    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2013

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                         COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
                                AND THE INTERNET

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                    H.R. 917

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 3, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-121

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                  ------------

                        U.S. Government Publishing Office

     91-546 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2015
     __________________________________________________________________________________

          For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
            Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
                   DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                                    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                       Virginia
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    STEVE KING, Iowa                       Georgia
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 JUDY CHU, California
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 KAREN BASS, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    RAUUL LABRADOR, Idaho                JOE GARCIA, Florida
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina       DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida
    JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
    [Vacant]

               Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
            Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

                     HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

                    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman

    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    Wisconsin                            JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   JUDY CHU, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   TED DEUTCH, Florida
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          KAREN BASS, California
    TED POE, Texas                       CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina       DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    JASON T. SMITH, Missouri             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    [Vacant]

                           Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel

                        Heather Sawyer, Minority Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                DECEMBER 3, 2014

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 917, the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013''..........     3

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts,
      Intellectual Property, and the Internet........................     1
    The Honorable Ted Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts,
      Intellectual Property, and the Internet........................     9
    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary    10
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
      Property, and the Internet.....................................    11

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Iowa
      Oral Testimony.................................................    13
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16
    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California
      Oral Testimony.................................................    18
      Prepared Statement.............................................    19
    The Honorable Julie A. Robinson, Judge, United States District
      Court for the District of Kansas, on behalf of the Judicial
      Conference of the United States
      Oral Testimony.................................................    20
      Prepared Statement.............................................    23
    Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel, National Press
      Photographers Association
      Oral Testimony.................................................    50
      Prepared Statement.............................................    52

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Vice-Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet    75

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Letter from Thomas M. Susman, Director, Governmental Affairs
      Office, the American Bar Association (ABA).....................   120

                     SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2013

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2014

                            House of Representatives

                Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
                                and the Internet

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom
    Marino (Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Coble, Marino, Goodlatte, Chabot,
    Poe, Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Conyers, Deutch, DelBene,
    Jeffries, Cicilline, Lofgren, and Jackson Lee.
        Staff Present: (Majority) David Whitney, Counsel; David
    Lazar, Clerk; (Minority) Jason Everett, Counsel; Norberto
    Salinas, Counsel; and Susan Jensen, Counsel.
        Mr. Marino. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
    Property, and the Internet will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the
    Subcommittee at any time. We welcome all of our guests today.
        Unfortunately, Representative and Chairman Howard Coble and
    the Ranking Member, Jerry Nadler, will not be able to make the
    meeting--or the hearing in the beginning. They may be here
    later on. And at the request of them, I stated that I would
    explain why they are not here.
        For the members of the public who are here today or may
    otherwise be observing our hearing, I am Representative Tom
    Marino from Pennsylvania, the Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. And I will
    be chairing today's legislative hearing. I will recognize
    myself and then Congressman Ted Deutch from Florida, who is
    sitting in for the Subcommittee Ranking Member, for initial
    opening statements. I will then recognize the chairman of the
    full Committee, Representative Bob Goodlatte, and the Ranking
    Member, Representative John Conyers, of the full Committee, to
    make their introductory remarks.
        With that explanation, today's legislative hearing is on
    H.R. 917, the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013.''
        The bill was introduced by our distinguished colleague,
    Representative Steve King in April of 2013 and includes three
    additional members of the Judiciary Committee, Representatives
    Chaffetz, Lofgren, and Deutch, as original cosponsors.
    Subsequent to the introduction, two additional Members of the
    House signed on in support. Representatives King and Lofgren
    are present with us this morning, and they will soon be
    recognized to testify on the reasons they believe the
    legislation should be enacted.
        In addition to Representatives King and Lofgren, we have
    two additional witnesses who will testify on a second panel.
    They are the Honorable Julie Robinson, United States Judge for
    the District of Kansas, who will appear on behalf of the
    Judicial Conference of the United States, and Mr. Mickey
    Osterreicher--did I pronounce that right? Thank you--the
    general counsel of the National Press Photographers
    Association, NPPA.
        The principal authority contained in H.R. 917 is in section
    2B, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, the
    presiding judge, which is defined in the bill, of each Federal
    appellate court and district or trial level court, is
    authorized to permit the photographing, electronic recording,
    broadcasting, or televising to the public of any court
    proceedings over which that judge presides. Provisions in H.R.
    917 would apply this authority to the Supreme Court of the
    United States, as well as United States Circuit Courts of
    Appeals and district courts. The purpose of H.R. 917, as with
    similar bills introduced in prior Congresses, is meant to
    address the longstanding practice of the Federal courts, which
    with few exceptions, prohibits the live electronic recording of
    media coverage or proceedings from inside the courtroom.
        In general, proponents for the legislation believe existing
    prohibitions are a hindrance on transparency, education, and
    general public awareness of our law and judicial processes due
    to limited access to the actual proceedings. As one of our
    witnesses will testify today, the ability to disseminate
    information via electronic coverage of courts proceedings is a
    critical component in affording the public the modern
    equivalent of attending and observing proceedings.
        In sum, the opponents think the potential harm outweighs
    the benefits. Chief among their concerns is the proposition
    that the legislation has the potential to impair substantially
    the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while
    undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses,
    and other trial participants, including judges. Beyond the
    general questions of whether cameras should be permitted in
    Federal court proceedings are a myriad of additional questions
    that include where and when they should be permitted, whether
    consent of the parties should be required, whether the courts
    should control the operation and dissemination of materials,
    and whether Congress would be required to provide additional
    funding and resources to the courts. Today's hearing presents
    an opportunity to discuss in detail the issues implicated by
    these fundamental questions.
        With that, I conclude my opening remarks, and recognize our
    acting Ranking Member, Congressman Deutch from Florida, who is
    a cosponsor of the bill that is the subject of today's hearing.
        [The bill, H.R. 917, follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    __________

