cameras being used in district courts and related matters. 14 courts volunteered for the project, which is ongoing, limited to civil proceed examination scheduled to conclude in july 2015. following the pilot's conclusion the federal judicial center will prepare a report and provide to the judicial conferences committee on court administration and case management. it is then expected that cach will provide a report to the judicial conference regarding the possible future use of cameras in district courts. not withstandingstanding the ong nature of the pilot, the -- this legislation will have the potential item pair the fundamental right of citizens to fair trial and undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. it is clear the views of proponents opponents are strongly and sincerely held and that a discussion of the

relative merits will benefit our consideration. i particularly want to thank mr. king and mr. shack bow for their work -- chabot for their work and congresswoman lofgren and congressmann deutch for their work. this deserves careful consideration by the committee. i yield back. >> thank you. i would now like to recognize the full committee ranking members, the distinguished gentleman from michigan, congressman conyers. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to begin by mentioning that our colleague from new york, mr. indiana nadler, wanted to be here today but he is at the supreme court where there is oral argument going on in a

very important case, and i wanted his absence to be noted and that he is very concerned about the proceedings taking place here in the judiciary committee. the sunshine in courtroom act, of course, would authorize photography, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any court proceeding held in the federal district court. and in the circuit court of appeals, and even the supreme court of the united states. subject to some exceptions. as many of you may recall, the committee on the judiciary considered legislation substantially identical to hr

hr917, and although i voted in favor of this prior legislation, i still have nevertheless several concerns, and most importantly, i want the proponents of hr917 to address the judicial conference's observation that this measure could potentially impair the fundamental right of a citizen to a fair and impartial trial...

a. >> in addition, experience teaches that there are numerous situations in which it might cause actual unfairness. so subtle as to do this by the accused or controlled by the judge. and accordingly we would like hr 9172 explained how this ensures

a fair trial. then we should also talk about how the bill protects privacy of participants in proceedings. clearly we must be cognizant that electronic media coverage presents the prospect of public disclosure of personal information that may have a material effect on the individual's willingness to testify and i realized that the bill authorizes a voice to be of secured under certain circumstances. but is this sufficient to protect the witnesses privacy? and finally we must be mindful of the need to ensure the safety and security of our judges and

our law enforcement officers and other participants in this judicial process. and some believe that cameras in the courtroom could heighten the level of and that includes the proceedings iran's highly controversial matters. this is currently in the midst of the pilot program expected to conclude next july. and among other things, examining the impact of electronic media on the safety and security of the courtroom. hopefully that program will provide guidance on this issue so that the court security is not undermined. that concludes my statement and i yield back the balance of my time.

[inaudible] >> thank you, congressman. the members opening statements will be made part of the record. and we have two very distinguished panels of witnesses today. each of the witnesses statements will be written to record in its entirety. and i asked each to summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less to help you stay within the timing, there is a light on your table and we have one minute to conclude the testimony. in our first witness is speaking, a member of congress that represents the fourth district of iowa. he serves on the small business

committee and here on the judiciary committee. crying prior to being elected to congress he served in the iowa state senate for six years as chairman of the state government committee and vice chairman over the oversight budget committee. he studied math and science at northwest missouri state university. welcome, sir. in our second witness is joe loughlin, a member of congress representing the 19 district of california and she serves on the oversight subcommittee for the house administration committee and is a member of the science and technology committee and she also serves as ranking member of policy enforcement subcommittee and is a member of this subcommittee which has put oversight into a intellectual-property on the judiciary committee. prior to being elected department in 1995 she served on the santa clara order of county supervisors for 14 years and earned her ged ged and a ba from

stanford university. and we will start with representative king. >> i thank you in our ranking member and the subcommittee for the opportunity to bring this bill here before this hearing today and i would ask consent and introduce my written testimony into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to work our way down through the spell, i want to thank our colleagues and a good number of others for their bipartisan cooperation on this bill that is before us and it's a different era than it was in the 21st century than it was when the constitution was ratified. within that, we have had few people that travel, there was an

access because of logistical difficulties and that is what i consider part of this. and yet, something like this can be decided in the united states supreme court with a relative handful of people having only exclusive access to get him to hear a case like that. it is also true with obamacare and the affordable care act that it was a significant maneuver for even a member of the fishery committee to be able to get into the courtroom to hear the oral arguments before the court and i think the court needs to have the opportunity to make a decision to change that. we do not direct them to open up the cameras, but we provide the regulations and the courts to do so under their judgment and discretion. to protect the jurors from any kind of exposure and they cannot be exposed to the media coverage alongside that and again, we don't force them to open up this but we provide them the opportunity to do so. and there may be an argument about where this jurisdiction to

