that your statement is he didn't need to see the video because he already knew what had happened? >> that's my opinion. i think that's the general public's opinion. >> okay. all right. i appreciate all of you being here today. i know it's been a long hearing. do we have a script for the comments after, questions? the record will be open for two weeks. with that, the hearing is adjourned.

this morning, president obama nominated former defense department official ashton carter to be his fourth defense secretary. he would replace chuck hagel. mr. carter has served in a number of roles within the department as defense secretary from 2011 to 2013. watch the president's announcement of his nomination at cspan.org. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history. this weekend we visit waco, texas. >> as we began to receive the

vinyl to be saved, we began turning over the b sides of the 45s that we received. first off, gospel music was not widely heard in the white community. what it was, it was only the hits, if that. the b or flip side would be heard less. what we discovered quickly was how many of the b side songs were directly related to the civil rights movement. since there's few databases and none of them are complete on gospel music, didn't know that. we didn't know the sheer number of songs that had very overt songs like "there ain't no segregation in heaven" type songs at a time when possessing one of those songs, much less singing it, was very dangerous. could you get killed for that kind of things but singing that song out loud, that's a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame, it was set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the

rangers. it honors 30 rangers who made major contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. we have paintings or portraits of all the rangers. austin was very successful with his rangers. they fought not only -- managed to make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raids, but when the texas war for independence broke out, they played a major role in texas gaining independence by staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the kcolonists to develop their own army. as a result, texas became its own independent nation for ten years. >> watch all of our events from waco saturday at noon eastern on c-span2.

ann compton, who retired as abc news white house correspondent. >> we watched him listen to a group of second graders go through their drill. and andy card interrupted the president. i was stunned. i wrote it down, 9:07 a.m., nobody interrupts a president, even in front of second graders. the president said that he had to go. he went into a side room and then we heard -- we discovered that it was two planes down -- two plane crashes in new york. they came out to the pool -- we were in the parking lot outside the school and said, stay right here, the president will come talk to the pool. i said, no, there are live cameras in the cafeteria. the president has to speak there. he didn't want to scare the children. but did he go into the cafeteria. he said it's an apparent

terrorism attack. we were pushed aboard quickly, the door slammed. and then the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. this morning, president obama om natunominated ashton co be his defense secretary. mr. carter was deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013. watch the announcement of the nomination at cspan.org. senator john mccain is likely to take over as chair of the armed services committee. he released a statement highly praising ashton carter. he said i hope dr. carter understands that as previous secretaries of defense have attested, he will likely have limited influence over the tight circle around the president who apparently controlled the entire

strategic decision making process. the labor department released the november job numbers showing u.s. employers added 321,000 jobs last month. the most in any month in nearly three years. the unemployment rate remained at 5.8% and the economy has gained on average 241,000 jobs a month this year. putting 2014 on track to be the strongest for hiring in 15 years. we expect to hear more about the economy and the president's nomination during today's whitehouse briefing scheduled to begin shortly. join us live over on our companion network c-span. the house judiciary subcommittee on courts held a hearing on allowing cameras in federal courtrooms, including the supreme court. steve king has introduced legislation to allow federal judges to choose when to allow

cameras in the court proceedings. this is two hours. >> the subcommittee on courts intellectual property and internet will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses at any time. we welcome all of our guests today. unfortunately, representative and chairman howard kobal and jerry nadler will not be able to make the meeting -- the hearing in beginning. they may be here later on. at the request of them, i stated that i would explain why they are not here. for members of the public who are here today or may otherwise be observing our hearing, i'm representative tom marino from

pennsylvania, vice chairman of the subcommittee on courts, intellectual property and the internet. will chair today's hearing. i will recognize myself and then congressman ted joyce from florida for initial opening statements. i will then recognize the chairman of the full committee representative bob goodlet and john konyers to make their remarks. with that explanation, today's hearing is on hr 917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013. the bill was introduced by representative steve king in april of 2013 and includes three additional members of the judiciary committee, representatives chaffis, lockrin and doych subsequent to the introduce, two additional

members signed on in support, representatives king and lockrin will testify on the reasons they believe the legislation should be enacted. in addition to those representatives, we have two additional witnesses who will testify on a second panel. they are julie robinson, united states judge for the district of kansas, who will appear on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states, and mr. mickey austeriker, the general counsel of the national press photographer's association on nppa. the principal authority contained in hr 917 is in section 2b, which provides subject to certain exceptions, the presiding judge, which is xi fined in the bill of each federal appellate court and district or trial level court is authorized to permit the

photographing, electric recording, broadcasting or tell viezing to the public of any court proceedings over which that judge presides. provisions in hr 917 would apply this authority to the supreme court of the united states as well as united states circuit courts of appeals and district courts. the purpose of hr 917 as with similar bills introduced in prior congresses is meant to address the longstanding practice of the federal courts which with few exceptions prohibits the live electronic recording of media coverage or proceedings from inside the courtroom. proponents believe existing prohibitions are a hindrance of transparency, education and general public awareness of our law and judicial processes. due to limited access to the actual proceedings. as one of our witnesses will testify today, the ability to disseminate information via electronic coverage of courts

proceedings is a critical component in affording the public the equivalent of atte attending proceedings. they believe the harm outweighs the benefits. chief among the concerns is the proposition that the legislation has the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses and other trial participants, including judges. beyond the general questions of whether cameras should be permitted in federal court proceedings are a myriad of additional questions that include where and when they should be permitted, whether consent of the parties should be required, whether the court should control the operation and disseminate of materials and whether congress would be required to provide additional funding and resources to the courts. today's hearing presents an opportunity to discuss in detail the issues implicated by these

fundamental questions. with that i conclude my opening remarks and recognize our acting ranking member who is a co-sponsor of the bill that is the subject of today's hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to our colleagues for their leadership on this issue. judicial conference policy and the federal rules of civil proceeding prohibit some of the most critical legal issues facing our nation. these policies impose limitations on the public's ability to observe court proceedings, interpreting laws that can impact the lives of every american. these restrictive broadcasting policies shroud the supreme court in secrecy and can raise questions in minds of the public on the administration of justice. chief justice berger wrote of the important of public abscess writing that it's a place where

people generally and representatives of the media have a right to be present and where their presence has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place. while richmond newspapers addressed public as says to criminal court proceedings, public access has been extended to civil as well. you can walk into any state or federal courtroom in america and see benches or seats to accommodate public audiences interested in watching a legal proceeding. the supreme court has public seating to amany could date the lucky few. courtroom seating accommodation the tradition of public court watching. public court watchers may not be as prefsh lent now as they were in the past. for cases importantly issues finding an available seat in the courtroom can be difficult if not impossible. most people now receive descriptions on important proceedings from press reports in various forms of media outlets. i don't -- i appreciate the work that they do, but the supreme

court and federal courts need to recognize and adapt to the changes to permit the next generation of court watchers access to proceedings on important legal issues. such changes should include permitting television broadcasting. the sunshine in the courtroom act would improve transparency by increasing public accessibility to legal proceedings. under the bill, the presiding judge, a majority of the judges participating on the panel or the chief justice of the supreme court would have the discretion to permit photography, broadcasting of the proceedings. bill includes protections for the parties involved that would permit the judge or judges to close the court proceedings to being televised. it would permit the judge to consider if it would violate the due process of a party and in addition a witness in a court proceeding could request to have their face and voice diseased to protect their identity. it would present coverage of the jurors involved in a judicial