        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to our colleagues for their leadership on this
    issue. Judicial Conference policy and the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure prohibit the televising of Supreme Court and
    Federal court proceedings involving some of the most critical
    legal issues facing our Nation. These policies impose severe
    limitations on the public's ability to observe court
    proceedings interpreting laws that can impact the daily lives
    of every American. These restrictive broadcasting policies
    shroud the Supreme Court and Federal court proceedings in
    secrecy and can raise questions in the minds of the public on
    the administration of justice. Chief Justice Burger wrote of
    the importance of public access to courtrooms in Richmond
    Newspapers v. Virginia, writing that, ``A trial courtroom is
    also a public place where the people generally, and
    representatives of the media, have a right to be present and
    where their presence historically has been thought to enhance
    the integrity and quality of what takes place.''
        And while Richmond Newspapers addressed public access to
    criminal court proceedings, public access has been extended to
    civil trials as well. You can walk into any State or Federal
    courtroom in America and see rows of benches or seats to
    accommodate public audiences interested in watching the legal
    proceedings. The Supreme Court also has public seating
    available to accommodate the lucky few. Courtroom proceedings
    for audiences recognizes and accommodates our Nation's long
    tradition of public court watching. Public court watchers may
    not be as prevalent now as they were in the past, however, for
    cases on important legal issues, finding an available seat in
    the courtroom can be difficult, if not impossible. Indeed, most
    people now receive descriptions on important proceedings from
    press reports in various forms of the media outlets.
        And don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work that
    SCOTUSblog does, but the Supreme Court and Federal courts need
    to recognize and adapt to the changes to permit the next
    generation of court watchers access to proceedings on important
    legal issues. Such changes should include permitting television
    broadcasting.
        The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would improve U.S.
    Supreme Court and the Federal Court transparency by increasing
    public accessibility to legal proceedings. Under the bill, the
    presiding judge, a majority of the judges participating on the
    panel, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would have the
    discretion to permit the photography, the broadcasting, the
    televising of the proceedings.
        The bill also includes numerous protections for the parties
    involved that would permit the judge or judges to close the
    court proceedings to being televised. As added protections, the
    bill would permit the judge or judges to consider if televising
    the proceedings would violate the due process rights of a party
    involved in the proceedings. And in addition, a witness in a
    court proceeding could request to have their face and voice
    disguised to protect their identity. Moreover, the bill would
    prevent media coverage of the jurors involved in a judicial
    proceeding and juror selection. The presiding judge of a court
    also would have the discretion to create rules and disciplinary
    measures that could be enforced against members of the media in
    the interests of preserving justice and fairness.
        The Supreme Court and our Federal courts hear and consider
    some of the most important issues facing our country. These
    proceedings, and the decisions issued from the proceedings by
    the Supreme Court and Federal courts, impact every facet of the
    lives of Americans. As just one of many examples, a three-judge
    panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals recently heard oral
    arguments on the constitutional privacy issues involving the
    NSA's mass collection of phone data. The U.S. Supreme Court and
    the Federal courts also have heard and hear cases involving the
    Affordable Care Act, our Nation's immigration laws,
    interpretation of the Second Amendment, housing and foreclosure
    issues, political and campaign cases, and many other pressing
    issues that face our country. And yet very few people have an
    opportunity, and most people never have the chance, to observe
    the proceedings in person.
        Public access to critical cases in the Supreme Court or
    Federal courthouses is limited to the very few who can wait in
    line for hours and sometimes days or who can hire a person to
    stand in line for them.
        The limited public access to the Supreme Court and Federal
    court proceedings is inconsistent with the modern world of
    readily accessible media. Indeed, video recording devices are
    permitted in State supreme courts. It is time that this U.S.
    Supreme Court and Federal court practice is changed.
        I would like to thank again my colleagues, Congressman King
    and Congresswoman Lofgren, for their work and strong leadership
    on this critical issue. Broadcasting of the Supreme Court and
    Federal court proceedings will ensure that the public has full
    access to the oral arguments on important legal issues and
    will, most importantly, help to ensure that justice is carried
    out for all to see.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman Deutch.
        I would now like to recognize the full Committee Chairman,
    the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bob
    Goodlatte.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, today's legislative hearing on H.R. 917, the
    ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013,'' is one that raises
    substantial and important questions that have been the focus of
    this Committee's attention before. Indeed, the questions
    surrounding whether and under what circumstances Federal court
    proceedings should be televised or otherwise made available via
    electronic medium is not novel but ones Congress and the
    Federal Judiciary have considered in various forms for many
    years. In fact, legislation to authorize broadcast or
    television coverage of Federal court proceedings has been
    introduced by Members, typically with bipartisan support, as is
    true in the present case, in every Congress dating back to at
    least the 105th.
        Most recently, the Committee reported a version of this
    legislation in 2007, when a bill sponsored by our colleague
    Representative Steve Chabot and former Representative William
    Delahunt was reported favorably. H.R. 917, the ``Sunshine in
    the Courtroom Act of 2013'' and the 2007 bill are substantially
    similar. The bill's sponsor, Representative Steve King,
    succinctly stated in his written testimony his motivation and
    belief in introducing this bill that Congress has both the
    constitutional authority to act and the duty to use that
    authority to expand public access to our courts.
        Proponents of the bill believe that the values of
    transparency, accountability, and education will only be
    enhanced by expanded public access to our Federal courts.
    However, the principal opponents of cameras in the courtroom
    legislation are the Supreme Court of the United States and the
    Judicial Conference of the United States, the latter of which
    functions as the policymaking body for the lower Federal
    courts. Each would be impacted by the enactment of H.R. 917,
    which authorizes the presiding judge of a court to allow
    cameras and recording devices to be operated in Federal court
    proceedings, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications.
        I appreciate Judge Robinson's appearance today, and I
    believe it is vitally important that the Judicial Conference
    and the Supreme Court avail themselves of each opportunity to
    participate in the Committee's consideration of legislation
    that impacts our justice system. This is particularly true in
    matters that relate to the administration and operation of the
    Federal Judiciary.
        Perhaps spurred by this Committee's action in 2007, the
    Judicial Conference authorized a 3-year pilot project in 2010
    to evaluate the effects of cameras being used in district
    courts and related matters. Fourteen courts volunteered for the
    project, which is ongoing, limited to civil proceedings, and
    scheduled to conclude in July 2015. Following the pilot's
    conclusion, the Federal Judicial Center will prepare a report
    and provide it to the Judicial Conference's Committee on Court
    Administration and Case Management. It is then expected that
    CACM will provide a report to the Judicial Conference regarding
    the possible future use of cameras in district courts.
    Notwithstanding the ongoing nature of the pilot, the conference
    currently maintains the view that this legislation will have
    the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of
    citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and
    the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants,
    including judges. It is clear the views of proponents and
    opponents are strongly and sincerely held and that a discussion
    of the relative merits will benefit our consideration. I
    particularly want to thank Mr. King and Mr. Chabot for their
    work on the Republican side on this issue, and Congresswoman
    Lofgren and Congressman Deutch for their efforts on the
    Democratic side. This is truly a bipartisan effort, and
    deserves careful consideration by the Committee.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would now like to recognize the full Committee Ranking
    Member, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Congressman
    Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to begin by mentioning that our colleague from New
    York, Mr. Nadler, wanted to be here today, but he is at the
    Supreme Court, where there is oral argument going on in a very
    important case. And I wanted his absence to be noted, and that
    he is very concerned about the proceedings that are taking
    place here in the Judiciary Committee.
        The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of course would authorize
    photography, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising
    of any court proceeding held in the Federal district court, and
    in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court of
    the United States, subject to some exceptions. As many of you
    may recall, the Committee on the Judiciary previously
    considered legislation substantially identical to H.R. 917. And
    although I voted in favor of this prior legislation, I still
    have, nevertheless, several concerns. Most importantly, I want
    the proponents of H.R. 917 to address the Judicial Conference's
    observation that this measure could potentially impair the
    fundamental right of a citizen to a fair and impartial trial.
        For example, Justice Elena Kagan earlier this year said
    that televised coverage of Federal court proceedings would or
    might encourage participants to play to the camera. In fact,
    the Supreme Court in Estes v. Texas, a case involving a State
    criminal trial that was televised, observed that the chief
    function of our judicial machinery is to ascertain the truth.
    The use of television, however, cannot be said to contribute
    materially to this objective. Rather, its use amounts to the
    injection of an irrelevant factor into the court proceedings.
        In addition, experience teaches that there are numerous
    situations in which it might cause actual unfairness, some so
    subtle as to defy detection by the accused or controlled by the
    judge. Accordingly, I want the proponents of H.R. 917 to
    explain how the bill does not undermine a citizen's right to
    due process and a fair trial.
        Secondly, we should ensure that the bill adequately
    protects the privacy rights of participants in Federal judicial
    proceedings. Clearly, we must be cognizant of the fact that
    electronic media coverage presents the prospect of public
    disclosure of personal information that may have a material
    effect on the individual's willingness to testify or place an
    individual at risk of being a target for retribution or
    intimidation. I realize the bill authorizes a witness' image
    and voice to be obscured under certain circumstances. But is
    this sufficient to protect the witness' privacy?
        And finally, we must be mindful of the need to ensure the
    safety and security of our judges, our law enforcement
    officers, and other participants in the judicial process. Some
    believe that cameras in the courtroom could heighten the level
    of, and potential threats to, Federal judges, particularly
    those proceedings involving highly controversial matters. The
    Judicial Conference is currently in the midst of a pilot
    program expected to conclude next July, that, among other
    things, is examining the impact of electronic media on the
    safety and security of the courtroom. Hopefully, that test
    program will provide some guidance on this issue so that court
    security is not undermined. That concludes my statement.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman Conyers.
        Without objection, the Members' opening statements will be
    made part of the record.
        We have two very distinguished panels of witnesses today.
    Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered into
    the record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize
    his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay
    within the timing, there is a light on your table. When the
    light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to
    conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals
    the witness' 5 minutes have expired.
        Our first witness today is the Honorable Steve King, the
    Member of Congress who represents the Fourth District of Iowa.
    Representative King serves as Chairman of the Department
    Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition Subcommittee on the House
    Agricultural Committee. He also serves on the Small Business
    Committee, and here on the Judiciary Committee. Prior to being
    elected to Congress in 2002, Representative King served in the
