Courtroom #13 as viewed during a look inside the fifth floor of the Lancaster County Courthouse that has gone through extensive upgrades and renovations in the last several years on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023. This room used to serve as a meeting room for the commissioners when they were still located in the courthouse before their move to the government building on North Queen Street.
Suzette Wenger / LNP | LancasterOnline
Suzette Wenger / LNP | LancasterOnline
Courtroom #13 as viewed during a look inside the fifth floor of the Lancaster County Courthouse that has gone through extensive upgrades and renovations in the last several years on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023. This room used to serve as a meeting room for the commissioners when they were still located in the courthouse before their move to the government building on North Queen Street.
Deborah Gross, president and CEO of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, recalls talking to an Arizona judge as part of one of the programs the nonpartisan advocacy group puts on for journalists.
They were discussing CNN’s coverage of the Derek Chauvin murder trial for the death of George Floyd, and Gross mentioned the fact that Pennsylvania does not allow cameras in its courtrooms.
The Arizona judge was shocked, Gross recalled. Arizona has allowed cameras in its courtrooms since 1993.
Most states do. Pennsylvania is one of the few that don’t, along with Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
State Rep. Jamie Flick, R-Lycoming, thinks that should change. He is looking for cosponsors for legislation that would allow audio and video recording in state courtrooms.
Flick, in a Feb. 13 interview, said he planned to introduce his legislation soon.
Flick said Wednesday that he plans to introduce the legislation next week. He circulated a memo to his colleagues in January seeking cosponsors, but was out of state Wednesday and was not sure how many he had, but said he knew he had several cosponsors from both parties.
According to Flick, allowing cameras in both civil and criminal court proceedings would promote transparency and accountability and deter misconduct by judges, attorneys, and witnesses.
“I would say on a national level Pennsylvania ranked right near the top for courtroom corruption, whether it’s kids-for-cash down to the district magistrate level or at least to the Court of Common Pleas level,” Flick said in mid-February.
READ: Multi-county voter registration investigation ongoing under Pa. Attorney General
The “kids-for-cash” scandal, as it came to be known, involved two Luzerne County judges who were convicted in 2011 of taking bribes to send juveniles to privately owned lockups.
“From a personal experience, I have been part of it myself with bias by Court of Common Pleas judges in Lycoming County — and feel free to print that,” Flick said.
Flick currently is involved in a case with his ex-wife in Lycoming County Court in which he sought to have the judge overseeing the case recuse himself. Flick is representing himself in the case.
Flick’s legislation would allow for exemptions and protections, for instance, to protect children.
“I’m not going to have 12-year-old children being videotaped, so that would be an exemption to this, and some other factors to protect witnesses,” Flick said. “But I think the legislation would protect almost everybody in the courtroom, whether you’re the plaintiff, the defendant, the two attorneys and the judge so it’s not targeted at judges. The intent is to protect every party that sits in the courtroom.”
Flick said he recently polled constituents in one of his weekly emails. Roughly 96% of 100 or so people who responded, he said, supported allowing cameras in court.
READ: Lancaster DA’s human trafficking task force battles would-be child sexual predators
While media access organizations favor the idea, Lancaster County’s president judge said the risks outweigh the benefits.
Judge Leonard G. Brown III said he sees more downsides to allowing cameras in the courtroom than benefits.
“Obviously, if this gets passed, we’re going to do whatever the (state) Supreme Court directs us to do,” Brown said.
The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, which among other things works on issues such as access and technology, does not take a position on legislation, said spokesperson Stacey Witalec.
Brown said a main concern for him is someone using artificial intelligence to manipulate courtroom recordings and photography.
“That’s a significant concern in modern technology. But running through all of it is my concern over safety for witnesses, for jurors,” Brown said. “With facial recognition now, somebody with malevolent intent, taking a screenshot from a courtroom and saying, ‘I think this person is bad, so I’m going to figure out who they are, where they live, and harass them.’”
As for pros, Brown agreed with Flick that it could help hold judges accountable.
“If a judge is behaving poorly, you’ve got it right there on video,” Brown said.
Another negative Brown mentioned is the possibility that people will play to the camera. “But I think after a while, many of the lawyers and the judges would even forget it’s there,” he said.
The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association has not taken a position on the issue, but referred a reporter’s call to Berks County DA John Adams, who also opposes cameras in courtrooms because he believes potential harms outweigh the benefits.
“I would be against cameras in the courtroom. I think as we have seen the changes in society occurring over the past many, many years, I think cameras would attract too much witness intimidation and potential retaliation,’ Adams said.
Referring to the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial — one of many described by the press as “the trial of the century” — Adams said cameras turned the trial into a circus. The trial lasted more than four months and was widely watched, ending with the former football player’s acquittal in his wife Nicole Brown Simpson’s death.
Those favoring cameras in the courtroom cited the constitutional presumption that court proceedings are open to the public.
Implemented the right way, cameras “can be an effective tool to bring transparency to court practices, prosecutions (and) the justice system more generally,” said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. “And those are all things that are supported by the Constitution which recognizes that the people who live under the rule of law are entitled to see it work.”
As technology progresses, so does the demand for easy access, Melewsky said. “Not many people have the time or means to travel to the various courthouses across the state.”
And while reporters have traditionally been the public’s eyes and ears in courtrooms, that’s diminished with the closing of many newspapers.
“Pennsylvania should follow the lead of states around the country and allow cameras into the courtroom,” said Michael Berry, a media law attorney with Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia who has practiced in states that allow cameras in the courtroom. “The public has a right to see what happens in court and that right shouldn’t be limited only to people who can take the time to go to the courthouse to observe.”
In places where cameras are permitted, Berry said, judges have discretion over camera use.
Gross, of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, agreed.
“Yes there are concerns with privacy and safety and witnesses, but they can all be taken into consideration,” Gross said. The organization works to educate people about the court system and advocates for judicial reforms that promote inclusion and access to justice, and allowing cameras aligns with its mission in fostering transparency.
A collection of interviews, photos, and music videos, featuring local musicians who have stopped by the WITF performance studio to share a little discussion and sound. Produced by WITF’s Joe Ulrich.