proceeding and juror selection. the judge of a court would have the discretion to create rules that could be enforced the media in the interests of preserving justice and fairness. the supreme court and our federal courts hear and consider some of the most important issues facing our country. these proceedings and the decisions issued from the proceedings by the supreme court and federal courts impact every facet of the lives of americans. as one of many examples, a panel in the d.c. court of appeals heard arguments on the c collection of phone data. they have heard and hear cases involving the affordable care act, our nation immigration laws, interpretation of the second amendment, housing and foreclosure issues, political and campaign cases and many other pressing issues that face our country. yet very few people have an opportunity, most never have the chance to observe the proceedings in person. public access to cases is

limited to the very few who can wait in line for hours and sometimes days or who can hire a person to stand in line for them. the limited public access to the supreme court and federal court proceedings is inconsistent with the modern role of media. it's time the u.s. supreme court and federal court practice is changed. i would like to thank my colleagues for their work and leadership on this issue. broadcasting will ensure that the public has full access to the oral arguments on important legal issues and will most importantly help to ensure that justice is carried out for all to see. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. i would like to recognize the full committee chairman, gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's legislative hearing on

hr 917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, is one that raises substantial and important questions that have been the focus of this committee's attention before. indeed, the question surrounding whether an under what circumstances federal court proceedings should be televised or otherwise made available via electronic mediums is not novel but ones congress and the federal judiciary have considered in various forms for many years. in fact, legislation to authorize broadcast or television coverage of federal court proceedings has been introduced by members with bipartisan support as is true in the present case. in every congress, dating back to at least the 105th, most recently, the committee reported a version of this legislation in 2007 when a bill sponsored by our colleague reffive steve shabbot was reported favorably. hr 917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, and the 2007 bill are substantially

similar. the bill's sponsor stated in his written testimony his motivation and belief in introducing this bill that congress has both the constitutional authority to act and the duty to use that authority to expand public access to our courts. proponents of the bill believe that the values of transparency, accountability and education will only be enhanced by expanded public abscess to our federal courts. however, the principal opponents of cameras in the courtroom legislation are the supreme court of the united states and the judicial conference of the united states. the latter of which functions as the policy making body for lower federal courts. each would be impacted by the enactment of hr 917 which authorizes the presiding judge of a court to allow cameras and recording devices to be operated in federal court proceedings subject to certain exceptions and qualifications. i appreciate judge robinson's appearance today and believe it

is vitally important that the judicial conference and the supreme court avail themselves of each opportunity to participate in the committee's consideration of legislation that impacts our justice system. this is particularly true in matters that relate to the administration and operation of the federal judiciary. perhaps spurred by this committee's action in 2007, the judicial conference authorized a three-year pilot project in 2010 to evaluate the effects of cameras being used in district courts and related matters. 14 courts volunteered for the project which is ongoing, limited to civil proceedings and scheduled to conclude in july 2015. following the pilot's conclusion, the federal judicial center will prepare a report and provide it to the judicial conference's committee on court administration and case management. it is then expected that cacm will provide a report to the judicial conference regarding the possible future use of cameras in district courts.

notwithstanding the ongoing lofgrin and congressman deutsche for their effort on the democ t democratic side. this deserves careful consideration by the committee. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to recognize the full committee ranking member,ñ 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. 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 note noted and that he is very concerned about the proceedings that are taking place here in the judicieudiciary committee. the sunshine and courtroom act, of course, would authorize

federal if foeing fo photography 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 917. and although i voted in favor of this'v÷pñ prior legislation, i have nevertheless several concerns. rñ i want the proponents of hr 917 to address the6w$ judicial conference's observation that this measure cou could potentially impair the !)hx:q=m fair and

partial trial. a justice earlier this year said that televised coverage of federal court proceedings would or might encourage participants to play to the camera. in fact, supreme court, in a case involving a state criminal trial that was televised, observed that the chief function of our judicial machinery is to ascertain the truth. the use of television, however, cannot be said to contribute materially to this objective. rather, its use amounts to the injection of an irrelevant factor into the court nn$e proceedings. in addition, experience teaches situations in which it might

subtle as to defy detection by the accused or control by the úñ judge. accordingly, i want the proponents of hr 917 to explain how the bill does not undermine a citizen's right to due process and a fair trial. secondly, we should ensure that the bill adequately protects the kñ participants in federal judicial proceedings. clearly, we must be cognizant of the fact that electronic media coverage presents the prospect of public disclosure of personal information that may have a material affect on the individual's willingness to testify or place an individual at risk of being a target for retribution or intimidation.8y&ñ

witness' image and voice to be obscured under certain circumstances. but is this sufficient to protect the witness' privacy? finally we must be mindful of the need to ensure the safety and security of our judges, our law enforcement officers and other participants in the judicial process. some believe that cameras in the courtroom could heighten the level of and potential threats to federal judges, particularly those proceedings involving highly controversial matters. the judicial conference is currently in the middst of a pilot program expected to conclude next july that among other things is examining the impact of electronic media on the sma'y and security of the

courtroom. hopefully, that test program will provide some guidance on this issue so that court security is not undermined. that concludes my statement. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, congressman. without objection, the members' opening statements will be made part of the record. we have two very distinguished panels of witnesses today. each witness statement will be entered into the record. i ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within the time, there is a light on your table. when it switches from green to

yellow, you have one print tol0 conclude your testimony. when the light turns red it signals the five minutes have expired. our first witness today is the honorable steve king, the member of congress who represents the 4th district of iowa. representative king serves as chairman of the department operation )b)oversight on the e ago kricultural committee. representative king served in the iowa state senate for six years as chairman of the state government committee and vice chairman of the oversight budget subcommittee. representative king studied math and science at northwest missouri state university. welcome,6jr#mr. king. our second witness is the honorable zoe lockrin who represents the 19th district of california. she's a member of the science, space and technology committee. she serves as ranking member of

the immigration and policy]xñ a enforcement subcommittee and is a member of this subcommittee which has oversight over federal courts, intellectual property and the internet. prior to being elected to congress, she served on the santa clara county board of supervisors for 14 years. she earned her ba from stanford. welcome. we will start with you, representative king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you and our ranking member both the full and the subcommittee for the opportunity to bring this bill hr 917, the sunshine in the courtroom act, before this hearing today. i would ask consent to introduce my written testimony into the record and then to testify orally in addition. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to work our way through this bill -- i want to thank my colleague and others for their

bipartisan cooperation on this bill that's before us. hr 917 sunshine in the courtroom act expands public access to the courts. and when we think about what public access means, it's a different definition for us in this modern era in the 21st century than it was when the constitution was ratified. in that we have had small courtrooms, a few people traveled, there wasn't much access because of logistical difficulties. today, we turn on the super bowl and millions of people watch it on television. that's what we consider access. and yet bush v gore can be decided with a relative handful of people having almost only exclusive access to get in to hear a case like that. it was true with obamacare, atted forable care act. it was significant maneuver for even a member of this.vciç judi committee, myself, to be able to get into the court rooms tod;< the oral arguments. the court needs the opportunity to make the decision to change that. we don't direct the courts to

open up the court room to the cameras, but we provide the regulations that allow the courts to do so under their judgment and their discretion. to protect jurors from any kind of exposure, they cannot be exposed to the media coverage along that. we would -- we don't force the judges to open up the courtroom. we provide them the opportunity to do. there may be an argument about to provide this stat story authority to open up the courtrooms to cameras come from. i would point out in article 1, section 8 and article 3, section 1, theé congress established tht the congress establishes the courts. in article 3, section 2, it's clear that we write the regulations for the supreme court. i might expand that definition in another venue. we need to be expanding the public access and open up the machinery of government. when i hear -- i remember during the bush administration i heard comments the appointed