    Iowa State Senate for 6 years as Chairman of the State
    Government Committee and Vice-Chairman of the Oversight Budget
    Subcommittee. Representative King studied math and science at
    Northwest Missouri State University.
        Welcome, Mr. King.
        Our second witness is the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, the Member
    of Congress who represents the 19th District of California. She
    serves as Ranking Member on the Oversight Subcommittee for the
    House Administration Committee, and is a member of the Science,
    Space, and Technology Committee. She also serves as Ranking
    Member of the Immigration and Policy and Enforcement
    Subcommittee and is a member of this Subcommittee, which has
    oversight over Federal courts, intellectual property, and the
    Internet on the Judiciary Committee. Prior to being elected to
    Congress in 1995, Representative Lofgren served on the Santa
    Clara County Board of Supervisors for 14 years. She earned her
    J.D. From the University of Santa Clara School of Law, and her
    B.A. From Stanford University.
        Welcome.
        We will start with you, Representative King.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I thank
    you and our Ranking Member, both the full and the Subcommittee,
    for the opportunity to bring this bill, H.R. 917, the
    ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013,'' before this hearing
    today. I would ask consent to introduce my written testimony
    into the record and then to testify orally in addition.
        Mr. Marino. Without objection.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To work our way down
    through this bill, and I also want to thank my colleague, Ms.
    Lofgren, and a good number of others for their bipartisan
    cooperation on this bill that is before us. H.R. 917, the
    ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013,'' expands public
    access to the courts. And when we think about what public
    access means, it is a different definition for us in this
    modern era in the 21st Century than it was back when the
    Constitution was ratified, in that we had small courtrooms, a
    few people traveled, there wasn't much access just because of
    logistical difficulties. Today, we turn on the Super Bowl, and
    millions of people watch it on television. That is what we
    consider access. And yet something like Bush v. Gore can be
    decided in the United States Supreme Court with a relative
    handful of people having only exclusive access to get in to
    hear a case like that. It also was true with Obamacare, the
    Affordable Care Act. It was a significant maneuver for even a
    member of this Judiciary Committee, meaning myself, to be able
    to get into the courtroom to hear the oral arguments before the
    court.
        I think that the court needs to have the opportunity to
    make the decision to change that. We don't direct the courts to
    open up the courtroom to the cameras, but we provide the
    regulations that allow the courts to do so under their judgment
    and their discretion. We protect the jurors from any kind of
    exposure. They cannot be exposed to the media coverage along
    that. And, again, we don't force the judges to open up their
    courtrooms. We just provide them the opportunity to do so.
        And there may be an argument about where this jurisdiction
    to provide this statutory authority to open up the courtrooms
    to cameras comes from. And I would point out that in Article I,
    Section 8, and in Article III, Section 1, the Congress
    establishes--it is established that the Congress establishes
    the courts. And in Article III, Section 2, it is clear that we
    write the regulations at least for the Supreme Court, and I
    might expand that definition in another venue. But we need to
    be expanding the public access and open up the machinery of
    government. When I hear--I remember during the Bush
    administration, I heard comments of the ``appointed
    President.'' Well, there is a bit of I will say suspicion about
    what went on in a courtroom that very few people had an
    opportunity to witness. And most of us, if we weren't in the
    courtroom, then we had to rely on the pundits' analysis or
    perhaps the legal analysis that informed the pundits' analysis
    of what the decision really was in the courtroom. It isn't an
    eye to eye objective view for hardly anybody in today's world,
    given the access we have at all other public functions that I
    can think of. So we expand public access and open up the
    machinery of government. I also would add that the Sixth
    Amendment demands that we have a right to a speedy and a public
    trial. And that takes us back to that definition of, what is
    public? So the Founders knew that opening the government to
    public served a dual purpose of holding our leaders
    accountable, and our appointed and elected officials and
    confirmed officials accountable, and it had a form of education
    as well.
        I would just take you back to an experience that frames
    this for me. And this was in a State district court. But I had
    a case, and the name of it was King v. Gustafson. And it was an
    issue where I was collecting on a bill. And we ended up before
    the district court with a judge, who, after the court hearing--
    and I thought we had made our case absolutely irrefutably. We
    caught our opposition in contradictory statements, which I
    consider to be lies. And yet the judge had 90 days to write the
    decision. This is the irony of life. On the 89th day, the judge
    had a brain aneurysm. He did survive that. But out of it came
    what they said was a 30-day blank spot in his memory. Oh, how
    nice it would have been if he could have gone back and reviewed
    the videotape of the hearing before the court. Otherwise, we
    ended up going to the State Supreme Court, and it was a saga
    that lasted for 8 years. We could have cut that by about 2 or 3
    years if the judge, who I think had his faculties about him,
    had been able to review the tape rather than review his notes.
    That is just my personal anecdote on this. But I also think of
    the benefits that come from an educational standpoint. We are
    in a position where you look at our law schools. And I
    understand Justice Scalia will write his dissenting opinions so
    that they are interesting and law students will read them and
    try to learn what goes on in the courtroom. But to be able to
    study our courts, to be able to go back and review Bush v.
    Gore, or the ACA litigation that took place, or any of the huge
    landmark cases that take place before our Supreme Courts or
    those that are litigated before our circuit courts, would be a
    tremendous boon to all of our law schools, all of our students,
    and it would improve our educational process in this country.
        Thank you for your attention, and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    __________
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman King.
        The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman Lofgren.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    for holding this hearing. I think the legislation is important,
    and I am happy to be a cosponsor of the Sunshine in the
    Courtroom Act, not only in this Congress but previous versions
    in previous Congresses. Over 100 years ago, Louis Brandeis
    wrote that ``Sunlight is said to be the best of
    disinfectants.'' These now famous words reflect a belief that
    openness and transparency are key components of a functioning
    democracy. This is a Nation founded on the concept of
    government accountability. And passage of this bill would
    ensure that our judicial system is better able to uphold that
    ideal. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would allow judges to
    open their courtrooms to cameras, granting the public greater
    insight into the judicial process and building confidence in
    our legal system. As the Supreme Court found in 1948 in In re
    Oliver, 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. Now,
    as many of you know, the pilot projects have been going on
    around the country. And one of the pilots is in the Ninth
    Circuit and in the Northern District of California, which
    includes my congressional district. The pilot has been extended
    for a year. But in talking to the judges in the Northern
    District, there is wide acceptance of the pilot. Most seem to
    see no reason why modern technology should not be part of the
    judicial system. Some of the feedback I have gotten from judges
    is that although our bill allows the establishing of rules by
    the Judicial Conference, judges feel very strongly that the--it
    is essential that the identity of jurors continue to remain
    obscured. They are volunteers, and they should not be subject
    to being part of the televised proceedings. Another interesting
    issue raised to me by judges was that, under the pilot, all the
    parties need to agree, and consequently, there haven't been
    very many actual televised proceedings. And some of the judges
    wonder whether we shouldn't revisit that and examine that
    element of it. This is a big deal. I took seriously the
    comments made by the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers. In terms of
    playing to the cameras, one of the things that judges told me
    is that if there is a high-profile case, that happens without
    cameras being in the courtroom.
        And, in terms of playing to the camera, you know, one judge
    said, pretty soon you forget the cameras are even there. And
    lawyers are focused on winning their case. Therefore, they have
    got to appeal to the jury or to the judge, not to the camera.
    And it was not a concern that that was really a disruptive
    measure.
        Still, it is something that we all should discuss. In terms
    of personal disclosure of information, that objection to me I
    find difficult to understand because our courtrooms are open.
    And if you testify to a matter it is a matter of public record.
    It is not private. So I look forward to hearing further from
    the Judicial Conference on that point.
        Again, I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for
    holding this hearing. I think it is an important issue. And if
    we can become familiar with the issues that the courts have
    raised and address them successfully, I think the country will
    be a better place. One of the judges I talked to in the
    Northern District said, you know, the real thing that all of us
    want to see is the Supreme Court being televised because of the
    important role that they play. And I am hopeful that this
    hearing and other discussions will ultimately allow that to
    happen. It would be a tremendous service to our democracy.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on
                Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
        I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for holding a
    hearing on this important legislation. I am an original cosponsor of
    the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, and have been pleased to cosponsor
    previous versions of this bill in past Congresses.
        Over 100 years ago, Louis Brandeis wrote that ``[s]unlight is said
    to be the best of disinfectants.'' These now-famous words reflect the
    belief that openness and transparency are key components of a
    functioning democracy. This is a nation founded on the concept of
    government accountability, and passage of this bill would ensure that
    our judicial system is aiming to uphold these ideals.
        The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would allow judges to open their
    courtrooms to cameras, granting the public greater insight into the
    judicial process and building confidence in our legal system. As the
    Supreme Court found in 1948 (In re Oliver), ``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.''
        As I'm sure many are aware, in addition to the Ninth Circuit's use
    of video streaming, there are currently fourteen federal trial courts
    participating in a pilot program to evaluate the effect of cameras on
    courtrooms. The Northern District of California, which includes my
    Congressional district, is one of the participating courts as selected
    by the Judicial Conference. The pilot, initially slated to end this
    summer, has been extended for an additional year. When it concludes
    next July, the federal judiciary will be facing questions about whether
    or not the use of cameras in courtrooms should be expanded. Trials have
    always been considered public, and I see no reason why, with modern
    technology, the walls of the courtroom should be the limits of this
    privilege.
        This bill largely leaves the establishment of rules governing the
    use of cameras to the Judicial Conference, but I did want to raise a
    couple of points that I think are worth considering after hearing from
    some of the local judges involved in the pilot program. First, with
    regard to the pilot program rules, not only do individual judges need
    to approve the recording of proceedings, but all parties must consent.
    As a result, very few trials have been recorded in Northern California.
    Whether or not to require or allow all parties to consent may be worth
    examining further as we consider expanding the usage of cameras on a
    national level. I would also note that both the pilot program and the
    bill prohibit the media coverage of jurors. This is important, and some
    of our local judges have emphasized that this continue to be stressed.
    Judges that I've spoken with do support the use of cameras in the
    courtroom both as an educational tool and as a means for increasing
    transparency. I hope that the experiences and lessons learned from this
    pilot program will be used to enact meaningful reforms, including
    expanded access to our judicial system.
        Again, I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for
    organizing this hearing today and for allowing me to testify in support
    of this legislation. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues as
    well as the other witnesses, and I hope that we can find a path forward
    to bring our judiciary into the 21st century, using modern technology
    to increase access, accountability, and understanding.
                                   __________