provide this statutory authority comes from and the congress establishes the courts. and in article three, it's clear that we write these regulations and i might expand that definition in another venue. but we need to be expanding the public access and open up the machinery of government. when i hear a member during the bush administration make comments to be appointed president, well, there is a bit of, i will say, suspicion about what went on in the courtroom that very few people have an opportunity to witness. and most of us, we had to rely upon the opponent's analysis and perhaps the legal analysis that informed what the decision really was in the courtroom. it isn't an iti objective view for hardly anybody in today's

world given what we have and all other public functions i can think of herriot so we open up this machinery of government and also it adds that we have a right to a speedy and public trial. and that takes us back to the definition of what is public. so the founders knew that opening the government to public service hold leaders accountable and the appointed and elected officials accountable and we have an education as well. and this was in another case where it was an issue where i was collecting on a bill and we ended up before the district court with the judge that after the decision, after the court hearing, and i thought that we had made our case absolutely are reputedly, we caught our opposition in contradictory

statements and this is the irony of life they had a brain injures him. he did survive abbott out of that came a 30 day blank spot in his memory and how nice it would've been if he could have reviewed the hearing before the court otherwise we ended up going to the state supreme court and it was a saga that lasted for eight years and we could've cut that by two or three years if the judge had his faculties about him had been able to review the case rather than review his notes. and that is my personal anecdote on this. but i also think of the benefits that come from an educational standpoint. and we are trying to learn and to be able to study our courts, whether it's bush versus gore,

or the aca litigation that took place or any of the huge landmark cases that take place before supreme court, all of those afar circuit courts and would be a tremendous boom to all of our law schools and improve our educational process in this country. thank you for your attention and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes congresswoman loughlin. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i would like to say that this situation is important and i'm so happy to be a cosponsor of this act not only in this congress but in the previous congress as well. over 100 years ago louis brandeis wrote that sum is said to be the best of this. these famous words are dead these are key components in functioning democracy. the nation is founded on the government accountability and

this would ensure that our judicial system is better able to hold that ideal. this would allow judges to open their courtroom granting greater insight into the judicial process and building confidence in our legal system. as the supreme court founder in re all of our previous people including ray oliver, this is also part of the judicial response. the pilot project, as many of you know, have been going on around the country and one of the islands until pilots was in the ninth circuit and northern district of california which includes my congressional district. the pilot has been extended for a year and in talking to the judges in the northern district there is wide acceptance of the

pilot and most seem to see no reason why modern technology should not be part of the judicial system. some of the feedback that i have gotten from judges is that this allows the establishment of rules and judges feel very strongly that the essential of this continuous tremaine obscured and there are volunteers in which some are not subject to be part of the televised proceedings in another interesting issue raised was that under the pilot all of the parties need to agree and consequently there haven't been very many actual televised proceedings and some of the judges wonder about this. i took seriously the comments made by the ranking member in terms of playing to the cameras

and one of the things that the judges told me is that if there is a high-profile case, that happens in the courtroom. and in terms of focusing to this, one judge says we forget that the cameras are even there and lawyers are focused on winning their case and they have to appeal to the jury or to the judge and it was not a concern but that was really a disruptive measure. but still, it is something that we should all talk about. in terms of personal disclosure of information, i find that difficult to understand because if you testify to a matter of public record, i look forward to hearing further from the judicial conference on that point. and again come i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing and i

think it is an important hearing. if we can become familiar with the issues of support in what we have raised and addressed successfully, i think that this country will be a better place. one of the judges that i talk to said that the real thing that all of us want to see is the supreme court being televised because of the important role that they play and i'm hopeful that this hearing in other discussions will allow ultimately that to happen and it will be a tremendous service to our democracy. >> thank you both for being here today and we appreciate it. we will now talk to our special panel. [inaudible]

and before you get comfortable, please, i will ask you to stand in the house i will ask you to stand up to be sworn in. and so before introducing them, if you would please raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you give is the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god enact and let the record reflect that the witnesses answer in the affirmative and you may be seated. and each of the witnesses written statements will be answered and put in the record in its entirety. asked that each summarize in five minutes or less. there is a timing light on your table when the light switches from green to yellow. you will have one minute to conclude very when the light turns red it will signal that the witness has five minutes that have expired. so the first witness of the