president. well there's a bit of i will say suspicion about what went on in a court room that few people had an opportunity to witness. most of us, if we weren't in the courtroom, then we had to rely on the pundit's analysis that informed their analysis of what the d%=9 really was in the courtroom. it isn't an eye to eye view for hardly anybody in today's world given the access we have in all other public functions i can think of. so we expand public access and open up the machinery of government. i also would add that the 6th amendment demands we have a right to a speedy and public trial. that takes us back to the the founders knew9úaj, opening government to public served a dual purpose '5#

court. but i had a case in the name was king versus gustofson. i was collecting on a bill. we ended up before the district court with a judge who after the decision -- after the court hearing -- i thought we had made our case absolutely irrefutably. we caught our opposition in contradictory statements, which i consider to be lies. yet the judge had 90 days to write the decision. this is the irony of life on the aneurysm. he did9 $r survive that. but out of it came this they said a 30-day blank spot in his memory. how nice if he could have reviewed the videotape of the hearing before the court. otherwise, we ended up going to the state supreme court. it was a saga that lasted eight years. we could have cut that by two or three years if the judge who had his faculties about him had been able to review the tape rather than review his notes. that's just my personal anecdote on this.

i also think of the benefits that come from an educational standpoint. we are in a position where look at our law schools. i understand justice scalia will write his opinions so that they're interesting and law students will read them and try to learn what goes on in the court room. but to studysr our courts, to able to go backw>í and review b v gore or the aca litigation that took place or any of the huge landmark cases that take place before the supreme court are those that are litigated before our circuit court would be a tremendous boon to all of our law schools, all of our students and it would improve our educational process in this country. thank you for your attention.bço i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, congressman king. the chair recognizes congresswom congresswoman. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i think theeljz legislation is important and i'm happy to be a co-sponsor of the sunshine in the courtroom act not only in

this congress but previous versions in previous congresses. over 100 years ago a man wrote that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. d&v#qáq now famous words refleca components of functioning democracy. this is a nation founded on concept of government accountability. passage of this bill would ensure that our judicial system is better able to uphold that ideal. the sunshine in the courtroom act would allow judges to open their courtrooms to cameras, granting the public greater insight into the judicial process and building confidence in our legal system. as a supreme court found in 1948, the knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion is a restraint on possible abuse of judicial power. as many of you know, the pilot projects have been going on around the country. one of the pilots is in the 9th

circuit and in the northern district of california, which includes my congressional district. the pilot has been extended for a year. but in talking to the judges in the northern district, there is wide acceptance of the pilot. most seemgy?= to see no reason modern technology should not be part of the judicial system. one -- some of the feedback i have gotten from8>uñ judges is as -- although our bill allows the establishment of rules by the judicial conference, judges feel very strongly that the -- it's essential that the identity of the jurors continue to remain obscured. they are volunteers and they should not be subject to being part of the televised proceedings. another interesting issue raised to me by judges was that under the pilot, all the parties need

to agree and consequently there haven't been very many actual televised proceedings. some of the judges wonder whether we shouldn't re-visit that, examine that element of it. this is a big deal. i took seriously the comments made by the ranking member in terms of playing to the cameras, one of the things that judges told me is that if there's a high profile case, that happens without cameras being in the courtroom. and in terms of focusing, playing to the camera, you know, one judge said,ç67 pretty soon forget the cameras are even

to me i find difficult to understand. because our courtrooms are open. if you testify to a matter, it's a matter of public record. it's not private. so i look forward to hearing further from the judicial conference on that point. again, i want to thank the chair and ranking member for holding this hearing. i think it's important. the issues that the courts have raised and address them successfully, i think the country will be a better place. one of the judges i talked to in the northern district said the real thing that all of us want to see is the supreme court being televised, because of the important role they play. i'm hopeful this hearing and other discussions will allow ultimately that to happen. it would be a tremendous service to our democracy. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. you, congresswoman.

thank both of you for being here today. appreciate it.s2un we will now seat our second panel. before you get comfortable, please -- i'm going to ask to you stand any how to be sworn in. i will begin by swearing in our second panel of witnesses. before introducing them, if you would please raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and you god? let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered into

the record. i ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals that the witness' five minutes have expired. our first witness of the second panel is the honorable julie robinson, united states district judge for the district of kansas. judge robinson was appointed in 2001 by president judge w. bush. she's here today on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states. prior to her position on the federal bench in kansas city, she served as a judge on the u.s. bankruptcy court for the district of kansas for eight years. an assistant united states district for ten years and a law clerk for u.s. bankruptcy judge benjamin franklin for two years.

judge robinson earned both her degrees from the university of kansas. welcome, judge. our second witness on the second panel is mr. mickey austericher. am i doing well? general counsel of the national press z% ujp(her's association. in his position, he has been actively involved in -- on issues such as cameras in the [ courtroom, the federal shield proposal and media access. in addition, he is an award winning photo journalist with print and broadcast. he also served as a professor teaching courses in media and the law at the university of buffalo?"lnç law school. he earned a degree from the university of buffalo law school and his b.s. from the state university of new york at buffalo.

welcome to both of you. judge, we will start with your opening statement. would you please hi6f#÷ the but there so we can hear you better? >> thank you, chairman andycñ ranking member and members of the subcommittee as well as the full committee. i'm julie robinson. i'm a united states district judge for the district of kansas. and i appreciate the invitation to appear today to discuss the views of the judicial conference of the united states regarding the issue of cameras in the courtroom and specifically hr 917 the sunshine in the courtroom act. with your consent i will submit a written statement into the record and i will briefly summarize that statement this morning. i previously served as the chair of the court administration and case 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 concerns of the federal judiciary, i must

emphasize as did the other judge in his testimony before the house judiciary committee in september 2007, that the judicial conference does not speak for the supreme court. therefore, i am 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 federal court proceedings. the reasons that are explained in more detail in my written statement, the judicial conference opposes this legislation primarily because ip allows the use of cameras in federal trial courts in the district courts. if enacted, this legislation would have the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial. while undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses and other trial participants, including judges. i would like to emphasize four points this morning regarding

our concerns at the trial level. first, the intimidating affect of cameras on litigants, witnesses and jurors can have a profoundly negative impact on the trial process. more over, televising the trial makes certain court orders, for example, an order sequestering witnesses, more difficult to enforce and could lead to tainted testimony from witnesses. secondly, permitting camera coverage could become a poe nent negotiating practice in pretrial settlement negotiations. third, allowing cameras in federal court would create security concerns and undermine the safety of jurors, witnesses and other trial participants and heighten the level and potential of threats to judges. fourth, cameras can create privacy concerns for persons many of whom are not parties to the case but about whom very personal information may be revealed. with regard to the issue of cameras in the federal courts of

appeal, the conference opposes each appellaepellate count to d rather than allowing that to be made by each court of appeals ss a whole. the conference did not take courts. in many aspects the federal judiciary is at the forefront of electronic innovation and transparency. nearly every filing, every trial, every appellate argument, decision and opinion is available and open to the public. over the past decade, the judicial conference has been dramatically expanded that openness by making its entire filing system electronically available to the public through the internet. further more, in september of 2010, the judicial conference of the united states authorized a pilot pro jeth to evaluate the

effect of cameras in district court courtrooms. individual -- and the effect of video recordings and the pub indication of such recordings. the results of the pilot program which ends in july 2015 will help the judiciary review and evaluate our concerns with the use of cameras in the district courts. in conclusion, mr. chairman, this is not a debateb5 whether judges have personal concerns regarding camera coverage. it's not a debate about whether the federal courts are afraid of public scrutiny. it's not a debate about increasing the educational opportunities for the public to learn about the federal courts or the litigation process. in fact, open hearings are a mallmark of the federal judiciary. rather, this is a question about how your constituents, individual americans, whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, or others are treated by the process, it's the fundamental