        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren.
        Thank both of you for being here today. I appreciate it.
        We will now seat our second panel. And before you get
    comfortable, I am going to ask you to stand anyhow to be sworn
    in. I will begin by swearing in our second panel of witnesses.
    Before introducing them, if you would please raise your right
    hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
    is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
    help you God?
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the
    affirmative. And you may be seated. Each of the witnesses'
    written statements will be entered into the record in its
    entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her
    testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that
    time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light
    switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to
    conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals
    that the witness' 5 minutes have expired.
        Our first witness of the second panel is the Honorable
    Julie A. Robinson, United States District Judge for the
    District of Kansas. Judge Robinson was appointed in 2001 by
    President George W. Bush. She is here today on behalf of the
    Judicial Conference of the United States. Prior to her position
    on the Federal bench in Kansas City, she served as a judge on
    the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas for 8
    years, and assistant United States attorney for 10 years--near
    and dear to my heart--and a law clerk for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
    Benjamin Franklin for 2 years. Judge Robinson earned both her
    J.D. and B.A. from the University of Kansas.
        Welcome, Judge.
        Our second witness on the second panel is Mr. Mickey
    Osterreicher. Am I still doing well there, sir?
        Mr. Osterreicher. Yes.
        Mr. Marino. General counsel of the National Press
    Photographers Association. In his position, Mr. Osterreicher
    has been actively involved on issues, such as cameras in the
    courtroom, the Federal shield proposal, and media access. In
    addition, he is an award-winning photojournalist, with almost
    40 years of experience in print and broadcast. He also served
    as an adjunct professor, teaching courses in media and the law
    at the University of Buffalo Law School.
        Mr. Osterreicher earned his J.D. from the University of
    Buffalo Law School, and his B.S. from State University of New
    York at Buffalo.
        Welcome to both of you. And, Judge, we will start with your
    opening statement.
        Judge Robinson. Thank you, Chairman Marino.
        Mr. Marino. Would you please hit the button there so we can
    hear you a little better?

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON, JUDGE, UNITED
    STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS, ON BEHALF OF
              THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

        Judge Robinson. Thank you, Chairman Marino and Ranking
    Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee as well as the
    full Committee. I am Julie Robinson. I am a United States
    District Judge for the District of Kansas. And I appreciate
    Chairman Goodlatte's invitation to appear today to discuss the
    views of the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding
    the issue of cameras in the courtroom and, specifically, H.R.
    917, the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013.'' With your
    consent, I will submit a written statement into the record, and
    I will briefly summarize that statement this morning.
        I previously served as the chair of the Court
    Administration and Case Management Committee of the Judicial
    Conference of the United States. And I am familiar with the
    conference position regarding cameras in the courtroom. Before
    I discuss the concerns of the Federal judiciary, I must
    emphasize, as did Judge Tunheim in his testimony before the
    House Judiciary Committee in September 2007, that the Judicial
    Conference does not speak for the Supreme Court. Therefore, I
    am unable to address the provisions of the bill that would
    authorize the broadcasting of Supreme Court proceedings. The
    legislation before us is designated as a bill to provide for
    the media coverage of Federal court proceedings. For reasons
    that are explained in more detail in my written statement, the
    Judicial Conference opposes this legislation, primarily because
    it allows the use of cameras in Federal trial courts, in the
    district courts. If enacted, this legislation will have the
    potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of
    citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and
    the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants,
    including judges.
        I would like to emphasize four points this morning
    regarding our concerns at the trial level. First, the
    intimidating effect of cameras on litigants, witnesses, and
    jurors can have a profoundly negative impact on the trial
    process. Moreover, televising the trial makes certain court
    orders, for example an order sequestering witnesses, more
    difficult to enforce, and could lead to tainted testimony from
    witnesses. Secondly, permitting camera coverage could become a
    potent negotiating tactic in pretrial settlement negotiations.
    Third, allowing cameras in Federal courts would create security
    concerns, and undermine the safety of jurors, witnesses, and
    other trial participants, and heighten the level and potential
    of threats to judges. And fourth, cameras can create privacy
    concerns for countless numbers of persons, many of whom are not
    even parties to the case, but about whom very personal
    information may be revealed.
        With regard to the issue of cameras in the Federal Courts
    of Appeal, the conference opposes the bill's provisions
    permitting each appellate court panel to decide whether to
    allow cameras rather than allowing that decision to be made by
    each Court of Appeals as a whole, which is the existing
    conference policy. The conference did not take these positions
    because it is against increased publicity for the Federal
    courts. In many aspects, the Federal judiciary is at the
    forefront of electronic innovation and transparency. Nearly
    every filing, every trial, every appellate argument, decision,
    and opinion is available and open to the public. Over the past
    decade, the Judicial Conference has dramatically expanded that
    openness by making its entire filing system electronically
    available to the public through the Internet. Furthermore, in
    September of 2010 the Judicial Conference of the United States
    authorized a pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in
    district court courtrooms, also the effect of video recordings
    of these proceedings, and the publication of such video
    recordings. The results of the pilot program, which ends in
    July 2015, will help the judiciary review and evaluate our
    concerns with the use of cameras in the district courts.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about
    whether judges have personal concerns regarding camera
    coverage. It is not a debate about whether the Federal courts
    are afraid of public scrutiny. It is not a debate about
    increasing the educational opportunities for the public to
    learn about the Federal courts or the litigation process. In
    fact, open hearings are a hallmark of the Federal judiciary.
        Rather, this is a question about how your constituents,
    individual Americans, whether they are plaintiffs, defendants,
    witnesses, jurors, or other participants in court proceedings,
    are treated by the Federal judicial process. It is the
    fundamental duty of the Federal judiciary to ensure that every
    citizen receives his or her constitutionally guaranteed right
    to a fair trial. And for the reasons discussed in my statement,
    the Judicial Conference believes that the use of cameras in the
    trial courtroom would seriously jeopardize that right, and,
    therefore, we oppose this legislation. I would ask that my
    written statement be offered and entered into the record. And I
    am happy to answer any questions you may have. And thank you
    for the opportunity.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Judge. Your full statement will be
    entered into the record.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Robinson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        __________
        Mr. Marino. And the Chair now recognizes Attorney
    Osterreicher.

