Let's hear it for Allen Superior Court Judge Nancy Boyer. She is one of the eight judges who have agreed to be a part of an 18-month Indiana Supreme Court pilot program to allow trials to be covered with one still camera, one video camera and up to three microphones. Indiana is a little behind the curve on this one; lots of trials in other states have already been opened up to the public by technology.
There is a legitimate argument about how much such accessibility will change the nature of trials -- lawyers and witnesses playing to the camera and so on -- and the, um, jury is still out on that question. But trials are supposed to be be public; this is one of those areas where we have to make our best guess about what the framers would have done if such technology had been available back then. It is a legitimate point, I think, that increasing public awareness of the criminal-justice system helps balance whatever negative effects there might be. I haven't seen any studies, or even any strong suggestion, indicating that such openness has worked to the detriment of defendants, the accommodation of whom is a major endeavor of our system.
This is an even more important issue than it once was. With only one TV camera allowed, it has been suggested that there will be some sort of pool arrangement, with all who can broadcast it being able to share whatever becomes available. That's not just a handful of TV stations now, is it? Video can be made available by the Internet, which means not only live coverage viewable by more people (everybody at work instead of home in front of the TV, for example), but archiving in a way that enables accessibility by anyone on demand.