duty of the federal judiciary to receive every citizen receives his right to a fair trial. for the reasons discussed in my statement, the judicial conference believes that it the use of cameras in the trial courtroom would seriously jeopardize that right and therefore we oppose this legislation. i would ask that my written statement be offered and entered into the record. and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you, judge. your full statement will be entered into the record.w the chair now recognizes the attorney. members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to support hr 917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013. i'm of counsel to the law firm of hiscox and barkley in buffalo, new york. i appear here today in my

capacity as general counsel for the national press photographer's association, an organization founded in 1946 and of which i have been a member since 1973. nppa is the voice of visual journalists, with approximately 7,000 members including video and still photographers, editors during my 40 year career as a photo journalist in print and broadcast, i have covered hundredsu42d of court cases. i was involved in the ten-year experiment with electronic coverage of courtroom proceedings from [,ñm to '98 in new york and by electronic i mean audio, visual recording as well as digital still images. we support hr 917 because there's a strong society interest in public access to the courts. as part of that openness, almost every state allows electronic

appellate proceedings. unfortunately, that is not the case at the federal level. in 1991, the judicial conference of the united states commenced a pilot program permitting the electronic recording or photographing of courtroom proceedings by the media. at the conclusion of that program and despite favorable reports, the conference declined to approve the continuation of such coverage and the program ended in 1994. in 2010, the judicial conference authorized a second pilot project. this time it would be court personnel and not the media operating the equipment. the guidelines specifically state, the media or its representatives will not be permitted to create recordings of courtroom proceedings. in 2004, electronic media coverage is the unblinking eye of the public with its unrivalled capacity to convey

information instantly and to the widest audience. as the justice noted in 1932,leo stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsible. denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. but in the exercise of the high -- this high power, we must be ever on our guard left we erect our prejudices into legal principals. it must be mindful of its high power not to erect its own prej decisions into judicial rules. society can ill afford to let the arbitrary and speculative objections of jurists antagonistic to the electronic press substantially undermine a fundamental constitutional right by lens capping the very tools of its profession and ee vis rating the means by which most

americans very much their news. the benefits of allowing coverage are numerous and significant. it brings transparency to the federal judicial system, provides increase}q$e accountability from litigants, judges and the press. and educates citizens about the judicial process. electronic coverage allow it is public to ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly and by extension that government systems are working properly.

burden of justifying its presence is contrary to where i always thought the presumption must lie in the area of first amendment free doms. one hopes after 2015 the federal judiciary will acknowledge that electronic coverage of our courts and the fair administration of justice are not mutually exclusive. we look forward to working with the subcommittee and the full judiciary committee as you move forward with hr-917 and other similar legislation. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering your questi questions and request that my statement be entered into the record. >> your full statement will be entered into the record without objection.

i wait and ask my questions last because i'm here. other congressmen and women need to get oh other areas. i will go to congressman chabut who is a proponent of the legislation for years and years. >> thank you very much. a few thoughts and a little bit of background. this is a topic that i have been interested in for a long time. at least 30 years. i practiced law for 16 years before coming to congress. during part of the time i was practicing law i was first elected to cincinnati city council 30 years ago now. served there for about five years. one of the things i did when i was there was to have counsel meetings televised. i don't know how many people actually watched it. it can be boring at times. the public can access. then moved to the hamilton county commission where i did

the same thing there. when i came to congress, krrk-span existed. congress was already on television, despite a lot of the same types of concerns that there are relative to krools that people would play to the cameras. some members of congress do. the fact is that we are public folks. the public pays for the courtrooms just as it pays for our congressional chambers and i think they ought to have access to it. access nowadays, face it. it's not practical to think you can just leave your job or your family and go down to see what's happening in the local courtroom. the access is by television. should the public chooses to tune in. they should have the opportunity. again, they are paying for it. in any event, when i introduceded the legislation in the house about 20 years ago my colleague, the chief cosponsor

was a former member of the committee. chuck schumer. he felt very strongly about it and gave enumerable excellent speeches. i disagreed with him on a few things. on this topic we were in agreement. when we left bill dela hunt took up on the democratic side. did a wonderful job over the years. we have been working on it for years now. i lost my seat back in 2008 and won it back in '10. i want to commend steve king. he's done a great job and sue lofta for her leadership on the issue. the thing i keep hearing. the business about impairing the right to a fair trial that the judicial conference talks about. i could understand that point of view if we didn't have years of experience on this. both when the court had a pilot project from 1991 to 1994 in

which there essentially weren't significant issues during that three-year period of time. then we have the states, all of whom at this point. we used to say except for this and this one. thousand they all have it. we have had 20 plus years of experience with very few problems. whatever problems there are, i think they have been dealt with. our colleague is the ranking member. mr. conyers supported this. he had a good suggestion to obscure the faces of witnesses in sensitive cases. we are leaving the oversight and the rules up to the judges themselves. i fail to see what the opposition -- still there. we haven't been able to accomplish it yet.

particularly at the supreme court level, whether it's gore-bush, the affordable care act or obamacare. or one of the piece s, one of the things i'm proudest of. i w we fought for eight years. it went to the u.s. supreme court.

the state courts have had cameras in the courtroom. but there is not a uniform approach. some of them placed limits on criminal cases. some treat civil versus criminal cases differently. some have consent requirements. some do not. the federal judiciary needs a uniform national approach. that's how we operate. the judicial conference makes policy for the trial courts. and the trial courts ask for the judicial conference as guidance in education and policy. so we are looking at a uniform national approach. we know the state courts don't have a singular model that suggests this is the way to do it. certainly studying their experience is important. equally important is studying the experience of federal trial judges and having the benefit of

all of the experiences in formulating a policy. in terms of the denial of oh a fair trial or the impairment of a fair trial, what i want to, i guess, stress to you is that the most serious of concerns is not that it will change the behavior of lawyers or even change the behavior of other participants in the trial process. the greatest threat, i think, to the right to a fair trial is that in a courtroom -- and representative conyers spoke to this. it is a search for the truth. what happens is rigorous exam thags of witnesses, both direct and cross-examination. we don't want a situation where the witness's testimony is all affected by the fact that not only are people in the courtroom going to hear but now hundreds of thousands if not millions will hear it. perhaps the boss, minister, next door neighbor who would not hear

the testimony. in every case, there are situations where personal information becomes a part of the record. as you have talked about, we have open trials already. anyone can find that. all of our oh pleadings are open as are trial transcripts. imagine in a civil trial, an employment case, one of the claims is emotional distress. i think you will remember this from being a lawyer. but on cross-examination, someone that's made that type of claim will bel examined ex tensively about everything about their personality, their mental health issues, et cetera. in a personal injury case, a plaintiff who's made a claim of loss of consortium will be cross examined if not examined as well about sexual practices with their spouse or partner. in a criminal case, a confidential informant will be cross examined in ways that are going to identify who that person is, even if their voice

and face is obscured. i say that to say that we have legitimate and serious concerns about the impediment to a fair trial. this is what we need to study, why we have the pilot. these are the many questions we are looking at and that we hope will be answered for us in terms of guidance, best practices, whether it's possible for a judge to use their discretion in a way and a given type of case. but yet not impede or impair someone's right to a fair trial. >> thank you, judge. the gentle man's time has expired. would you like to respond? >> i would hope we wouldn't shoot the messenger. there are no less than four cameras here now. i don't think any of us are paying attention to them. we are talking to you, you are talking to us. that's what happens in a courtroom. that's what my experience has been throughout the cases that i

covered. i think there is a telling statistic. not one of the cases was appealed on the fact that somebody didn't receive a fair trial. because their trial was televised. that speaks volumes. in terms of oh what other information we'll obtain from the new experiment, i look back from 1991 to 1994. the fjc report talks about their confidence. they went through the same empirical data. same anecdotal data. they along with the case management committee, both recommendeded it. at the end of the day, even with a supplemental report supporting the continuation of cameras in the courtroom and electronic coverage of the judicial committee decided to not go forward with it.