    TESTIMONY OF MICKEY H. OSTERREICHER, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL
                    PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Osterreicher. Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Marino,
    Ranking Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee, good
    morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    to support H.R. 917, the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of
    2013.'' My name is Mickey Osterreicher. I am of counsel to the
    law firm of Hiscock & Barclay in its media and First Amendment
    law practice in Buffalo, New York, and appear here today in my
    capacity as general counsel for the National Press
    Photographers Association, an organization which was founded in
    1946 and of which I have been a member since 1973.
        NPPA is the voice of visual journalists, with approximately
    7,000 members, including video and still photographers,
    editors, and students. During my 40-year career as a
    photojournalist in both print and broadcast, I have covered
    hundreds of court cases, from the Attica trials to the murder
    trial of O.J. Simpson. I was actively involved in the 10-year
    experiment with electronic coverage of courtroom proceedings
    from 1987 to 1997 in New York. And by ``electronic,'' I mean
    audiovisual recording, as well as digital still images. We
    support H.R. 917 because there is a strong societal interest in
    public access to the courts. As part of that openness, almost
    every State allows electronic coverage of criminal, civil, and
    appellate proceedings.
        Unfortunately, that is not the case at the Federal level.
    In 1991, the Judicial Conference of the United States commenced
    a 3-year pilot program permitting the broadcasting, televising,
    electronic recording, or photographing of courtroom proceedings
    by the media. At the conclusion of that program and despite
    favorable reports, the conference declined to approve the
    continuation of such coverage, and the program ended in 1994.
    In 2010, the Judicial Conference authorized a second pilot
    project. This time, it would be court personnel and not the
    media operating the equipment. The guidelines specifically
    state the media or its representatives will not be permitted to
    create recordings of courtroom proceedings.
        In 2014, electronic media coverage is the unblinking eye of
    the public, with its unrivaled capacity to convey information
    instantly and to the widest audience. As Justice Brandeis noted
    in 1932, to stay experimentation in things social and economic
    is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment
    may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. But in
    the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard,
    lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. The Federal
    judiciary must be mindful of its high power not to erect its
    own prejudices into judicial rules. Society can ill afford to
    let the arbitrary and speculative objections of jurists
    antagonistic to the electronic press substantially undermine a
    fundamental constitutional right by lens capping the very tools
    of its profession and eviscerating the very means by which most
    Americans receive their news. The benefits of allowing such
    coverage are numerous and significant. It brings transparency
    to the Federal judicial system, provides increased
    accountability from litigants, judges, and the press, and
    educates citizens about the judicial process. Electronic
    coverage allows the public to ensure that proceedings are
    conducted fairly, and by extension, that government systems are
    working properly. In 1965, Justice Harlan predicted that the
    day may come when television will have become so commonplace an
    affair in the daily life of the average person as to dissipate
    all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms may
    disparage the judicial process. That day has long since passed.
        Justice Stewart was also on point when he wrote, ``The
    suggestion that there are limits upon the public's right to
    know what goes on in the courts causes me deep concern.'' ``The
    idea of imposing upon any medium of communications the burden
    of justifying its presence is contrary to where I always
    thought the presumption must lie in the area of First Amendment
    freedoms.'' One would only hope that, by 2015, after what will
    have been a 4-year experiment, the Federal judiciary will
    finally acknowledge that electronic coverage of our courts, and
    the fair administration of justice, are not mutually exclusive.
    We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and the full
    Judiciary Committee as you move forward with H.R. 917 and other
    similar legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    I look forward to answering your questions, and request that my
    full statement be entered into the record.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, sir. And your full statement will be
    entered into the record without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Osterreicher follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            __________
        Mr. Marino. As is my custom, I wait and ask questions last,
    because I am here and other Congressmen and women need to get
    to other areas. So I am going to defer to my good friend from
    Ohio, Congressman Chabot, who has been a proponent of this
    legislation for years and years.
        Congressman?
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And maybe
    just a few thoughts and a little background. This is a topic,
    as the Chairman mentioned, that I have been interested in for a
    long time, at least 30 years. I practiced law for 16 years
    before coming to Congress. And during part of that time I was
    practicing law, I was first elected to Cincinnati City Council
    about 30 years ago now and served there for about 5 years. And
    one of the things that I did when I was there was to have
    council meetings televised. I don't know how many people
    actually watched it. It can be a bit boring at times. But,
    nonetheless, the public had access.
        And then moved over to the Hamilton County Commission,
    where I served for about 5 years, did the same thing there.
    When I came to Congress, C-SPAN already existed. Congress
    itself was already on television, despite a lot of the same
    types of concerns that there are relative to courtrooms, that
    people would play to the cameras. And some Members of Congress
    do. But the fact is that we are public folks; that the public
    pays for the courtrooms, just as it pays for our congressional
    chambers. And I think they ought to have access to it. And
    access nowadays, let's face it, people really--it is not
    practical to think that you can just leave your job or leave
    your family and go down and see what is happening in the local
    courtroom. The access is by television should the public choose
    to tune in. And but they should have that opportunity. Again,
    they are paying for it.
        But, in any event, when I introduced the legislation in the
    House about 20 years ago, my colleague, the chief cosponsor,
    was a former Member of the Committee, Rep. Chuck Schumer. And
    he felt very strongly about it and gave innumerable excellent
    speeches. I disagreed with him on a few other things, but on
    this particular topic, we were in agreement. When he left, I
    think Rep. Bill Delahunt took up on the Democratic side and did
    a wonderful job over the years. But we have been working on
    this for a lot of years now. And then I lost my seat back in
    2008 and then won it back in 2010. And I want to commend Rep.
    Steve King for taking it up then. He has done a great job. And
    I want to also thank Rep. Zoe Lofgren for her leadership on
    this issue. But the thing that I keep hearing, this business
    about potentially impairing the right to a fair trial that the
    Judicial Conference talks about, I could understand that point
    of view if we didn't have years and years of experience on
    this, both when the court had its own pilot project back from
    1991 to 1994, in which there essentially weren't any
    significant issues during that 3-year period of time, and then
    we have the States, all of whom at this point--we used to be
    able to say, well, they all except for this one or this one--
    well, now they all have it, and we have had 20 years of
    experience, 20-plus years of experience, with very few
    problems. And whatever problems there are I think have been
    dealt with.
        Our colleague, Mr. Nadler, as the Ranking Member Mr.
    Conyers mentioned, has been involved in this and supported it.
    And he had a good suggestion. That was to obscure the faces of
    witnesses in sensitive cases. And we are leaving the oversight
    of this and the rules up to the judges themselves. So I just
    still fail to see what the opposition is to this, although I
    know it is still there, and we haven't been able to accomplish
    this yet.
        But I think, particularly at the Supreme Court level, as
    Mr. King mentioned, the types of cases that are heard over
    there, whether it is Bush-Gore, whether it is the Affordable
    Care Act or Obamacare, whatever your preferred terminology is,
    or one of the pieces, one of my things I am proudest of that I
    was the principal sponsor, the ban on partial birth abortion,
    which we fought for about 8 years before it went all the way to
    the U.S. Supreme Court, and on a 5-4 vote prevailed. And I
    remember sitting on that side, because we were in the minority
    then, Republicans, and hearing that the case had been ruled in
    our favor, which I was really happy about, but we couldn't see
    the decision.
        So those were some of the frustrations. So I have said a
    lot. I don't have a lot of time. Either one of you want to
    respond, especially to the potentially impairment of a fair
    trial? We have got such a long experience. Shouldn't that be
    sufficient to show that that shouldn't really be that much of a
    concern? Your Honor?
        Judge Robinson. What we know is that the State courts have
    had cameras in the courtroom, but there is not a uniform
    approach. Some of them place limits on criminal cases. Some of
    them treat civil versus criminal cases differently. Some of
    them have consent requirements. Some of them do not. The
    Federal judiciary is going to need a uniform national approach.
    That is how we operate. The Judicial Conference makes policy
    for the trial courts. And the trial courts asked for the
    Judicial Conference's guidance and education and policy. And so
    we are looking at a uniform national approach. We know that the
    State courts don't have a singular model that suggests that
    this is the way to do it. Certainly studying their experiences
    is important. But equally important is studying the experience
    of Federal trial judges and having the benefit of all of those
    experiences in formulating a policy.
        In terms of the denial of fair trial or the impairment of
    the fair trial, what I want to I guess stress to you is that
    the most serious of concerns is not that it is going to change
    the behavior of lawyers, or even change the behavior of other
    participants in the trial process. The greatest threat I think
    to the right to a fair trial is that in a courtroom--and
    Representative Conyers spoke to this--it is a search for the
    truth. What happens is rigorous examination of witnesses, both
    direct and cross-examination. We don't want a situation where
    the witness' testimony is all affected by the fact that not
    only are people that are in the courtroom going to hear it but
    now hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, are going
    to hear it, on television or on the Internet. Perhaps their
    boss or their minister or their next-door neighbor, who would
    otherwise not hear that testimony. In every case, there are
    situations where personal information becomes a part of the
    record. And as you have all talked about, the fact that we have
    open trials already, anyone can find that, all of our pleadings
    are open to the public through the Internet, as are trial
    transcripts.
        But imagine, if you will, in a civil trial, it is an
    employment case, one of the claims is emotional distress. I
    think, Mr. Chabot, you will remember this from being a lawyer,
    but on cross-examination, someone that has made that type of
    claim is going to be examined extensively about everything
    about their personality, their mental health issues, et cetera.
    In a personal injury case, a plaintiff who has made, for
    example, a claim of loss of consortium is now going to be
    cross-examined, if not examined as well, about their sexual
    practices with their spouse or partner. In a criminal case, a
    confidential informant is going to be rigorously cross-examined
    in ways that are going to identify who that person is, even if
    their voice and even if their face is obscured. I say all of
    that to say that we have legitimate and serious concerns about
    the impediment to a fair trial.
        And this is what we need to study. This is why we have the
    pilot. And these are the many questions that we are looking at
    and that we hope will be answered for us in terms of guidance,
    best practices, whether it is possible for a judge to use their
    discretion in a way in a given type of case but yet not impede
    or impair someone's right to a fair trial.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Judge.
        The gentleman's time has expired.
        But, Attorney Osterreicher, would you briefly like to
    respond?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I would hope that we wouldn't shoot the
    messenger. There are no less than four cameras in this
    courtroom right now. I don't think any of us are paying any
    attention to them. We are talking to you. You are talking to
    us. That is what happens in a courtroom. That is what my
    experience has been throughout all the cases that I have
    covered.
        In New York, during the 10-year experiment, I think there
    is a telling statistic. Not one of those cases was ever
    appealed on the grounds that somebody did not receive a fair
    trial because their trial was televised. I think that speaks
    volumes.
        In terms of what other information we are going to obtain
    from this new experiment, you know, I look back from '91 to
    '94. The FJC report talks about their confidence in--they went
    through the same empirical data, the same anecdotal data.
        They, along with the Case Management Committee, both
    recommended it. And, yet, at the end of the day, even with a
    supplemental report supporting the continuation of cameras in
    the courtroom and electronic coverage, the judicial committee
    decided to not go forward with it.
        So I am not really sure, you know, how much more data we
    need to convince people. I know that the Honorable Judge
    Robinson put some statistics in her written report. If you will
    look at them, I believe that there are 17 points that were
    addressed. And, yet, only three of those were over a 50 percent
    concern by the people filling out whatever type of
    questionnaire there was.
        So I think, unfortunately, what we see is that it could, it
    might, it is possible. I think this is all speculative. But the
    overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it just hasn't
    happened in the experience of the courts throughout the States
    and even during the experimental time that they had.
        Mr. Marino. All right. Thank you, sir.
        I am just going to take a moment here to enter something
    into the record.
        Without objection, I request permission to submit for the
    hearing record materials from CSPAN, the Radio and Television
    News Directors Association, and Ms. Maureen Mahoney of Latham &
    Watkins. These materials have been circulated to all the
    Members of the Subcommittee. Hearing no objection, I will enter
    these into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      __________

