|
PINELLAS COUNTY---Sixth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Robert Beach needs to read Thursday's decision of the Florida Supreme Court regarding courtroom camera coverage.
The Supreme Court has rejected proposed rules that would limit camera coverage of courtroom proceedings by the news media, presumably to protect privacy rights and confidential material.
First Amendment Foundation lawyer Jonathan Kaney had argued that "there's no privacy in a public courtroom". The high court agreed.
Media companies comprising 12 Florida newspapers and TV stations as well as the First Amendment Foundation had opposed the proposal.
The court also unanimously vetoed a rule change that would have allowed judges to prohibit television and still photographers showing the faces of jurors and prospective jurors without holding hearings. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc05-173.pdf
Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Claudia Rickert Isom of Plant City, chairperson of the Florida Bar's committee on the proposal, had argued for the changes which media attorneys said would effectively close the courtrooms to public review.
The bar committee also unsuccessfully tried to limit the use of court security cameras with media attorneys arguing that the security cameras help to prove wrongdoing in the court.
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 presence of cameras in the courtroom is currently subject to the judge's discretion to control courtroom decorum and to make sure the proceedings are fair. It is rare that cameras are banned from courtroom proceedings.
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, the rules say.
However, in the proceedings involving contempt proceedings against Tampa attorney Mark A. Adams, Circuit Court Judge Beach has steadfastly refused to allow videotaping even though the proper requests have been submitted in advance.
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.
In his continued denial to allow videotaping of the proceedings in the Adams case, it appears that Beach may be abusing his discretion by refusing to allow any televised coverage of the proceedings.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/102505CourtAccountability.html
© 2005 North
Country Gazette
|