i'm not sure how much more data we need to convince people. i know judge robinson put statistics in her written report. i believe there were 17 point addressed. only three of those were over a 50% concern by the people filling out whatever type of questionnaire there was. so i think unfortunately what we see is it could, might, it's possible. i think this is all speculative. but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it just hasn't happened in the experience of the courts throughout the states and even during the experimental time they had. >> all right. thank you, sir. i will take a moment here to enter something into the record. without objection i request permission to submit for the

hearing record materials from c-span, the radio and television news directors association, ms. maureen mahoney of latham & watkins. the materials have been circulated to the members of the subcommittee. hearing no objection, these are in the record. the chair now recognize it is distinguished gentleman from florida, congressman deutsch. >> thank you very much. thank you to the witnesses for being here. i want to follow up on what you were both talking about, the pilot programs, the need for additional investigation into whether this might work over the long term. judge robinson, i ask you to look at some of the cases the most highly publicized cases that were televised. the o.j. trial, william kennedy smith, ted bundy, bush v. gore in florida.

in those days, certainly the three trials. was there evidence of concerns that you raised that would under mine a fair trial, intimidating effective cameras, threats to judges, privacy concerns for nonparties. we have a long history at the state level of cases that have been tried in public and on televisi television. instead of waiting to see what we learned from the pilot, from our history, have your concerns been addressed in any of these cases or to what ek tent did we see concerns about under mining a fair trial really come into play? >> i have to tell you the high profile cases that were televised as you mentioned. i didn't watch any gavel to gavel. my perception and the perception of many were those concerns in

those cases. what is more important is to survey the people involved in a particular case. the lawyers, witnesses, the things that pilots are going to do. their perceptions are more compelling and persuasive than those of somebody watching on tv who doesn't know the facts, doesn't know perhaps what is the witness testified to in a deposition and whether they are shading testimony now in front of the television. >> we may not. viewers may not know it but the parties involved on whose behalf you are speaking, the concerns of the parties involved. certainly we would have -- these are issues that would have come up time and again or would come up as we televise trials all over the country. many high profile. >> i think it's important to survey people. i'm not aware this the state court or those cases you mentioned that those participants were sur vad, that their views were called upon. we think it is important that

views of the participants are part of what we consider. once the trial is over they move on unless someone asked them though concerns may never be raised. we want concerns raised in the context of the survey. that's why we are doing the pilot in a way we are doing it system. >> i know, judge robinson, you're not taking position on the supreme court. that's correct? >> the judicial conference didn't take a position. didn't speak to the supreme court. >> it seems -- and i will ask this question. it seems since judge robinson, the real concern isn't judges playing to the cameras but all the other concerns. at the supreme court where simply appearing before the supreme court is intimidating in itself, these other concerns don't really seem to apply at all a.

what is the argument. she worries about people playing to the cameras. you have been to many supreme court oral arguments. is that a valid concern? >> no. absolutely not. when the red and green lights come on the only thing you care about is persuading nine justices sitting up there as to your position. it does a disservice to the people, the lawyers, the judges. to say people become aware and play to the cameras. i sat in the courtroom during the o.j. simpson trial. the lawyers there were going to do what they were going to do regardless of whether there were cameras or not. as a matter of fact, i use this as a comparison. i believe the public missed a

wonderful opportunity to see the judge overseeing the oklahoma city bombing trial. there were cameras in the courtroom there. most people don't think about it it. they were closed circuit cameras that allowed the broadcast of the proceedings occurring in denver to be seen by the people in a courtroom in oklahoma city. again, had that been allowed to happen, we might have seen what a well conducted trial looked like compared to what i will admit was a circus during the o.j. trial. that had nothing to do with the fact that there were cameras in the courtroom. >> at the supreme court which is a courtroom. our courtrooms are always open to the public. couldn't the argumentle equally be made if the concern really is playing to the cameras that with the current system where there are a handful of supreme court correspondents from the networks, from the major

publications who have -- who are known to the justices, isn't it just as likely if that's really the concern that justices would play to them knowing they are going to be the ones that describe what happens in the courtroom. >> i think from my experience, sometimes the justices get playful and they really don't care what there are cameras there or not cameras there. that's what they are doing there. either trying to ask insightful question s or trying to be clever. it's good if you are arguing a casement if you can come back with a good answer. i know they submitted amicus briefs. i. 'm always in awe and disbelief i am in the highest court in the land where they will decide how the rest of us will live and

there is only a handful of people. i'm fortunate i'm admitted to the bar so i can wait on a shorter line. they cut people off and you have to sit in the overflow room and only listen to it over a speaker and don't get to see people. that's important. also in terms of getting to see peel. when people testify in court and it's only before the people in that courtroom they might testify differently if it was on tv. if their neighbors know something about them get to see it, they don't want to not be truthful. if we are in search of the truth in a courtroom isn't it better to have everybody? people could come in and watch. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. people like you get through the article three vetting process. they tend to be well qualified, good judges. that's not always the case in various state systems. obviously there are state where is they allow cameras at the trial level. you raised the concern about due process and fairness in those cases. given that we have experience with state courts having cameras, what's the basis for that belief? >> congress doesn't have a basis to make an evaluation of what's going on in the state kourts. i would characterize what the state court is doing is experimental that some of them have been having cameras in the courtroom for a long time.

there are many different models. we are concerned obviously about due process in the federal courts. . i don't think they are in a position to evaluate what's going on. >> it gives the presiding judge the ability to decide whether or not to broadcast proceedings. they can differentiate between cases where it is appropriate to broadcast to undue interference. >> the presiding judge knows the case. they know the evidence in the case. they often anticipate what may happen in the trial. at the same time as trial judges, i think we would all benefit from a policy that shaped around the results of the study of our own colleagues across the country. in terms of what happens in

certain cases. why -- i think the consent requirement, for example, will educate and inform us some of the specific concerns. i think our pilot will show the concerns of lawyers and other participant hs in the case. we'll all be informed by that and whatever policy the judicial conference adopts i think will be well informed because of the pilot. we ask that we be allowed to continue the pilot for another year. then to look at the results of that policy. >> is there evidence you can point to that shows the state proceedings where you have cameras have made state officials more accountable and proceedings less prone to error? >> i don't know that i could assess those. v talk a little bit if i could about what went on in the first

experiment in federal court. those cases were covered by the media. this experiment, it's courtroom personnel operating the equipment. behind 1991 and 1993 according to the summary from the fjc, there were 257 cases that the media applied to cover. 82% of those were approved. >> unfortunately under the new guidelines in this one. not only does everybody, all the parties have to consent to coverage. not just the coverage of the trial. it's the coverage of each and every proceeding where they can object and there is no coverage. i don't know if you have had the

opportunity to look at recordings on file. many are done with eitherer split screen or quad screen cameras. it's like somebody watching the surveillance camera. from my experience. for the most part it's not perry mason. it is like watching paint dry. it takes forever for things to happen. when you add to the mix a video that for the most part really could not be broadcast anywhere, where things aren't happening in quadrants and one person is speaking. i just don't think that what we are going to end up is something of value when the pilot is over. that's what concerns me. even after the first experiment. we had the hemedia doing it. all of the recommendations were in favor. we still don't have cameras in the court. that's a big concern for us.