                        __________
        Mr. Marino. All right. The Chair now recognizes the
    distinguished gentleman from Florida, Congressman Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thanks to the witnesses for being here.
        I wanted just to follow up on what you both were talking
    about, which is the pilot programs, the need for additional
    investigation into whether this might work over the long-term
    and, Judge Robinson, ask you to look at some of the cases, the
    most highly publicized cases, that were televised, the O.J.
    Trial, William Kennedy Smith, Ted Bundy, Florida--in Florida,
    in the Florida Supreme Court, where cameras are permitted, Bush
    v. Gore.
        In those cases, certainly, the three trials, was there
    evidence of--of the concerns that you raised that would
    undermine a fair trial, the intimidating effect of cameras,
    threats to judges, privacy concerns for nonparties?
        I mean, we have a long history at the state level of cases
    that have been tried in public and on television. Do we--
    instead of simply waiting to see what we learn from the pilot,
    from our history, have your concerns been addressed in any of
    these cases or to what extent did we see those concerns about
    undermining a fair trial really come into play?
        Judge Robinson. Well, I have to tell you the high-profile
    cases that have been televised that you mention, I didn't watch
    any of them gavel to gavel. But my perception, I think, and the
    perception of many were those very concerns in those cases. But
    I think what is far more important is to survey the people that
    were involved in a particular case, the lawyers, the witnesses.
        I mean, the things that our pilot is going to do--their
    perceptions, I think, are much more compelling and persuasive
    than the perceptions of somebody who is watching it on TV who
    doesn't know all the facts, who doesn't know, perhaps, what
    that witness testified to in a deposition and whether they are
    shading their testimony now when they are in front of the
    television cameras.
        Mr. Deutch. Right. We may not--viewers may not know that.
    But the parties involved that--on whose behalf you are
    speaking--the concerns of the parties involved, certainly, we
    would have--these are issues that would have come up time and
    time again or would come up time and time again, wouldn't they,
    as we televise trials all over the country, many of them high
    profile?
        Judge Robinson. All I can tell you, sir, is that I think it
    is important to survey people. And I am not aware that, in the
    state courts or in those cases that you mention specifically,
    that those participants were surveyed, that their views were
    called upon.
        We think it is important that the views of the participants
    are a part of what we consider. Once the trial is over, you
    know, they move on unless someone asks them--you know, those
    concerns may never be raised. We want the concerns, if any,
    raised in the context of the survey. And so that is why we are
    doing the pilot in the way we are doing it.
        Mr. Deutch. And I know, Judge Robinson, that you are not--
    you are not taking a position on the Supreme Court. Is that
    correct?
        Judge Robinson. The Judicial Conference----
        Mr. Deutch. Right.
        Judge Robinson [continuing]. Does not take a position.
        Mr. Deutch. Right.
        So----
        Judge Robinson. It does not speak for the Supreme Court.
        Mr. Deutch. But it seems--and, Mr. Osterreicher, I will ask
    you this question. It seems that, since--Judge Robinson, as you
    said, the real concern isn't judges playing to the cameras.
        It is all of these other concerns, that at the Supreme
    Court where--simply appearing before the Supreme Court is
    intimidating in itself, and these other concerns don't really
    seem to apply at all.
        So, Mr. Osterreicher, what is--what is the argument?
    Justice Kagan said that she worries about people playing to the
    cameras. You have been to many Supreme Court oral arguments.
    For anyone who has been, is that a--is that a valid concern?
        Mr. Osterreicher. No. Absolutely not. When those red and
    green lights come on, the only thing you care about is
    persuading the nine Justices that are sitting up there as to
    your position. I really think that it really does a disservice
    to the people, to the lawyers, to the judges, to really say
    that people become aware and play to the cameras.
        I mean, I sat in the courtroom during the O.J. Simpson
    trial. The lawyers there were going to do whatever they were
    going to do, regardless of whether there were cameras or not.
    And, as a matter of fact--and I use this as a comparison--I
    believe that the public missed a wonderful opportunity to see
    Judge Matsch, who oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing trial.
        There were cameras in the courtroom there. I mean, most
    people don't think about it. But they were closed-circuit
    cameras that allowed the broadcast of the proceedings that were
    occurring in Denver to be seen by the people in a courtroom in
    Oklahoma City.
        Again, had that been allowed to happen, we might have seen
    what a well-conducted trial looked like compared to what I will
    admit was a circus during the O.J. Trial. But that had nothing
    to do with the fact that there were cameras in the courtroom.
        Mr. Deutch. And at the Supreme Court where--which is a
    courtroom--our courtrooms have always been public places,
    always been open to the public.
        In the Supreme Court, couldn't the argument equally be made
    that, if the concern really is playing to the cameras, that
    with the current system where there are a handful of Supreme
    Court correspondents from the networks, from the major
    publications, who have--who are known to the Justices, isn't it
    just as likely, if that is really the concern, that Justices
    would play to them, knowing that they are going to be the ones
    that describe what happens in the courtroom?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I think, obviously, from my experience
    there, that sometimes the Justices get playful and they really
    don't care whether--that there is cameras there or not cameras
    there. That is what they are doing.
        They are either trying to ask insightful questions or just
    trying to be clever. And, certainly, it is good, if you are
    arguing a case, if you can come back with a good answer.
        I know, in some of the really seminal cases that we have
    actually--NPPA submitted amicus briefs in, I am always in awe
    and disbelief that I am sitting in this courtroom, the highest
    court in the land, where they will decide how the rest of us
    will live and there is only this handful of people.
        You know, I am fortunate that I am admitted to the Bar. So
    I get to wait on a shorter line. But even then they cut people
    off and you have to sit in the overflow room and only get to
    listen to it over a speaker and don't actually get to see
    people. I think that is really important, also, in terms of
    getting to see people.
        When people testify in court and it is only before the
    people in that courtroom, they might testify differently if it
    was on TV. But I would assert that they might testify more
    honestly because, if their neighbors who happen to know
    something about them get to see it, they don't want to not be
    truthful.
        And if we are in search of the truth in a courtroom, then,
    isn't that much better to have everybody? I mean, that is
    really what the founders thought about when they were talking
    about court day, when people could come in and watch.
        Mr. Deutch. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
    Congressman DeSantis.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Judge, I know there is a difference in terms of
    practitioners practicing in Federal, state court. Part of the
    reason is because of people like you that get through the
    Article III vetting process that tend to be well-qualified and
    good judges.
        And sometimes that is not always the case in various state
    systems. And, obviously, there are States where they do allow
    cameras at the trial level. And you had raised the concern
    about due process and fairness in those cases.
        And so, given that we do have experience with state courts
    having cameras, does the Conference believe that prejudice and
    ill effects abound from the use of cameras there? And, if so,
    what is the basis for that belief?
        Judge Robinson. The Conference has not taken a position and
    really doesn't have a basis to make an evaluation of what is
    going on in the state courts.
        As I said before, I would characterize what the state court
    is doing--what the state courts are doing is experimental in
    the sense that, even though they--some of them have been having
    cameras in the courtroom for a long time, there are so many
    different models.
        We are just concerned, obviously, about ensuring that there
    is due process in the Federal courts. I don't think we are in a
    position to evaluate what is going on in the individual state
    courts.
        Mr. DeSantis. So with respect to this bill, it gives the
    presiding judge the ability to decide whether or not to
    broadcast proceedings.
        So isn't the presiding judge in the best position to
    differentiate between those cases where it may be appropriate
    to record or broadcast and those that may be susceptible to
    undue interference?
        Judge Robinson. I think it is very important that the
    presiding judge have the ultimate discretion because the
    presiding judge knows the case. They know the evidence in the
    case. They can anticipate oftentimes what will happen in the
    trial. On the other hand, there are times that they cannot
    anticipate things that may happen in the trial.
        At the same time, as trial judges, I think we would all
    benefit from a policy that is shaped around the results of our
    study of our own colleagues across the country in terms of what
    happens in certain natures of cases, why--I think the consent
    requirement, for example, will educate and inform us by nature
    of the case what some of the specific concerns are in
    particular cases.
        And I just think our pilot is going to show us what are the
    concerns of lawyers and other participants in the case. We are
    all going to be informed by that. And, ultimately, whatever
    policy the Judicial Conference adopts, I think we will be well
    informed because of the pilot.
        We ask that we be allowed to continue the pilot--it goes
    for another year--and then to look at the results of that pilot
    in formulating policy.
        Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Osterreicher, is there evidence that you
    can point to that shows that the state proceedings where you do
    have cameras have made state officials more accountable and the
    proceedings less prone to error?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I don't know that I could address all
    of--all of those. But at least I would like to just talk a
    little bit, if I could, about what went on in the first
    experiment in Federal court.
        That--as you recall and as I mentioned, those cases were
    covered by the media. In this experiment, it is courtroom
    personnel that are operating the equipment.
        So back between '91 and '93, according to the summary from
    the FJC, there were 257 cases that the media applied to cover
    and 82 percent of those applications were approved.
        Unfortunately, under the new guidelines in this one, not
    only does everybody--all the parties have to consent to the
    coverage, but it is not just the coverage of the trial. It is
    the coverage of each and every proceeding where they can object
    and then there is no coverage.
        I don't know if any of you have had the opportunity to look
    at some of the recordings that are on file on the court's Web
    site, but many of them are done with either split screen or
    quad screen cameras. It is like watching surveil--you know,
    somebody watching a surveillance camera.
        I mean, from my experience being in a courtroom, being in a
    trial, for the most part, it is not Perry Mason. It is like
    watching paint dry. It takes forever for things to happen.
        When you add to the mix a video that, for the most part,
    really could not be broadcast anywhere where things are not
    happening in parts--in quadrants and one person is speaking, I
    just don't think that what we are going to end up with is
    something of value when this pilot is over, and that is what
    concerns me.
        Even after the first experiment when we had the media doing
    it, all of the recommendations were in favor, and we still
    don't have cameras in the court. That is a big concern for us.
        Mr. DeSantis. My time is expired.
        And so I thank the witnesses.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman who is the
    Ranking Member of this Committee, Congressman Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses. And I would
    like to begin with Judge Robinson.
        With respect to the privacy expectations of a witness
    under--H.R. 917 authorizes a Federal judge to order the
    obscuring of his or her image and voice during the court
    proceeding.
        In your mind, does this sufficiently protect the privacy
    expectation of a witness?
        Judge Robinson. It is not a sufficient protection in some
    instances, we believe. Again, I don't want to--I want to wait
    for the outcome of the study.
        But I will give you an example that I think most trial
    judges believe is an issue: confidential informants, a common
    type of witness in criminal cases. This is an issue that we are
    working on, we have worked on for 10 years.
        Because when we made our electronic filings open to the
    public through the Internet, plea agreements of confidential
    informants are now public documents, and there has been fallout
    from that.
        Confidential informants have been threatened. There are all
    kinds of--there is all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people
    being injured, perhaps even killed, in the Bureau of Prisons
    when they have been identified as a confidential informant. We
    are trying to figure out a solution to this just in terms of
    the public records that we push out in written form.
        If that confidential informant is testifying in the
    courtroom and their voice is obscured and their face is
    obscured, their identity can still be ascertained because they
    are being cross-examined and examined about who they are, what
    their name is, you know, what their background is, where they
    lived, et cetera. And so that is of particular concern to us.
        These are people that cooperate. The criminal justice
    system relies upon their cooperation; yet, they are at risk.
    They are already at some risk. But with the presence of cameras
    in the courtroom, we think that there is a heightened risk.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
        Attorney Osterreicher, addressing the same question to you,
    do you think the obscuring of images and voices are sufficient
    protection for the privacy expectation of a witness?
        Mr. Osterreicher. Well, as has been said before, this is an
    open courtroom. I am not quite sure that there are privacy
    expectations. But, certainly, the presiding judge in that case
    should be the one who is in the best position and has the
    authority to make that decision, whether to obscure their face,
    whether to alter their voice, whether to have them testify
    behind a screen.
        In terms of identification, you know, as has been said, all
    of these records are being made public. They are on the
    Internet. And if somebody wants to do someone harm, then all
    they have to do is go get the transcript and they can find out
    that same information about where they live and what they do
    and what their habits are.
        So I don't think blaming electronic coverage or identifying
    that as the culprit here is the solution.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
        Let me now ask the Judge with the--would your concerns
    about H.R. 917 be mollified if it was limited to appellate
    proceedings only?
        Judge Robinson. Most of our concerns are about what happens
    at the trial court level.
        Mr. Conyers. Yes.
        Judge Robinson. Our only opposition to that part of the
    bill that pertains to the circuit courts of appeal is, by
    virtue of the way that circuit courts govern themselves, it is
    a decentralized governance structure, but they make their own
    rules of practice and case management, you know, as a corporate
    body. That is our only objection.
        The bill, of course, calls for each individual appellate
    panel, a panel of three, typically, on a case-by-case or
    argument-by-argument basis to make the decision. That is
    inconsistent with the way they govern themselves.
        Appellate judges don't have the authority to make
    governance decisions about how oral arguments are going to be