second panel is judge robinson for the district of kansas. he was appointed in 2001 by president george w. bush. she's here today on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states and she serves every judge in the district of kansas for eight years and is an assistant united states attorney for 10 years and that is near and dear to my heart. i'm the both of her degrees came from the university of kansas and we thank you for being here. welcome. the second witness on the second panel is the general counsel of the national photographers

association. in his position he has been actively involved on issues such as cameras in the courtroom, the federal shield proposal and media access. in addition he is an award-winning photojournalist with four years of experience in print and broadcasting. he also served as an adjunct professor in media and law at the university of buffalo law school. he earned his jd from the university of buffalo and the university of new york at buffalo. welcome to both of you. let's start with your opening statement. so would you please hit the button or. >> thank you to the members, as well as the full committee, i am julie robinson, i am the united states district judge for the district of kansas and i appreciate the chairman inviting

me today to discuss the views of the judicial conference regarding the issue of cameras in the courtroom and specifically the sunshine in the courtroom act. with your consent i cement a written statement into the record and i will briefly summarize that statement this morning. and i previously served as the chair of the management committee of the judicial conference of the united states and i am familiar with the conference position regarding cameras in the courtroom. before i discuss the concern of the federal judiciary am i must emphasize is the judge did in his testimony before the house judiciary committee in september 2007 at the judicial conference therefore is unable to address the provisions of the bill that would authorize the broadcasting of supreme court proceedings. the legislation before us is

designated as a bill to provide for media coverage of roe court proceedings. for reasons that are explained in more detail in my written statement, the judicial conference proposes this legislation primarily because it allows the specific use of cameras in federal trial courts and district courts and it is inactive this will have the potential of two in pairs substantially the fundamental rights of citizens to a fair trial while undermining court security and the safety of jurors and witnesses and other topics that depends including judges and i would like to emphasize for point this morning regarding our concern at the trial level. first, the intimidating effects can have a profoundly negative impact on the trial process and televising the trial makes certain court orders, for example, and orders a sequestering witnesses more difficult to enforce.

secondly, permitting camera coverage could become a potent negotiating tactic in pretrial settlement. and third, allowing cameras in federal courts would create security concerns and undermine the safety of jurors and witnesses and other trial participants and heightened threats to judges. and cameras can create privacy concerns for countless numbers of persons and about him very personal information could be revealed. so with regard to the issue of cameras in the federal court of appeals, the conference opposes the bill's provision permitting each panel to decide whether to allow cameras rather than allowing that decision to be made by each court of appeals as a whole which is the existing conference policy. they did not take these positions because it is against increased illicitly for the

federal court in many aspects it was at the forefront of electronic transparency. nearly every filing and trial and appellate argument and decision and opinion is available and open to the public. over the past decade the judicial conference has dramatically expanded that openness by making its entire filing system electronically available to the public through the internet and furthermore in september 2010 the judicial conference of the united states authorized a pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in district courtrooms. and that is also the publication of such video recordings and the result of the program will help the judiciary review and evaluate our concerns with cameras in the district court.

in conclusion, mr. chairman, this is not a debate about whether judges have personal concerns regarding camera coverage and it's not a debate about whether the rural courts are afraid of public scrutiny. it is not a debate about increasing the educational opportunities for the public to learn about the federal court or the litigation process. in fact, open hearings are a hallmark of the federal judiciary committee and rather this is about how individual americans or other participants in court proceedings are treated by the federal judicial process and it is the duty to ensure that every citizen receives his or her constitutional guaranteed right to a fair trial for the reasons discussed in my statement, the use of cameras in the trial courtroom that jeopardize that right and we oppose that legislation. i would ask that my written statement be offered and entered into the record and i'm happy to

answer any questions that you may have and thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the individual. >> members, one in thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to submit this in the courtroom act, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013. i am of counsel to the law firm in the law practice and appear here today as general counsel to the national press photography association which was founded in 1946 of which i have been a member since 1973. this is the voice of visual journalist with 7000 members including video and still photographers and editors and

students. during my 40 year career in print and broadcast them i have covered hundreds of court cases to the murder trial of o.j. simpson and i was actively involved in the experiment with courtroom proceedings from 1987 to 1997 in new york and buy electronics i mean audio and visual recording as well as digital. we support this because there is a strong societal interest in public access to the court and is part of that almost every state allows a criminal or appellate proceedings and unfortunately that is not the case at the federal level and in 1991 the judicial conference talk about a pilot program permitting the broadcasting in televising an electronic recording for the photographing of courtroom proceedings by the