>> my time has expired. i thank the witnesses and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. the chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman who is a ranking member of the committee, congressman conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses. i would like to begin with judge robinson with respect to the privacy expectations of a witness with under hr 917 authorizes a federal judge to order the obscuring of his or her image and voice during the court proceeding. in your mind, does this sufficiently protect the privacy expectation of a witness? >> it is not a sufficient protection in some instances i

believe. we don't want to -- i want to weigh wait for the outcome of the study. i will give you an example i think most trial judges believe is an issue. confidential informants. a witness in criminal cases. this is an issue that we are working on. we have worked on it for ten years. when we made our electronic filings open to the public through the internet, plea agreements of confidential informants are now public documents. confidential informants have been threatened. there is anecdotal evidence of people being injured, praped killed in the bureau of prisons when they were identified as a confidential informant. we are trying to figure out a solution in terms of the public records we push out in written form. if that confidential informant is testifying and their voice and face is obscured, their identity can be ascertained because they are being cross

examined and examined about who they are, what their name is, where they live, et cetera. that's of concern to us. these are people that cooperate. the criminal justice system relies on them yet they are at risk. they are at some risk. with the presence of cameras in the courtroom we think there is a heightened risk. >> thank you so much. attorney ostriker, addressing the same question to you. do you think the obscuring of images and voices are sufficient protection for the privacy of the witness. >> this is an open courtroom. i'm not sure there are privacy ex-pe ex -- expectations. the presiding judge in the case should be the one in the best position with the authority to make that decision.

whether to obscure their face, whether to alter their voice, whether to have them testify behind a screen. in terms of identification, you know, as has been said, all of the records are being made public. they are on the internet. if somebody wants to do someone harm then all they have to do is go get the transcript and they can find out that same information about where they live and what they do and what their habits are. i don't think blaming electronic coverage or identifying that as the culprit here is the solution. >> thank you. let me now ask the judge. would your concerns about hr-917 be modified if it was limited to

ape lat proceedings only? >> most of the concerns are at the trial court level. our only opposition of the bill that pertains to the circuit courts of appeal is by virtue of the way circuit courts govern themselves, they make their own rules a practice and others of case hgt as a kor rat body. that's our only objection. the bill calls for each individual panel of three typically on a case-by-case or argument by argument basis to headache the decision. that's inconsistent with the way they govern themselves. appellate judges don't have the authority to make governance decisions about how oral arguments will be conducted. they do it as a kor rat body. that's what we would like to continue. >> let me ask about the ape lat

proceedings issue. what's your view? >> i don't think the sixth or 14th amendment would be violated by covering an ape lat proceedings, especially in the supreme court. there is no testimony. we are just making ape lat arguments. it's harder to understand the objection when we are looking at the ape lat courts. i want to go back to something for a second. during -- the supreme court found this evolving standard of decency. that was something that justice marshall articulated. most of the courts have pretty much found you can report all you want. what openness and an open

courtroom trial and a public trial means in 2014. i think there is a huge difference, even between the case mentioned earlier in 1965. we are not talking about doing something like that here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the lady from washington, congressman del bene. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to you for being with us today. appreciate it. i agree with my colleagues who testified earlier and believe our oh democracy is stronger when we leverage technology that we have available to increase the public participation in the process. we need citizens to be engaged and informed and part of that means making sure they have access to the government. allowing cameras in the courtroom is a way to help

educate the public about the workings of the judiciary. at the same time, making sure we implement it in a way that's responsible will be important. we need to make sure we don't compromise the safety of victims of violent crimes who may be witnesses before the court as was brought up earlier or violate due process rights of defendants and striking the right balance is key. this bill, i believe, takes a thoughtful approach. i want to commend my colleagues for work on it. it's important to look at steps where we increase transparency in the. system across all three branches of government. this bill is a step in the right direction. the supreme court provides online audio recordings of oral arguments and it's been releasing audio during the same week as arguments only since 2010. before that, audio from one term generally wasn't available until the beginning of the next term. i was wondering what's your view

on oh on the impact of the audio recordings available now publically within the same week of the argument. has there been improvement in public access? >> well, it's certainly 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 and read it and share it seconds after it's been sent, especially in news when you're talking about something -- we'll release it that week in the news business, a week later is really yesterday's news. for the people that really are interested and there are a surprising amount of them that whether they are shut-ins or people just interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary. i think at least having simultaneous broadcast of the

audio might be a good first start. i just have a problem again with the audio. only. not to disparage courtroom artists. they certainly perform a good function. in 2014 to be relegateded to something that's more akin to cave drawings than high definition television just seems to be wrong to me. >> judge, do you have a view of the difference between audio and video? you talked earlier. >> i can only speak in terms of what's going on in the circuit courts of appeal and trial courts. circuit courts are posting audio recordings, digital audio recordings of arguments in short measure. there are trial courts, district and bankruptcy courts doing the same. they are recording their proceedings by audio rather than by court reporter. a number of them are posting whatever the proceeding might be, they are posting them to the

internet. obviously it improves public access. we recognize and revere the right of the public to open courtrooms. the federal courts evolved over the last 20 years in the right direction in terms of becoming more transparent. unlike state courts who look to us with reference. because of what we have done with the electronic case filings and all the information is now available on the internet. we are focused of course on proceedings themselves on the small percentage of civil case that is go to trial and the small percentage of criminal case that is go to trial. in those case that is don't, the public right now in the federal system has access to viral khally every pleading filed. every judicial decision and there is a lot of public education that happens in the context of what we are already providing in the public squeer. >> we know access to get into

the court and the supreme court is a good example. very few members of the public can get in. in fact, people pay to stand in line for them. right now. they are paid up to $50 an hour to secure spots in a long line for people to get in. that makes it difficult for people to have the opportunity to have access to live arguments in the courtroom or in the supreme court in particular. that doesn't seem like that's great public access either. as mr. ostriker pointed out, in many cases you might be sitting in a room watching on video anyway. it seems we could do a better job there of improving access as well. do you agree with that? >> this morning they were hearing arguments in a case about the pregnancy discrimination act.

i can only imagine how many people would have been very interested in hearing arguments this morning while we have been sitting and talking here. hearing them, watching them, seeing how the proponents argued their case. seeing how the justices reacted to those arguments. i think that's all a very important part of the process and people much better understanding how the judicial system works. i would almost go so far as to make a comparison. we talked about things in ferguson. it's been a big discussion. i was there dealing with issues of rf photographers being arrested and interfered with. my point here is that even though grand jury proceedings are secret and they should be, i think as an analogy, if those grand jury proceedings had been open and people had been able to

see and understand what went on in that proceeding we might not have had the same reaction as we had after the grand jury handed up a nobel. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, congressman jeffreys. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses for their presence here today. we have three branches of government, all important to the democracy. we also have a fourth estate and sometimes the media has been referred to. i think it also plays an important role in our democracy in projecting that out and making sure people are informed about the things that are

occurring. certainly with the executive branch and with the legislative branch, hopefully increasingly as it relates to the judicial branch. judge, i just wanted to ask. do you think that the role that the media plays in the context of helping to bring the democracy to life is a point worthy of consideration as we determine the best way to proceed? >> absolutely. i'm a j school graduate. that's an easy answer for me to give. also it's important to note our pilot, this pilot provides for videoer recording pushed out on the u.s. courts.gov website, available to everyone. not just recordings that the media decided to record that they think are interesting enough for people to their subscribers or the public to listen to. we have evolved as a nation. we have evolved as an institution. 20 years ago when we did the

