Courtroom Weekly: Cameras in the court

September 12, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

Cameras, videos, texting and a judge under pressure

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from Illinois News from Ohio News from New Mexico News from New Jersey

Featured case Montana Supreme Court blocks Judge Baugh's attempt to change his mind in Rambold rape case   Court: Montana Supreme Court By Matt Latourelle The Montana Supreme Court issued a last-minute ruling on September 6, 2013, that stopped 13th District Judge G. Todd Baugh from holding a second hearing to change his sentence for Stacey Dean Rambold. Rambold, as Courtroom Weekly covered a couple weeks ago, was a former teacher who was convicted of raping student Cherice Moralez, who later killed herself. Rambold was sentenced to spend 30 days in jail. Judge Baugh came under fire by people across the nation who thought the sentence was too light. He was also criticized for commenting that Moralez was "as much in control of the situation" as Rambold--a statement for which he later apologized. Groups like the Montana National Organization for Women have been seeking Baugh's removal. During a protest against the judge in Billings, Marian Bradley, the president of the organization, stated, "We need to remove the judge from office, we need justice, and we need to move forward." The judge initially defended his sentence by pointing to the legal complications that arose due to Moralez's death. However, on September 3, he stated that he had misread a state law which would have required a harsher sentence. He scheduled a rehearing for September 6. The Attorney General filed an emergency petition asking the high court to stop the second hearing. Less than an hour before the hearing was to begin, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Baugh could not change his decision. The court's ruling explained: “ We conclude that the stated intent of the District Court to alter the initially imposed oral sentence in today’s scheduled hearing is unlawful...We take no position on the legality of the imposed sentence and will address the parties’ arguments in that regard on appeal. ” The only course of action to change the sentence now is an appeal, which the state has already filed. Judge Baugh lamented that the "issue could have been avoided all together if I'd been more alert or if the state had pointed out to the court the correct mandatory minimum."

News from Illinois Illinois Supreme Court to allow cameras in trial courtrooms   Court: Illinois Supreme Court By Alma Cook Thanks to a recent decision from the Illinois Supreme Court, the Land of Lincoln will soon be joining the likes of Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin and many more states that allow cameras in trial courtrooms. The ruling, which comes after more than a year of experimentation through pilot programs, allows courthouses to change their "no camera" policies at each judge's discretion, even on a case-by-case basis. Though reporters in neighboring states have been allowed to tote cameras during hearings, those of Illinois have been forced to stick to simpler tools when covering trials. Cook County's Chief Judge Timothy Evans voiced support for the change last year when his county, the most populous in the state, was denied permission to participate in the pilot program: “ States all around us already have it. Why in the world would we say, ‘Yeah, it’s great in Missouri, and it’s great in Michigan, it’s great in Wisconsin, it’s great in other states around us, but it can’t possibly occur in Illinois.’ It doesn’t make any sense. ” Many agree with Evans, who believes that citizens have a right to see the daily goings-on of their court system. Judge Mark Clarke of the First Judicial Circuit doesn't expect the presence of cameras to interfere with courtroom activities and instead considers the move toward transparency a good thing. When he first caught wind of the pilot program last year, he applauded the efforts, commenting that "[s]ome folks out there get how the judicial system works from Judge Judy, so to the extent they get a more accurate picture, I think that helps us all." In order for the new law to be enacted, appointed committees for each circuit must perform walk-throughs in each courthouse. These committees will plan the logistics as they pertain to each space, outlining where photographers will stand, how the audio will be captured, and how the video feed will work. An official decision regarding specific guidelines for the change is anticipated within the next few weeks.

News from Ohio YouTube confessor turns himself in, charged with aggravated vehicular homicide   Court: Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio By Jong Son Days after posting his now infamous YouTube confession, an Ohio man has been charged with aggravated vehicular homicide and a lesser charge of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Matthew Cordle, a Powell, Ohio resident, used the social media site “Because I Said I Would” to film and post his dramatized admission of guilt. The three-and-a-half minute video uses reflective music and features Cordle describing how he attempted to drive home after a night of heavy drinking and struck a vehicle while driving the wrong way on Interstate 670. The crash killed 61-year-old Vincent Canzani. Cordle claims to “accept all responsibility” for the accident, pledges to plead guilty to the charges, and apologizes to the victim’s family. Cordle ended the video by pleading with viewers not to drink and drive. Cordle could face between two and eight years in jail. On September 10th, Cordle appeared in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas before Judge Julie M. Lynch to plead guilty to the charges against him and be sentenced. However, Lynch postponed the hearing for one day after Cordle’s lawyers, in her words, “appeared to change their minds about having the case in front of [her]” when she refused to commit to a specific sentence. After ending the hearing, Lynch spoke to reporters in the court room about the abrupt change in schedule. “Now we’re talking a little different scenario than when people came in and said he wants to take responsibility, he wants to plead guilty, he wants to do this,” she said. Cordle’s defense attorney, George Breitmayer, denied they had attempted to find a different judge to sentence Cordle. “Judge shopping,” as it’s called, is not allowed by court rules. Breitmayer stated that Cordle would enter a “not guilty” plea initially, which would lead to having a judge chosen at random. Cordle would then plead guilty and be sentenced by that judge. Breitmayer claimed that this would help his client’s message “stand strong” and avoid “any appearance of favoritism.” Since its posting on September 3rd, Cordle’s confession video has been viewed more than 1.7 million times on YouTube.

