|
CLEARWATER, FL--Cameras have been a fixture in Florida courtrooms for over 20 years.
The decision of the Florida Supreme Court to permit cameras in the courtroom allowed millions of Americans to weigh the evidence in the recount debate of the 2000 Presidential election and to reach their own conclusions.
The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration allow cameras in the courtroom, both video cameras and still cameras. They are inconspicuous, most people aren't even aware they are present.
The court system has managed to accommodate both the rights of litigants and the rights of the public to see how the process works-----to hold the judicial system accountable.
So just why is it that retired Sixth Judicial Circuit Court judge Robert Beach is steadfastly refusing to allow the videotaping of contempt proceedings against Tampa attorney Mark A. Adams?
Are they trying to hide from accountability?
Adams has been charged with criminal contempt on the complaint on Beach's fellow Sixth Circuit Court judge Crockett Farnell and the politically connected law firm of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus and Wein of St. Petersburg, founded by Anthony S. Battaglia, former chief assistant U.S. Attorney and member of the Republican National Committee of Florida.
Is Beach's denial of a request to videotape the proceedings because he doesn't want any accurate record of the proceedings, so that any challenge to the proceedings would have be based solely on whatever transcript is proffered?
Florida court rules and standards of conduct and technology governing electronic media and still photography coverage of judicial proceedings provide that electronic and still photographic coverage is allowed, albeit subject at all times to the authority of the presiding judge to control the conduct of proceedings before the court, the ensure decorum and prevent distractions and ensure the fair administration of justice in the pending cause following standards and technology promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court.
So if the Supreme Court has no problem with a journalist from the Tampa Bay Center of Independent Journalists who is also associated with the local public broadcasting television station inobtrusively videotaping courtroom proceedings with a video camera, then why is Judge Beach refusing to allow the proceedings of Mark Adams to be memorialized on film?
Court rules provide that at least one portable television camera, operated by not more than one camera person, shall be permitted in any trial or appellate court proceeding. The number of permitted cameras shall be within the sound discretion and authority of the presiding judge.
Is Beach's outright denial of cameras for the contempt proceeding sound or is it a total abuse of discretion with the intent to protect his fellow judge and officers of the court?
In the case of Mark Adams, it appears that Beach may be abusing his discretion by refusing to allow ANY televised coverage of the proceedings, claiming that he never heard of public access television and that he doesn't accept the media outlets the journalist represents. Apparently Judge Beach wants only the network from the good ole boy club on board in his courtroom so if a journalist doesn't have a press pass from a mainstream media outlet, Beach isn't going to allow the public to see firsthand how the system gets even with an attorney who blows the whistle of judicial corruption and other alleged wrongdoing in the justice system.
A citizen journalist who is a member of the Tampa Bay Independent Media Center and of the Tampa Bay Community Network, the local PBS station, had filed a request to videotape last week's hearing in the Adams case. Despite court rules allowing such, Beach had previously refused the journalist's request to videotape a hearing in this action. Beach had allowed her to videotape an earlier hearing, but then threatened to hold her in contempt of court if she provided copy to anyone before giving him one.
Beach seemed to go to great lengths last week to insure that the proceedings in the Adams contempt case would not be memorialized on videotape.
Judge Beach had refused to allow the hearing on Oct. 19 to be
videotaped, claiming that court rules only allow members of the media to videotape hearings.
Adams says it does not have any such requirement and although Rule 2.170(h) makes it clear that the rule's reference to media is to the definition of media which is the physical material upon which the hearing is recorded such as film or
videotape and not to the definition of media which is the press.
Adams also pointed out the definition of media contemplated in the rule and also that the journalist is a member of two media organizations, the Tampa Bay
Independent Media Center http://www.tampaindymedia.org/bin/site/templates/splash.asp
and of the Tampa Bay Community Network http://www.speakuptampabay.org/main.asp?ID=28
Judge Beach questioned the journalist about her use of the video if he allowed her to record the hearing. She indicated that she planned to make it available to the local television stations, to other journalists who produced shows for public access television, and that she planned to produce a documentary of this case to air on the Tampa Bay Community Network. Judge Beach commented that until she had mentioned these organizations, he had never heard of the Tampa Bay Independent Media Center or the Tampa Bay Community Network, and he said that he had never heard of public access television.
Judge Beach then asked whether she received any paychecks from the Tampa
Bay Independent Media Center or the Tampa Bay Community Network. She replied
that these were volunteer organizations, and as such, she did not receive any paycheck from them. Beach said that he did not think that the Tampa Bay Independent Media Center or the Tampa Bay Community Network are legitimate media organizations and that he would not allow her to videotape the hearing because she was not a member of a "legitimate media organization" as required under his interpretation of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.170.
Adams says that no appellate case has ever discussed the interpretation which Judge Beach is giving to the word media. However, Florida's appellate courts have repeatedly required judges to allow hearings to be videotaped. In fact, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1982), the Florida Supreme Court cited its decision from 1979 allowing a camera in court, and it stated that public access to the courts is an important part of the justice system because it serves as a check on corrupt practices by exposing the judicial process to public scrutiny and it protects the rights of the accused to a fair trial.
Why would Judge Beach want to keep the public from knowing what is going
on in this case? Is he trying to help cover something up? Is it too
embarrassing to some of the people in power, such as Judge Crockett
Farnell?
Adams says that the hearing on Oct. 19 would have been very embarrassing to Judge Farnell if a videotape of it was available in that Adams provided proof to the court that Farnell andTimothy W. Weber of the Battaglia firm had allegedly violated the Second District Court's order staying proceedings before Judge Farnell when Weber set a hearing on Jan, 7, 2004 and when Farnell issued an order for Adams' arrest for contempt on Jan. 12, 2004, on Weber's complaint.
The consistent refusal of Beach to allow any videotaped coverage of the proceedings in the Adams case seems to indicate that the court, in particular Farnell and Beach, are worried about the case being brought to the public's attention. Adams says that although he had made numerous motions for the recusal of Farnell in the case for bias, prejudice and conflicts of interest, Farnell refused to disqualify himself until December, 2004 when he learned that Bay News 9 requested to television Adams' trial.
On Oct. 4, Adams deposed Judge Farnell who repeatedly refused to answer questions. Prior to his deposition, Farnell had sought a protective order from Judge Greg Holder to prevent Adams from deposing him, claiming judicial privilege but Judge Holder denied Judge Farnell's request and ordered him to submit
to a deposition and to answer questions according to the law. Judge Farnell also sought to prevent Adams from videotaping his deposition, but Judge
Holder allowed Adams to videotape it but required him to limit access to the
videotape for now.
Florida has been one of the leaders in allowing cameras in the courtroom but is currently considering changing the rules, because a Florida Bar committee of judges apparently doesn't like being held accountable to the public.
The proposed changes would give judges discretion to prohibit photographing jurors' faces and allow court security cameras to be used for security purposes only and not, for example, to broadcast proceedings on the World Wide Web.
Media attorneys filing on behalf of media outlets across the state argue that the changes go against case law and Florida's tradition of open courtrooms. The court held oral arguments on the matter June 9 but no date has been set for a final ruling on the matter.
The Founders of the Republic and authors of the U.S. Constitution recognized the importance of access to the courtrooms and public understanding of and involvement in the judicial process which is why they included the guarantees of a public trial in the Bill of Rights, the Sixth Amendment.
In the changing world of technology, advocates for judicial accountability argue that with television and the Web dominating our lives today, the most effective means of providing access to the courts is by permitting cameras in the courtrooms----especially in the Adams case.
10-25-05
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