first pilot it was based on media recordings. we made a deliberate decision this time to not have recordings based on what the media wanted to record but to make all recordings that meet the requirements of the pilot pushed out to the public. we found that the media now is much broader in terms of the publicer recorders in the sense of people that tweet and people that report and people that create youtube videos. they are used by professional journalists to reporten on the news. >> we have three branches of government. they are separate and coequal. the judicial conference take a position on whether it is appropriate for congress, a different branch to be making determinations about the best way for a separate and coequal branch to proceed as it relates

to cameras in the courtroom. in other words, is there a separation of powers concerned that should be considered in the context of this debate. >> with respect to the trial courts. we want you to let us form it on the basis of our experience as further informed by the study itself. >> case management, while it is clear congress promulgates rules that govern what goes on in federal litigation, at the same time we also need to be in control of our oh case management practices and how we can best go about control aring what happens in the courtroom to ensure that the parties receive a fair trial. it's not so much a separation of powers argument but an argument that you give credence to the

fact that we are studying this. we are experts if you will in what happens in the courtroom and we want to make sure whatever formula is shaped and informed by our experience and information. >> can a distinction be drawn between criminal and civil proceedings so a greater degree of access is allowed on the civil side because some of the concern that is may be implicated that we need to think through in then context of a criminal trial, 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 effect on witnesses and on the substance of the witness's testimony in civil proceedings. we have under cover officers,

agents who testify in criminal cases. we are concerned about their security and safety. >> is it legitimate for the parties participating in the actual trials to have an opportunity to object based on their determination that the presence of cameras in ale courtroom will complicate the ability for them to receive a fair trial or should we completely dismiss the concerns and simply just allow a judge to be the arbiter? >> once again, think trial court judge could make the decision. the problems that i see are if everybody objects, we are 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 was many times when the media made an application to cover it, you

could certainly expect out of hand that there would be an objection. we would make the arguments to the judge and the judge would decide with the with presumption of coverage whether or not that objection would over come the presumption. i think that might be a good way to start. i also wanted to go back to another point in materials of the media deciding which cases to cover. that's true. what's also true at least in my understanding of this pilot program is none of the video recorded in these cases gets posted to the website until the judge in the case has reviewed the video. so in a way, if there is something there that might be problematic, that's something that, you know, he or she could do as well. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from rhode island, congressman sisilini is. >> thank you. the bill before us today, the sunshine in the courtroom act promises to provide greater access to the public to the inner workings of the justice system. as my colleague noted trials have been open to the public and the enactment of this legislation would expand upon the promise of transparenciment it's hard to understand the argument that the quality of the system of justice or fairness of the courts is impaired or improved by limiting public access. judge robinson, if you look at the history of the right to a public trial of course grounded in the anglo sack sb son history. and it would be a check against prosecution, corrupt judges or per injury use witnesses.

the idea that a public trial would with aid the fact finding mission and encourage citizens to come forward and speak truthfully whether providing inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. your argument that the threat to media exposure in the courtroom is to the search for the truth seems to turn the sixth amendment, right to trial, on its head. it was to be a check, provide assurances. it would be exposed broadly to the public. what does the judicial conference believe that public, their expansion of the public trial will under mind rather than advance it more. >> that's a critical question we are studying. the right to a public trial is sacrosanct. the right to a fair trial is. we are balancing those two.

to the extent we have to worry and we don't know how much. we have all experienced this. to the exes te etent we worry as hedges or shaves the truth, if not forthcoming with information that they would otherwise be forthcoming with when testifying in front of a courtroom with, say, 20 people. because they know there may be millions of people watching that, including people that are of particular importance to them like their boss, pastor or next door neighbor who otherwise probably would withn't go online and get the transcript of the trial and go through that effort. we have to worry. i gave examples earlier in a civil case. i had a case that i thought the parties might agree to record. they did not. i wasn't surprised. it was a case about trade secrets. they come into a public courtroom. they are looking around, seeing who's there. hoping none of the competitors are there. if they are, they have a right to be. but they will be more concerned

if their competitors are out watching on the internet, something they won't know. this comes up in a variety of contexts in terms of witnesses will be concerned about hedging or shading testimony when they are being cross examined about loss of consortium, emotional distress or in a criminal case if they are a confidential informant. >> but as a general rule do you agree that it is more likely people will testify truthfully when it is broadly exposed because if you don't accept that then the notion underlying the right to public trial doesn't make sense. the idea is if you were going to mange an assertion and the world would hear it and it is not true someone might be able to prove it's not true. if it is truthful you are less concerned that the world hears it. i think the argument of the judicial conference under mines a basic notion of a public trial being an effective tool.

i was a civil rights and criminal defense lawyer in state and federal practice. i think that public trial, the noeg of being subjected to cross-examination, being done broadly, not in a secret way that limits public access enhances it. you said in your testimony that the presence of cameras in the trial court is likely to heighten the level and potential of threats to judges. what's the basis for the conclusion. have you seen evidence in the state court practice that the presence of cameras in the courtroom has increased the level or potential for threats to judges. >> the study is focused on federal practice in federal district courts. we haven't studied what happened in state courts. judges have had threats. we have all had threats. some more serious than others. >> but the presence of the cameras as a source of that.

>> if your face is broadcast that's a concern if it is a case where you have received threats. that's a concern. there are a number of concerns. that's one of them. it won't happen in every case. it probably won't happen except in a small number of cases. it is a concern. >> you liked like you were about to say something. >> i can certainly understand it being a concern. is it any more of a concern than -- judge robinson, i have never met you. i went on the internet, googled you, found a picture. i said, oh, i know who to look for. it is not that difficult. you don't need a proceeding of somebody testifying and having their face on television to find out what they look like. >> my time is expired. i yield back. thank you. >> the chair recognizes congressman and former judge. >> i thank you for being here. a couple of points to begin

with. then we'llinput. i served on the criminal court district bench in texas for 22 years. tried felonies, everything from stealing to capital murder. i spent years as the trial prosecutor at the d.a.'s office in houston. when i took the bench a long time ago the idea of cameras in the courtroom was just nonexistent. i actually allowed cameras in the courtroom. very early on in my judicial career. it was based upon the philosophy, the belief, the frustration -- and i'm going to agree with mr. sicilini from rhode island. i don't know if that shocks him that i agree. the public -- the mystery of the courthouse still exists with the public. they pick up the newspaper in

the morning and they read that this happened in a courtroom somewhere. many times they are frustrated. why in the world did that happen in the courtroom. it's because all they get is a little blip in the paper about the trial. if they don't have access to the public trial. public trial, i agree. it's public so the public knows what is taking place. the more the public knows the better they understand why the outcome turned out better than it did. i allowed cameras in the courtroom. we protected victims of crime. they weren't televised. the media always worked with that. children weren't televised. special cases. the jury wasn't televised. we kept it focused on the importance of the trial. we never had a problem. we heard the arguments about the

lawyers who with would play to the cameras. they play to the jury. like they have always done throughout centuries. they played to the trier of fact whether it is the court or jury. maybe they would be doing things they are doing. so i have had experience with cameras. it worked out. we did a capital murder case of a juvenile. both sides agreed to the trial. i'm a big supporter of the public knowing about the greatest judicial system in the world. it's the american judicial system. it's not somebody else's. it's ours. blocking and preventing that access when they have the right to sit there and watch it. we have a camera. you're not allowed to do that,

that doesn't make sense to me. so i do believe we ought to allow that in federal court as well. go to the supreme court and you get a 15-minute snippet if you're a guest on what's taking place in an important trial. the public is allowed to rush him out to bring in more people who are wanting to see. reading the transcript isn't the same as watch withing the trial. 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's taking place. do you have an opinion on that. either one of you?

