Our Ratings Wars: Court Puts Advisory Committee to Work on Courtroom Camera Pilot Project

Today, a divided Minnesota Supreme Court directed the Advisory Committee on the General Rules of Practice to “recommend draft rules establishing a pilot project on cameras in the court that includes … effective mechanisms for measuring the impact of: cameras on the proceedings and on the participants before, during and after the proceedings, and the financial impact of both the pilot project and study, and the ongoing administration of cameras in the courtroom ….”

Associate Justice Alan Page dissented from the Court’s charge to the Advisory Committee, arguing that the “right to due process and a fair trial before an impartial tribunal militate against expanding the use of cameras in our trial courts.” “An issue raised but not fully considered by the advisory committee,” continued Justice Page, “was the impact that the expanded use of cameras in our trial courts would have on people of color who use our judicial system.... [T]he expanded use of cameras will do nothing to assist in the elimination of racial bias from our judicial system and will, in fact, exacerbate the problem."

In my own view, the public would learn more, the overall level of practice would be improved, and Justice Page's critique would be met (for a time, anyway), if the Court made dissemination of audio or video recordings of Court of Appeals arguments a higher priority than electronic access to District Court proceedings. And while there is a genuine concern as to whether there is an actual demand for these materials (other than by me, of course); that issue, it seems, is apart from whether us viewers would be better off. I think that we would be. As successful as the Supreme Court’s collaboration with Twin Cities Public Television has been (see here), extending webcam coverage to other courtrooms in the Judicial Center would be a real advance. We'd learn a lot.

Yet, because Boston Legal has a far broader audience than America and the Courts, the Court was obliged to tackle the thorny issue it was presented. The Justices' analyses, and the accompanying Order, are accessible here.