    conducted. They do that as a corporate body. That is the status
    quo, and that is what we would like to continue.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, let me ask Attorney Osterreicher about
    the appellate proceedings issue.
        What is your view, sir?
        Mr. Osterreicher. Well, certainly, I don't think that the
    Sixth or the 14th Amendment rights of any defendant will be
    violated by covering an appellate proceeding, especially one in
    the Supreme Court.
        I mean, there is no testimony. We are just making appellate
    arguments. So it is really even harder for us to understand the
    objections when we are looking at the appellate courts.
        I just want to go back to something for a second.
        You know, during--the Supreme Court has found in capital
    cases this evolving standard of decency, and that was something
    that Justice Marshall articulated.
        And I would suggest here--because most of the courts have
    pretty much found, ``Look, the reporters can come in. You can
    report all you want. You just can't bring the cameras with
    you,'' I would think that there should be this evolving
    standard of openness and what openness in an open courtroom
    trial and a public trial means in 2014.
        And I think that there is a huge difference even between
    the case that was mentioned earlier in Estes in 1965. There
    were 12 cameras in that courtroom during that trial. We are not
    talking about doing something like that here.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington,
    Congresswoman DelBene.
        Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thanks to both of you for being here with us here
    today. I appreciate it.
        I agree with my colleagues who testified earlier and
    believe that our democracy is much stronger when we leverage
    technology that we have available to increase the public's
    participation in this process.
        We need citizens to be engaged and informed, and part of
    that means making sure that they have access to their
    Government. So allowing cameras in the courtroom is one way to
    help educate the public about the workings of our judiciary.
        At the same time, making sure we implement it in a way that
    is responsible is going to be very important. We need to make
    sure that we don't compromise the safety of victims of violent
    crimes who may be witnesses before the court, as has been
    brought up earlier, or violate due process rights of
    defendants. And striking the right balance is key.
        This bill, I believe, takes a thoughtful approach. And I
    want to commend my colleagues for their work on it. It is
    important that we look at steps where we do increase
    transparency in our system across all three branches of
    Government, and this bill seems to be a step in the right
    direction.
        The Supreme Court provides online audio recordings of oral
    arguments, and it has been releasing audio during the same week
    as arguments only since 2010. Before that, audio from one term
    generally wasn't available until the beginning of the next
    term.
        And so I was wondering, Mr. Osterreicher, what is your view
    on the impact of having these audio recordings available now
    publicly within the same week of the argument? And has there
    been an improvement in public access?
        Mr. Osterreicher. Well, it is certainly a good first step.
    But when we are talking about the age of the Internet, when
    somebody can tweet something and millions of people can see it
    and read it and share it seconds after it has been sent,
    especially in news--when you are talking about something,
    ``Well, we will release it that week''--I mean, in the news
    business, a week later is really yesterday's news.
        So for the people that really are interested--and there are
    a surprising amount of them that--whether they are shut-ins or
    just people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in
    the judiciary, I think at least having simultaneous broadcast
    of the audio might be a good first start.
        I just have a problem, again, with the audio only. Not to
    disparage courtroom artists. They certainly perform a good
    function. But, in 2014, to be relegated to something that is
    more akin to cave drawings than high-definition television just
    seems to be wrong to me.
        Ms. DelBene. Judge Robinson, do you have a view of the
    difference between audio and video when--as you have talked
    earlier.
        Judge Robinson. Well, I can only speak to that in terms of
    what is going on in the trial courts and the circuit courts of
    appeal.
        There are circuit courts of appeal that are posting
    digital--or, rather, audio recordings--digital audio recording
    of their arguments in short measure. And there are some trial
    courts, district and bankruptcy courts, that are doing the
    same.
        Those are courts that are recording their proceedings by
    audio rather than by court reporter, and a number of them are
    posting--whatever the proceeding might be, they are posting
    those to the Internet. Obviously, it improves public access. We
    recognize and really revere the right of the public to--access
    to our open courtrooms.
        The Federal courts have really evolved over the last 20
    years in the right direction in terms of becoming more
    transparent, unlike state courts, who look to us, I think, with
    some reverence because of what we have done with our electronic
    case filings.
        And all of that information is now readily available on the
    Internet. So we are focusing, of course, on proceedings
    themselves, on the small percentage of civil cases that go to
    trial and the small percentage of criminal cases that go to
    trial.
        But in those very many cases that don't, the public right
    now in the Federal system has access to virtually every
    pleading that is filed, obviously, every judicial decision. And
    there is a lot of information and a lot of public education
    that happens in the context of what we are already providing in
    the public sphere.
        Ms. DelBene. Now, we also know that, you know, access to
    actually get into the court--and the Supreme Court is probably
    a good example--very few members of the public can actually get
    in.
        In fact, you can--people pay people to stand in line for
    them right now, and they are paid up to $50 an hour to secure
    spots in a long line for people to get in.
        So that makes it pretty difficult for people to have the
    opportunity to have access to live arguments in the courtroom
    or in the Supreme Court, in particular. So that doesn't seem
    like that is great public access either.
        And, as Mr. Osterreicher pointed out, in many cases, you
    might be sitting in a room watching it on video anyway. So it
    seems like we could do a better job there of improving access
    as well.
        Mr. Osterreicher, do you agree with that?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I would.
        As was mentioned earlier, this morning the Supreme Court
    was hearing arguments in Young v. United Parcel, which was a
    case about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I can only imagine
    how many people would have been very interested in hearing
    those arguments this morning while we have been sitting talking
    here.
        Hearing them, watching them, seeing how the proponents
    argue their case, seeing how the justices reacted to those
    arguments, I think that is all a very important part of this
    process and people much better understanding how the judicial
    system works.
        I would almost go so far as to make a comparison. We have
    talked about things in Ferguson. It has been a big discussion.
    I was there dealing with issues of photographers being arrested
    and interfered with.
        But my point here is that, even though grand jury
    proceedings are secret--and they should be--I think as an
    analogy, if those grand jury proceedings had been open and
    people had been able to see and understand what went on in that
    proceeding, we might not have had the same reaction as we had
    after the grand jury handed up a no bill.
        Ms. DelBene. My time has expired. So I yield back, Mr.
    Chair. Thank you.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York,
    Congressman Jeffries.
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the witnesses for their presence here today.
        We have got, of course, three branches of Government, all
    of which are coequal and all of which are incredibly important
    to our democracy.
        But we also have a fourth estate, as sometimes the media
    has been colloquially referred to, which I think also plays a
    very important role in our democracy in projecting that outward
    and making sure that people are informed about the things that
    are occurring certainly with the executive branch and with the
    legislative branch and, hopefully, increasingly as it relates
    to the judicial branch.
        And so, Judge Robinson, I just wanted to ask: Do you think
    that the role that the media plays in the context of helping to
    bring our democracy to life is a point worthy of consideration
    as we determine the best way to proceed?
        Judge Robinson. Absolutely. I am a Jay school graduate. So
    that is an easy answer for me to give.
        But I think, also, it is important to note that our pilot--
    this pilot provides for video recordings pushed out on the
    uscourts.gov Web site, available to everyone, not just those
    recordings that the media has decided to record that they think
    are, you know, interesting enough for people to--to their
    subscribers or to the public to listen to.
        We have evolved as a Nation. We have evolved as an
    institution. 20 years ago, when we did that first pilot, it was
    based on media recording. We made a very deliberate decision
    this time to not have recordings based on what the media wanted
    to record, but to make all recordings that, you know, meet the
    requirements of the pilot pushed out to the public.
        I mean, what we have found is that the media now is much
    broader in terms of their, you know, public reporters in the
    sense of people that tweet and people that report and people
    that, you know, create YouTube videos and all of that that
    sometimes actually are--find themselves in the hands of the
    media, and they are used by professional journalists to report
    on the news.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, we have three branches of Government, as
    I mentioned, all of which, in our founders' wisdom, are
    separate and coequal.
        Does the Judicial Conference take a position on whether it
    is appropriate for Congress, a different branch, to be making
    determinations about the best way for a separate and entirely
    coequal branch to proceed as it relates to cameras in the
    courtroom?
        In other words, is there--is there a separation-of-powers
    concern that should legitimately be considered in the context
    of this debate?
        Judge Robinson. With respect to the trial courts and the
    circuit courts of appeal, we haven't raised a separation-of-
    powers argument. But what we have asked is for you to let us
    study and then formulate policy on the basis of our experience,
    as further informed by the study itself.
        We--case management--while it is clear that Congress
    promulgates rules that govern what goes on in Federal
    litigation, at the same time, we also need to be in control of
    our case management practices and how we can best go about
    controlling what happens in the courtroom to ensure that the
    parties receive a fair trial.
        And so that is why--it is not so much a separation-of-
    powers argument, but an argument that you give credence to the
    fact that we are studying this, that we are experts, if you
    will, in what happens in the courtroom, and that we want to
    make sure that whatever policy we formulate is shaped and
    informed by our experience and our information.
        Mr. Jeffries. And is there a legitimate distinction that
    can be drawn between criminal proceedings and civil
    proceedings, such that perhaps a greater degree of access is
    allowed on the civil side?
        Because some of the concerns that may be implicated that we
    need to think through in the context of a criminal trial,
    particularly as it relates to confidentiality and privacy and
    the adverse implications of unwanted exposure, don't
    necessarily exist on the civil side.
        Judge Robinson. We have concerns with respect to the effect
    on witnesses and particularly the effect on the substance of
    the witnesses' testimony in civil proceedings.
        But we have more concerns on the criminal side, and that is
    because we have witnesses, as I mentioned before, that are
    confidential informants and cooperators. We have undercover
    officers and agents who routinely testify in criminal cases. We
    are very concerned about their security and safety.
        Mr. Jeffries. And, Mr. Osterreicher, is it legitimate for
    the parties who are participating in the actual trials to have
    an opportunity to object based on their determination that the
    presence of cameras in a courtroom will complicate the ability
    for them to receive a fair trial or should we completely
    dismiss the concerns and simply just allow a judge to be the
    arbiter?
        Mr. Osterreicher. Once again, I think that a trial court
    judge could make that decision. The problems that I see are, if
    everybody objects, we are not going to have very much of a
    pilot study for them to have some evaluations from.
        So, you know, my experience in state court in New York was
    many times, when the media made an application to cover it, you
    could certainly expect out of hand that there would be an
    objection.
        And we would make those arguments to the judge, and the
    judge would decide with a presumption of coverage whether or
    not that objection would overcome that presumption. So I think
    that might be a good way to start.
        I just also wanted to go back to one other point in terms
    of the media deciding which cases to cover. That is true. But
    what is also true, at least in my understanding of this pilot
    program, is that none of the video that is recorded in any of
    these cases gets posted to the Web site until the judge in the
    case has reviewed the video.
        So, in a way, if there is something there that might be
    problematic, that's something that, you know, he could--he or
    she could do as well.
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
        My time has expired.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island,
    Congressman Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The bill before us today, the Sunshine in the Courtroom
    Act, promises to provide greater access to the public and to
    the inner workings of our justice system.
        As my colleague, Congressman Lofgren, noted in her
    testimony, trials have always been open to the public and the
    enactment of this legislation would expand upon that promise of
    transparency.
        And it is very hard for me to understand the argument that
    the quality of our system of justice or the fairness of our
    courts is impaired by--or is improved by limiting public
    access.
        And, Judge Robinson, I am going to start with you.
        Because, you know, if you look at the history of the right
    to a public trial, it is, of course, grounded in the Anglo-
    Saxon history of the common law in the 17th century, and the
    idea of it was that the public proceedings would operate as a
    check against malevolent prosecution, corrupt or malleable
    judges, or perjurious witnesses, the idea that a public trial
    would aid the fact-finding mission and make--encourage citizens
    to come forward and speak truthfully, whether providing
    inculpatory or exculpatory evidence.
        So your testimony that the single greatest threat to
    underlying media exposure in the courtroom is--to the search
    for the truth seems to turn the Sixth Amendment right to a
    public trial on its head. I mean, the whole idea was it would
    be a check, it would provide assurances that people would be
    truthful because it would be exposed broadly to the public.
        So why do you conclude or why does the Judicial Conference
    believe that that public--the expansion of that public trial
    will undermine the search of the truth rather than advance it
    even more?
        Judge Robinson. That is--that is a critical question that
    we are studying. The right to a public trial is sacrosanct. The
    right to a fair trial is sacrosanct. We are balancing those
    two. To the extent we have to worry--and we don't know
    whether--how much we have to worry. But I think, anecdotally,
    we have all experienced this.
        But to the extent we have to worry that a witness hedges or
    shades the truth, is not forthcoming with information that they
    would otherwise be forthcoming with when they are testifying in
    front of a courtroom with, say, 20 people because they know
    that there may be millions of people that are watching that,
