High court considers new courtroom camera limits

A Bar committee says trial participants' privacy should get new protection. Newspapers and TV stations disagree.

TALLAHASSEE - The right of newspapers and TV stations to use cameras in a courtroom would be pitted against the privacy interests of people in court under a rule change the Florida Supreme Court began considering Thursday.

Another proposed change to the current cameras-in-the-courtroom rule would give judges more leeway to forbid photographers and television camera operators from showing the faces of jurors.

Florida was one of the first states to allow cameras in courtrooms. After a one-year trial, the state's high court ruled in 1979 that allowing them did not deprive a person of a fair trial.

Under the current rule, camera coverage is subject to the judge's power to control decorum and to make sure proceedings are fair. The proposed changes argued Thursday add a consideration: protecting privacy rights and preventing the release of confidential material.

The changes were recommended by a Florida Bar committee that evaluates rules for administrative matters for Florida courts.

Thirteen TV stations and newspapers around the state are opposing the proposals. The First Amendment Foundation also has raised concerns.

"In today's society, public understanding of trials is achieved through the media," the newspapers and TV stations argued in written comments. "It is simply impractical for citizens to observe personally what transpires in open court."

The current rule is working, their attorneys said in oral arguments Thursday. Concerns about privacy were raised, evaluated and dismissed years ago, they said.

"There is no privacy in a public courtroom," argued Jonathan Kaney, representing the First Amendment Foundation.

Media attorneys say the new language would make exclusion of cameras the norm rather than the exception, and move Florida backward.

"We're concerned about additional closures and that trial judges will react to this as somewhat of a mandate," Carol Lean LoCicero, a Tampa attorney for the TV stations and newspapers, told the justices.

Under the current rule, trial judges can put restrictions on cameras on a case-by-case basis. But first there has to be a substantial effect on someone in the trial, and it has to be different from the effect caused by reporters' simple presence.

The rule doesn't give any special treatment to jurors. But under the proposed change, judges would have authority to prohibit photographing jurors' faces, and could do so without a hearing.

In written comments, the newspapers and TV stations also argued against that. "The work of every trial participant should be open to the public," they argued. "Jurors, whose decisions literally involve matters of life and death, should be held to at least the same standard as other trial participants."

Justice R. Fred Lewis told LoCicero there are some who see a crisis in people's unwillingness to serve on juries. LoCicerosaid that those concerns were raised years ago and dismissed.

Circuit Judge Claudia Rickert Isom of Tampa, chairwoman of the Bar committee that recommended the changes, told the justices she brought a perspective "from the front lines of our judicial system" gained over 14 years on the bench.

"I've never had a cameraman insist on filming a jury or my prospective jurors," she said.

"What's the reason for the rule if there's no problem?" Chief Justice Barbara Pariente asked.

"Evidently, not everybody's a gentleman," Isom answered.

[Last modified June 10, 2005, 01:10:11]