things that the public should be knowing. so i have had experience with cameras. it worked out. worked out. we did a capital murder case of a juvenile. both sides agreed to the trial. most of the case. , big supporter of the public knowing about the greatest judicial system in the world, the american judicial system. it's not somebody else's. it's ours. it's ours. and blocking and preventing that access when they have the right to sit there and watch it, plan for the camera, you are not allowed to do that. that does not make any sense to me.

i do believe we ought to allow that in federal court. court. you go to the supreme court and get a 15 minute snippet on what is taking place in a very important trial with the most important court in the world. the public is allowed to walk in. reading the transcript is not the same as washing the trial. so without elaborating so much on that specific issue, what does the media, those in the business of filming courtroom trials think how that would help or hinder the public perception of the judicial system that has taken place. in opinion on that, either one of you. >> certainly i think that the more informed the public can be, the fact that when i

first started doing this, as this, as you said, i might be at the courtroom all day. we are going to run a minute and 32nd story on the trial. that day has also long since passed because with the internet if you work at television station they can live stream the trial all day long, and it does not take away from their broadcast abilities. if somebody wants to watch gavel to gavel, they get to watch gavel to gavel. certainly the more informed you can be. i would much rather watch a courtroom proceeding without any of the commentary. i would like to see as if i were sitting there what is being said, what is being asked, what evidence is being introduced. i realize i am am a lawyer, but are a

lot of people who have that same interest. i believe that that happened during the civil trial of o.j. simpson. there were really no commentators. you could just turn it on and watch it. it was on everyday. you could form your own opinions or learn things. i i think that is the real benefit of allowing the cameras and. unfortunately far too often the electronic coverage gets confused with commentators, pundits, spend, and all the other stuff that comes with what used to be news and is not info data. >> i am out of time. time. i have another question, but thank you very much. >> i i appreciate the chairman. >> was going to ask your personal opinion, do you think of the public had more visibility of what we did in

the courtroom, whether it's the trial bench or the appellate bench or the supreme court, do you think maybe they would understand and appreciate the judicious war or not? >> that would be my hope. i think i think all judges want the public to be better informed and recognize that the public is not as well as informed as they used to be. we recognize and embrace the fact that public access to the courts is important. important. they are public proceedings. we understand that cameras may augment that. at the same time, we are balancing other interest. i appreciate that you have had seasoned experience as a trial judge. there are a number of judges in the pilot itself that came from state work experience. we will be serving all of the participants, including judges. some of us did not

have that experience, others did. it would be interesting to here from those judges that had that prior state court experience. that is going to inform how we go about formulating policy forward. there are their are legitimate concerns. we are balancing the right to fair trial. we just ask that you allow us to complete our setting to formulate a policy and procedures and guidance going forward. >> thank you very much. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from taxes. >> thank you very much. i think the ranking member as well. the questions of my colleagues who have expressed their grisly our collective commitment to justice and fairness and the importance of the judiciary. i would offer to say that i think the issues have been raised here legitimately that give merit to concerns

and comments that you have made along with those who have likewise raised his open transparency. so i hope that as we deliberate as a judiciary committee that we we will act with judicious this and take all of these issues into consideration. i want to ask about the pilot. give me the ending time of the pilot. >> july 2015. it was originally a three-year pilot. >> at that.you we will have a collection of data that included cameras in the courtroom of varying levels of the judiciary, state, county, federal. >> no. the pilot is focused only on federal trial court, district court.

the participants are federal district judges. july 2015 the recordings. and the federal judicial center will be the one compiling the data including the many surveys of practitioners and lawyers and other participants. we hope the court administration and case management committee biannual meeting in december of 2014 to be ready for consideration of the community. i am no longer on that community, but i would anticipate? a. him is what we called the committee. meaning that that body -- >> you have had cameras in the courtroom for a number of different federal courts. do you no how many? >> fourteen course participating. >> that's fine. you do what? >> posted to the us courts.

they are posted fairly quickly. talked about the fact that judges reviewed the video. that is not the practice. the judges may review the video if there is problem. if not, the video was posted. you can usually determined that there was a problem. >> let me ask a a series of questions. in essence, this is a judicial c-span somewhat. c-span is current and present. you don't posted until the next day. we are getting your name correctly. we thank you for your tolerance. in the bill i note that there is a protection for witnesses