media. and despite favorable records, they declined to approve this and the program ended in 1994. in 2010 the conference authorized a second pilot project and this would be court personnel and not the media operating the equipment. the guidelines state that the media or representatives will not be permitted to create courtroom proceedings. and in 2004 media coverage is the blinking eye of the public into the widest audience. and this includes a grave responsibility. and i'll of the right to experiment may be brought with serious consequences to the nation but in the exercise of this high power we must be ever

on our guard. the federal judiciary must be mindful of its high-power not to elect its own prejudices into social and judicial roles. in this includes the electronic press that undermined a fundamental constitutional right by the very tools of its profession and eviscerating what most americans see as part of this. the benefits of allowing this coverage are numerous and significant and it brings transparency to the federal judicial system and provide increased accountability for litigants and judges and the press and educate citizens about the judicial process. electronic coverage allows the public to enter that this is

conducted fairly and by extension that government systems are working properly. in 1965 but just as predicted that the day may come when television will have become so commonplace in the daily life of the average person dead as may disparage the judicial process. that day has long since passed and justice stewart was also on point when he wrote that the suggestion that there are limits upon the public's right to know what goes on goes to cause me deep concern and the idea of imposing upon any medium of communication, the burden of justifying its presence is contrary to where i always thought that the presumption must lie in the area of first amendment freedoms. and one can only hope that by 2015 after what will have been in for your experiment the

federal judiciary will finally acknowledge that electronic coverage of our court and did administration of justice are not mutually exclusive. and we look forward to working with the subcommittee and the full judiciary committee as we move forward with this and other similar legislation and we thank you for the opportunity to testify and we look forward to answering your question and i would like to say that i hope that we would be able to answer this and send it to the record. >> yes, as is my custom, i wait and ask questions last because other congressmen and women need to get to other areas and so i am going to refer to my good friend from ohio who has been a proponent of this legislation for years and years. >> thank you very much,

mr. chairman. this is a topic as the chairman mentioned that i've been interested for a long time, at least 30 years that i have practiced law for 16 years before coming to congress and during part of that time i was first elected about 30 years ago now and served there for about five years and one of the things that i did when i was there was to have the council and i'm not sure how many people actually watched it. nonetheless the public had access and then moved over to the hamilton county commission doing the same thing there. and c-span had art existed. congress itself was arnie on television despite a lot of the same types of concerns that they have relative to courtrooms and some members of congress as well. but the fact is that the public pays for the courtroom just as

it pays for the congressional chambers and access nowadays is not practical to think that you can just leave your job or your family and see what is happening in the local courtroom, the access is by television show the public choose to tune in and that they should have that opportunity and they are paying for it. but in any event when i introduce the legislation in the house about 20 years ago, my colleague, the chief cosponsor was a former member of the committee and he felt very strongly about it and i disagree with him on this particular topic and we were in agreement when he left and i think that bill took up on the democratic side and did a wonderful job over the years on that. but we have been working on this

for a lot of years and i lost my seat back in 2008 and i want to commend steve for taking it up at that time and i also want to think everyone for the leadership on this issue. but the thing that i keep hearing is this business about potentially impairing the right to a fair trial that we talk about, i can understand that point of view if we didn't have years of experience on this both when the court had its own pilot project up from 91 until 94, which they're essentially were not any african issues during that three year. macro time. and then we have estates of who all used lilo to say that we accept this or that and they all have it and we had 20 years of experience with very few

problems. these were colleague he has been involved in it and supported it and he had a good subjection to obscure the faces of witnesses in sensitive cases and we are leaving the oversight and the rule of this up to the judges themselves. so i fail to see what the opposition is although i know that it is still there and we haven't been able to accomplish this as of yet. and the types of cases that are heard over the years, whether it is gore or bush or the affordable care act or obamacare or whatever the preferred technology is or one of the pieces, one of the things that i am proud of, the ban on

partial-birth abortion that we thought for eight years before when to a vote that prevailed. and i remember sitting on that side because we were a minority then and the republicans and hearing that the case had been rolled in our favor, which i was happy about. and so those were some of the frustrations. and so would either one of you like to respond especially to the potentially impairment of a fair trial? we have such a long experience. shouldn't that be sufficient that it shouldn't be much of a concern? >> what we know is that the state has had cameras in the courtroom but it's not a uniform approach. some of them for limits on criminal cases and some of them

have consent requirements and some do not. the federal judiciary is going to need a national approach and that is how we operate. this makes policies for the trial court and they ask for this guidance and education and policy and so we are looking at a uniform national approach. we know that the state courts don't have a singular model that suggest that this is the way to do it. and studying experience is important but equally experienced is having these benefits of all of these experiences formulating a policy. and in terms of the parents of the fair trial, what i want to 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