>> certainly i think the more informed the public can be the fact that when i first started doing this, as you said, i might be at the courtroom all day that day has long since passed. now with the internet, if you work at a television station they can live stream the trial all day long. it doesn't take away from the broadcast abilities. if somebody wants to watch gavel to gavel they can watch if they allow the cameras in. certainly the more informed you can be. i would much rather watch a courtroom proceeding without any of the commentary. i would just like to see as if i were sitting there what's being said, asked, the evidence being introduced. there are a lot of people with the same interest. if i can watch for myself, i

believe it happened during the civil trial of o.j. simpson. you can turn it on and watch it. it was on every day. court tv did gavel to gavel coverage. you can form your own opinions, learn things and that's the benefit of allowing cameras in. too often coverage is confused with pundits and spin. all the other stuff that was news and now is info at the same time. >> i had a question for the judge. >> the f the judge wants 30 seconds fire away. >> i was going to ask your personal opinion, do you think if the public had more visibility of what we did in the courtroom, whether it is the

trial bench, supreme court. do you think maybe they would understand the system more or not with cameras. >> that's my hope. maybe i should call you judge poe. i think all judges want the public to be better informed about our branch of government and recognize that the public isn't as well informed as they used to with, perhaps when we were in school years ago. we embrace the fact that public access to the courts is important. they are public proceedings. we understand cameras may augment that. we are balancing other interests at the same time. i appreciate you had seasoned experience as a trial judge in texas. there are a number of judges in the pilot itself that came from state court experience. we will be surveying everybody including judges. some of us didn't have that experience before being on the

federal bunch. it will be interesting to hear from judges with prior state court experience as well. that will inform how we formulate policy forward. there are concerns. i think there are legitimate concerns. we are balancing the right to the public right to access. we ask that you allow us to formulate our policy and procedures and guidance going forward. >> thank you very much for the additional time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from texas. congresswoman lee. >> i thank the ranking member for his leadership and the questions of my colleagues who have expressed vigorously our collective commitment to justice and fairness and the importance of the judiciary. i was offered to say the issues have been raised here

legitimately, judge robinson, that give merit to concerns and comments you made along with those of mr. ostriker who those likewise raised open transparency. i hope that as we deliberate as a judiciary committee and take all of these issues into consideration. i want to ask about the pilot. give me the ending time of the pilot. >> we have a collection of data that included cameras in the courtroom of varying levels of the state and county and federal or -- >> the pilot is focused only on federal trial courts. the district courts.

the participants are federal district judges. in july 2o 15, the recordings will stop and the federal judicial center will compile the data including the many surveys of practitioners and others in the process. we hope that the court administration and committees in 2015, that report will be ready for the consideration of the committee. i chaired that committee until september 30 go ahead of this year. >> there were 14 courts participating in the pilot.

that's all i need. 14. >> the video is posted to the u.s. courts.gov. >> it is able to be viewed. >> they are posted quickly. the goal is that day or the following morning. he talked about the fact that judges review the videos before they are posted. that's not the practice. the judges may review if there is a problem, but if there is not, the video is posted. you know there is a problem and you are there and you can determine that there is a problem and they need to go back. i just need a yes or no. we are getting your name correctly, we should say mr. mickey. we thank you for your tolerance, not intolerance. your tolerance. in the bill, i note that there

is an effort to protect balances and for judges to ask about witnesses who are blurring their particular faces. let me ask you this and i heard expression by my colleagues. being a lawyer and the champion of the first amendment which is what the tensions are here, that wonderful first amendment and the recognition of the importance of speech which in the room that gives every party an opportunity to be heart. for witnesses to be heart as well. what comes to mind is the unfortunate case of mr. zimmerman and trayvon martin and the demonizing of a late because she happened to be different. what is your response to witness

who is may look or speak differently and people are across the country and even though this is unfettered video, and that beautiful young african-american woman became not of her own fault. she was doing her civic duty and the horror of demonizing her was inexcusable. how do you answer to the potential of those things happening? >> i certainly believe that that was very unfortunate. i have always been a proponent of the fact that cameras and coverage should be up to the discretion of the trial court judge. i don't think there should be a ban. i don't think there should be a per se we are coming in whether you like it or not.

a judge needs to conduct his or her courtroom in the way he or she sees fit. make sure that justice is fairly served. that's all i'm sighing. it's unfortunate that people are often targeted whether now on social media. it's not just what leads to this mentality that is out there. >> i thank the chairman and i want to make one sentence. i appreciate the testimony of both witnesses. i believe it has been helpful. this is an important initiative and it has protective measures to it. judge, you indicated some protective measures through the pilot. i hope we could see the report and mr. chairman, i hope that we will have the opportunity to vigorously look at this and the

legislation to make the decision. i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman. i think it's my turn and i am staying as neutral as possible. i was a prosecutor at the state and the federal level as a u.s. attorney and tried my own cases. i know what goes on in the federal courtroom. i will play a little bit of a devil's advocate with the two of you and get your reactions. do we agree and i tried these cases in federal court, when a minor is involved in a case that there is no -- nothing divulging who the minor is as far as a is concerned? is there an agreement there? >> we agree and that's consistent with the trial transcript and minors are identified by initials and not by name. >> i think that's true and for the most part in cases where if

that was what was indicated, the media will follow along. >> i am concerned about the victim. concerning sex trafficking of minors. >> i think in much the same way as the media does not report the game of a victim. it would follow that you wouldn't show their identity. >> do either of you have a distinction whether the proceedings concern testimony, evidence, or appellate oral argument? do you draw a distinction between the two whether or the other should not be televised? >> again, the circuit courts of appeal can make the decision as corporate bodies decide whether to allow for cameras in the courtroom. there different concerns, but many more at the trial court

level as i articulated today. >> this is probably rhetorical, but there is no money allocated for this. who is going to pay for it? taxpayers? >> well, i would argue if the media were allowed to cover these cases, it would be their cost, not the court's. >> who is going to be for lack of a better term and don't mean to be facetious, who will be the director? does my local news guy come in and take control and film or does the judge have the responsibility of being the director and calling the shots? >> the concern that the conference has and the reason we structured it the way we had, we want to be in control to make sure that jurors or witnesses were not recorded. if you are talking about a live broadcast, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's out. you can't fix that. it takes resources and labor and someone monitoring the

development. >> i think there is a way to make sure that the jury is not recorded in the o.j. trial, for example, the camera was mounted on the wall above the jurors's heads. there was no way to look down. there was no inadvertent. as a photojournalist, if i was told by the judge, this person doesn't get recorded. that's what that means. >> am i assuming that neither one of you -- i know you are not, but are you saying that you do not want to have an individual come in with his or her own family and photograph this? >> there needs to be rules and decor um. i can't imagine in those trials of the century during the

lindbergh baby where huh photographs running around with those. that's not what we are talking about. in the day and age where everybody has a phone and a camera, i'm not suggesting that everybody sit there and roert it on their. >> i do not hear you saying that you agree with what i'm perporting that the court cameras are the only cameras in the courtroom and the judge controls them. do you not agree? >> i have a problem with that. >> okay. what do we do about -- my time is running out, but what do we do about the situation that once the digital recordings are released. what is going to happen when the public gets ahold of it and the comedians get ahold of it. what's going to happen when someone ho who has the ability