News from New Mexico Business owners can't express their views by discriminating against customers   Court: New Mexico Supreme Court By Susan Lawrence The New Mexico State Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling which found a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) in 2006 by refusing to provide photography services for a commitment/wedding ceremony between two women. Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography by e-mail to find out if the studio would photograph her commitment ceremony to another woman. Elaine Huguenin, a co-owner of the photography studio, wrote back to Willock and indicated the studio only provided services for “traditional weddings”. Willock wrote back to confirm the studio’s policy. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Huguenin responded: “ Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings. ” Willock filed a discrimination complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against Elane Photography. She claimed the photography studio violated the NMHRA because it would not photograph her wedding due to her sexual orientation. The NMHRA prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Elane Photography, from discriminating against individuals in a protected class, which includes among others, a person’s sexual orientation. New Mexico, 21 other states and the District of Columbia have laws to protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. However, 29 other states do not offer similar legal rights. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in favor of Willock and also awarded her attorney’s fees. Elane Photography appealed the decision to the Second Judicial District Court. That court ruled in favor of Willock, as did the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court then agreed to review the case. Lawyers for Elane Photography argued the studio didn’t refuse to photograph Willock's wedding due to her sexual orientation but because the owners are opposed to same-sex marriages. They also argued that by forcing the studio to provide services for same-sex weddings, the NMHRA forces them to violate their own rights to religious freedom and free speech. In addition, they noted photographing weddings for same-sex couples would leave them with less time to provide services for their preferred customers, heterosexual couples. The court’s opinion found the photography studio’s refusal to provide services to Vanessa Willock violated her rights under the NMHRA. The court also found that requiring Elane Photography to provide services for Willock did not violate the rights of the company or its owners under state or federal law. Although Elane Photography tried to argue their wedding photographs are a protected form of creative expression, the court indicated the NMHRA does not provide an artistic or creative exemption. However, the court noted that although the law requires the studio to provide services to everyone, the studio is free to maintain and express their opposition to same-sex marriage. In his concurring opinion, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson noted: “ At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others...That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. ” Jordan Lorence, an attorney who represented Elane Photography and the Huguenins, criticized the ruling: “ We believe that the First Amendment protects the right of people not to communicate messages that they disagree with. ” In a posting on the ACLU's blog, Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director for the ACLU noted: “ When a business opens its doors to the public it must comply with anti-discrimination laws, even if doing so offends a business owner's religious beliefs. ” Lorence indicated the owners of Elane Photography may appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

News from New Jersey New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division may impose liability against person sending text to driver   Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division By Ryan Cherry On August 27, 2013, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division decided an appeal which may result in liability for someone who sends a text to a driver who then causes an accident while trying to read or respond to that text. Judge Victor Ashrafi delivered the opinion of the three-judge panel, which heard the case on appeal from a summary judgment awarded by Vicinage 10 Superior Court Judge David B. Rand. Judge Rand originally dismissed the suit, determining that someone cannot be sued because a text they sent to a driver allegedly helped lead to an accident. The case arose from an accident that was caused by an eighteen-year-old driver who crossed over the center line of the road when texting. After crossing over the center line, the driver hit and severely injured Linda and David Kubert, who were riding on a motorcycle in the lane alongside the driver. While it is well-established that texting or using a phone that is not hands-free when driving will result in liability for the driver, it was a matter of first impression for the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division to determine liability of the sender of the text. During the time-span immediately proceeding the accident, the driver sent one text to his girlfriend who then replied with one text. The driver then responded with another text only 17 seconds before placing a 911 call regarding the accident on that same phone. The claims between the plaintiffs, Linda and David Kubert, and the driver were settled before the determination of this issue on appeal. Linda and David Kubert argued on appeal that the girlfriend should be found liable for aiding and abetting the driver's unlawful texting, and separately that she had a duty not to text a driver while they are operating a vehicle. While the Superior Court, Appellate Division was not persuaded by the Kuberts' argument, the court also did not agree with the girlfriend who argued that a sender of text messages never has a duty to avoid sending a text to a person while they are driving. Therefore, although the Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed the Vicinage 10 Superior Court's holding, the Appellate Division did not agree with Judge Rand's determination mentioned above. The Appellate Division was sure to clarify that someone sending a text to a driver is not responsible for the driver's negligent acts, but does have a duty to other persons on the road to refrain from texting someone they know will read or respond to the text while driving. This distinction was the determining factor on appeal, because the Appellate Division found that the Kuberts' had not proven sufficient evidence that showed the girlfriend knew that the driver was driving and would read or respond to the text. While this does not establish a law regarding liability for the sender of a text to a driver, it does provide the opportunity for the claim to be raised in future cases.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly