[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2155 Introduced in House (IH)]






108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2155

             To allow media coverage of court proceedings.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2003

  Mr. Chabot (for himself and Mr. Delahunt) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
             To allow media coverage of court proceedings.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

     The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The right of the people of the United States to freedom 
        of speech, particularly as it relates to comment on 
        governmental activities, as protected by the first amendment to 
        the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully exercised without the 
        ability of the public to obtain facts and information about the 
        Government upon which to base their judgments regarding 
        important issues and events. As the United States Supreme Court 
        articulated in Craig v. Harney (1947), ``A trial is a public 
        event. What transpires in the court room is public property.''.
            (2) The right of the people of the United States to a free 
        press, with the ability to report on all aspects of the conduct 
        of the business of government, as protected by the first 
        amendment to the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully exercised 
        without the ability of the news media to gather facts and 
        information freely for dissemination to the public.
            (3) The right of the people of the United States to 
        petition the Government to redress grievances, particularly as 
        it relates to the manner in which the Government exercises its 
        legislative, executive, and judicial powers, as protected by 
        the first amendment to the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully 
        exercised without the availability to the public of information 
        about how the affairs of government are being conducted. As the 
        Supreme Court noted in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. 
        Commonwealth of Virginia (1980), ``People in an open society do 
        not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is 
        difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from 
        observing.''
            (4) In the twenty-first century, the people of the United 
        States obtain information regarding judicial matters involving 
        the Constitution, civil rights, and other important legal 
        subjects principally through the print and electronic media. 
        Television, in particular, provides a degree of public access 
        to courtroom proceedings that more closely approximates the 
        ideal of actual physical presence than newspaper coverage or 
        still photography.
            (5) Providing statutory authority for the courts of the 
        United States to exercise their discretion in permitting 
        televised coverage of courtroom proceedings would enhance 
        significantly the access of the people to the Federal 
        judiciary.
            (6) Inasmuch as the first amendment to the Constitution 
        prevents Congress from abridging the ability of the people to 
        exercise their inherent rights to freedom of speech, to freedom 
        of the press, and to petition the Government for a redress of 
        grievances, it is good public policy for the Congress 
        affirmatively to facilitate the ability of the people to 
        exercise those rights.
            (7) The granting of such authority would assist in the 
        implementation of the constitutional guarantee of public trials 
        in criminal cases, as provided by the sixth amendment to the 
        Constitution. As the Supreme Court stated in In re Oliver 
        (1948), ``Whatever other benefits the guarantee to an accused 
        that his trial be conducted in public may confer upon our 
        society, the guarantee has always been recognized as a 
        safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as 
        instruments of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal 
        trial is subject to contemporaneous review in the forum of 
        public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of 
        judicial power.''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ALLOW MEDIA COVERAGE OF COURT 
              PROCEEDINGS.

    (a) Authority of Appellate Courts.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the presiding judge of an appellate court of the 
United States may, in his or her discretion, permit the photographing, 
electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of 
court proceedings over which that judge presides.
    (b) Authority of District Courts.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, any presiding judge of a district court of the United 
        States may, in his or her discretion, permit the photographing, 
        electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public 
        of court proceedings over which that judge presides.
            (2) Obscuring of witnesses.--(A) Upon the request of any 
        witness in a trial proceeding other than a party, the court 
        shall order the face and voice of the witness to be disguised 
        or otherwise obscured in such manner as to render the witness 
        unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial 
        proceeding.
            (B) The presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall inform 
        each witness who is not a party that the witness has the right 
        to request that his or her image and voice be obscured during 
        the witness' testimony.
    (c) Advisory Guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the United 
States is authorized to promulgate advisory guidelines to which a 
presiding judge, in his or her discretion, may refer in making 
decisions with respect to the management and administration of 
photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising described in 
subsections (a) and (b).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

     In this Act:
            (1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means 
        the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In 
        proceedings in which more than one judge participates, the 
        presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so 
        participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals, 
        the senior active circuit judge so participating, except that--
                    (A) in en banc sittings of any United States 
                circuit court of appeals, the presiding judge shall be 
                the chief judge of the circuit whenever the chief judge 
                participates; and
                    (B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the 
                United States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief 
                Justice whenever the Chief Justice participates.
            (2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term 
        ``appellate court of the United States'' means any United 
        States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the 
        United States.

SEC. 4. SUNSET.

     The authority under section 2(b) shall terminate on the date that 
is 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>