    including people that are of particular importance to them,
    like their boss or their pastor or their next-door neighbor who
    otherwise probably wouldn't go online and get the transcript of
    the trial and go through that effort, we have to worry.
        And I gave some examples earlier in a civil case. I have
    had a case recently that I thought the parties might agree to
    record. They did not. I wasn't surprised because it was a case
    about trade secrets. They come into a public courtroom. They
    are looking around, seeing who is in there, hoping none of
    their competitors are in there. If their competitors are in
    there, they have a right to be in there. But they are going to
    be more concerned if their competitors are out watching it on
    the Internet, something that they won't know.
        And this comes up in a variety of contexts. It comes up in
    terms of are witnesses going to be concerned about hedging or
    shading their testimony when they are being cross-examined
    about a loss of consortium claim or an emotional distress claim
    or, in a criminal case, if they are a confidential informant. I
    mean, there a number of concerns, depending on the type of case
    and depending on the nature of the witness.
        Mr. Cicilline. But, as a general rule, do you agree with
    the proposition that it is more likely that people will testify
    truthfully when it is broadly exposed?
        Because if you don't accept that proposition, then this
    notion underlying the right to a public trial doesn't make any
    sense.
        I mean, the idea is, if you are going to make an assertion
    and the whole world is going to hear it and it is not true,
    then there is someone who might be able to prove it is not
    true. If it is a truthful statement, then you are less
    concerned that the whole world hears.
        So I just think that your argument--or the argument of the
    Judicial Conference really undermines a basic notion of the
    public trial as being a very effective tool.
        And I was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer, did a
    lot of state and Federal practice. And I think that a public
    trial, the notion of being subjected to cross-examination and
    being done broadly and not in sort of a secret way or way that
    limits public access, actually enhances the truthfulness.
        But I want to go to a second question. You also said in
    your written testimony that the presence of cameras in the
    trial courtroom is likely to heighten the level and potential
    of threats to judges.
        What is the basis for that conclusion? And have you seen
    any evidence in the state court practice that the presence of
    cameras in the courtroom has increased the level or potential
    for threats to judges?
        Judge Robinson. Of course, our study is focused on Federal
    practice in Federal district courts. We haven't studied what
    has happened in state courts. But there are judges who have had
    threats--all of us have had threats, some more serious than
    others.
        The fact that your face----
        Mr. Cicilline. But the question is about the presence of
    cameras as a source of that.
        Judge Robinson. Well, the fact that your face is broadcast
    is a concern, if it is the type of case where you have been--
    you know, the--you have received threats. That is a concern.
        There are a number of concerns, and that is one of them. It
    won't happen in every case. It probably won't happen except in
    a small number of cases. But, nonetheless, it is a concern.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Osterreicher, you looked like you were
    about to say something.
        Mr. Osterreicher. Yeah. I can certainly understand it being
    a concern. But is it any more of a concern than--Judge
    Robinson, I have never met you. Last night I went on the
    Internet. I Googled you. I found a picture of you. I said,
    ``Oh, I know who to look for.''
        It is not that difficult in this day and age. You don't
    need to have a proceeding of somebody testifying and having
    their face on television to find out what they look like.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Congressman
    and former Judge Poe.
        Mr. Poe. I thank the Chair.
        Thank you all for being here.
        A couple of points to begin with, and then I want to get
    your input.
        As the Chair mentioned, I served on the criminal court
    district bench in Texas for 22 years, tried felonies,
    everything from stealing to capital murder. Before that, I
    spent 8 years as the trial prosecutor at the DA's office in
    Houston.
        And when I took the bench a long time ago, the idea of
    cameras in the courtroom was just, you know, nonexistent. And I
    actually allowed cameras in the courtroom very early on in my
    judicial career, and it was based upon the philosophy, the
    belief, the frustration--and I am going to agree with Mr.
    Cicilline from Rhode Island. I know that shocks him that I
    agree with him on this.
        The public--the public--the mystery of the courthouse still
    exists with the public. They pick up the newspaper in the
    morning and they read that this happened in a courtroom
    somewhere. And many times they are frustrated. ``Why in the
    world did that happen in the courtroom?''
        And it is because all they get is a little blip in the
    paper about the trial. They don't have access to the public
    trial. Public trial, I agree, it is public so that the public
    knows what is taking place. We get away from the Star Chamber
    of England when they did things in the back room.
        And the more the public knows, the better they understand
    why the outcome turned out the way it did. So, with that, I
    allowed cameras in the courtroom. We had--we heard all those
    arguments. You know, we protected victims of crime. They
    weren't televised. The media always worked with that. Children
    weren't televised, special cases. The jury wasn't televised. We
    kept it focused on the importance of the trial. We never had a
    problem.
        We heard these arguments about that lawyers will play to
    the--would play to the cameras. They don't play to the cameras.
    They play to the jury, like they have always done throughout
    centuries. They play to the trier of fact, whether it is the
    Court or whether it is the jury. And I always thought that, if
    judges didn't want cameras in the courtroom, why was that?
    Maybe they would be doing things that the public should be
    know--they shouldn't be doing things that they are doing.
        So I have had experience with cameras. It worked out. We
    did a capital murder case of a juvenile, and both sides agreed
    to the trial--filming most of the case. And so I am a big
    supporter of the public knowing about the greatest judicial
    system in the world. It is the American judicial system. It is
    not somebody else's. It is ours.
        And blocking and preventing that access when they have the
    right to sit there and watch it and saying, ``But we put a
    camera and view it on television. You are not allowed to do
    that,'' that does not make any sense to me. So I do believe
    that we ought to allow that in Federal court as well.
        You go over to the Supreme Court and you get a 15-minute
    snippet, if you are a guest, on what is taking place in a very
    important trial with the most important court in the world,
    because the public is allowed to walk in and then they rush
    them out to bring in more people who are wanting to see what
    takes place. Reading the transcript is not the same as watching
    the trial.
        So without elaborating so much on that specific issue, what
    does the--what does the media, those in the business of filming
    courtroom trials, think how that would help or hinder the
    public perception of the judicial system that is taking place?
    Got an opinion on that? Either one of you.
        Mr. Osterreicher. Certainly, I think that the more informed
    the public can be--the fact that--you know, when I first
    started doing this, as you said, I might be at the courtroom
    all day and we are going to run a minute-30 story on the trial.
        That day has also long since passed because now, with the
    Internet, if you work at a television station, they can live-
    stream the trial all day long and it doesn't take away from
    their broadcast abilities. So if somebody wants to watch gavel
    to gavel, they get to watch gavel to gavel, if they allow the
    cameras in, and certainly the more informed you can be.
        I mean, I would much rather watch a courtroom proceeding
    without any of the commentary. I would just like to see, as if
    I were sitting there, what is being said, what is being asked,
    what evidence is being introduced.
        Now, I realize I am a lawyer, but I think there are a lot
    of people that have that same interest. And if I can just watch
    for myself--I believe that happened during the civil trial of
    O.J. Simpson. And you just--there were really no commentators.
    You could just turn it on and watch it. It was on every day.
    And I think Court TV did gavel-to-gavel coverage, and you could
    form your own opinions or learn things.
        And I think that is the real benefit of allowing the
    cameras in. And I think, unfortunately, far too often the
    electronic coverage gets confused with the commentators and the
    pundits and the spin and all the other stuff that comes with,
    well, what used to be news and is now infotainment.
        Mr. Poe. I am out of time. I had another question for the
    Judge. But thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Marino. If the Judge wants another 30 seconds, fire
    away.
        Mr. Poe. Well, I appreciate the Chairman.
        I was just going to--Judge, I was going to ask your
    personal opinion.
        Do you think, if the public had more visibility of what we
    did in the courtroom, whether it is at the trial bench or
    whether it is at the appellate bench or the Supreme Court--do
    you think maybe they would understand and appreciate the
    judicial system more or not with the--with cameras?
        Judge Robinson. That would be my hope, Mr. Poe. Maybe I
    should call you Judge Poe.
        I think all judges want the public to be better informed
    about our branch of Government and recognize that the public is
    not as well informed as they used to be, perhaps, when we were
    in school many years ago.
        We recognize and embrace the fact that public access to the
    courts is very important. They are public proceedings. We
    understand that, you know, cameras may augment that. At the
    same time, though, we are balancing other interests.
        I appreciate that you have had seasoned experience as a
    trial judge in Texas. And there are a number of judges in the
    pilot itself that came from state court experience.
        We are going to be serving all of the participants in the
    pilot, including judges. Some of us didn't have that experience
    before being on the Federal bench. Others did.
        It will be interesting, I think, to hear from those judges
    that have that prior state court experience as well. But that
    is going to inform how we go about formulating policy forward.
        There are concerns. I think there are legitimate concerns.
    We are balancing the right to fair trial versus the public's
    very important right to access.
        We just ask that you allow us to complete our study and to
    formulate our policy and our procedures and our guidance going
    forward.
        Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you for the additional time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas,
    Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the Ranking Member as well for his leadership
    and the questions of my colleagues, who have expressed
    vigorously our collective commitment to justice and fairness
    and the importance of the judiciary.
        I would offer to say that I think the issues have been
    raised here legitimately, Judge Robinson, that give merit to
    concerns and comments that you have made, along with those of
    Mr. Osterreicher, who has likewise raised this open
    transparency.
        And so I hope that, as we deliberate as a judiciary
    committee, that we will act with judiciousness and take all of
    these issues into consideration.
        I want to ask about the pilot. Give me the ending time of
    the pilot.
        Judge Robinson. It is July 2015. It was originally a 3-year
    pilot. We extended a year and now into a fifth year.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, at that point, you will have a
    collection of data that included cameras in the courtroom of
    varying levels of the judiciary, state, county, Federal or----
        Judge Robinson. No. The pilot is focused only on Federal
    trial courts, the district courts, and the participants are
    Federal district judges.
        So, in July 2015, the recordings will stop and then the
    Federal Judicial Center will be the one compiling the data,
    including the very many surveys of practitioners and lawyers
    and other participants in the process.
        We hope at the Court Administration and Case Management
    Committee's biannual meeting in December of 2015 that report
    will be ready for the consideration of the Committee.
        I am no longer on that Committee. I chaired that Committee
    until September 30 of this year. But I would anticipate that it
    is at that meeting that we--this is a horrible government
    acronym--CACM is what we call the Committee, C-A-C-M--but at
    that meeting that that body will consider that----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So you have had--excuse me for
    interrupting.
        But you have had cameras in the courtroom now for a number
    of different Federal courts. Do you, by any chance, know how
    many?
        Judge Robinson. There are 14 courts participating in the
    pilot.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I am going to ask you a series of
    questions.
        Judge Robinson. That is fine.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me just----
        Judge Robinson. There are 14----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. That is all I need, the 14.
        And you do what with the video now?
        Judge Robinson. The video is posted to the uscourts.gov Web
    site.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So it is--it is able to be viewed?
        Judge Robinson. And they are posted fairly quickly.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
        Judge Robinson. The goal is to post them that day or the
    following morning.
        Mr. Osterreicher had talked about the fact that judges
    review the videos before they are posted. That is not the
    practice.
        The judges may review the video if there is a problem. But
    if there is not a problem, the video is posted. And you know
    there is a problem because you are there and contemporaneously
    you can usually determine that there is a problem and you may
    need to go back and ask for some----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask some--a series of questions.
    Thank you very much.
        So, in essence, this is a judicial CSPAN somewhat? CSPAN is
    current and present. You don't post it until the next day? I
    just need a yes or no.
        Judge Robinson. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
        Judge Robinson. Correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Osterreicher, we are getting your name
    correctly? Maybe we should say Mr. Mickey. But we thank you for
    your intolerance--your tolerance. Not intolerance, but your
    tolerance.
        In the bill, I note that there is an effort to protect
    witnesses, for judges to ask the question about witnesses,
    blurring their particular faces.
        Let me ask you this. And I have heard enthusiastic
    expression by my colleague. Being a lawyer and a champion of
    the First Amendment, which is what the intentions are here,
    that wonderful First Amendment and that recognition of the
    importance of speech not being, if you will, unfettered speech,
    which in the courtroom there is speech, and then the whole
    judicial system that gives every party an opportunity to be
    heard, but then, also, for witnesses to be heard as well, what
    comes to mind is the unfortunate case of Mr. Zimmerman and
    Treyvon Martin and the demonizing of a beautiful young lady
    because she happened to be different.
        What is your response to witnesses who may look differently
    and speak differently and people are across the country
    watching and, even though this is just unfettered video, then
    it becomes in the open sphere and that person--that innocent
    person, that beautiful young African-American woman, became
    the--not of her own fault. She was doing her civic duty, and
    the horror of demonizing her was inexcusable. How do you answer
    to the potential of those kinds of things happening?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I certainly believe that that was very
    unfortunate. I have always been a proponent of the fact that
    cameras and electronic coverage should be up to the discretion
    of the trial court judge.
        I don't think there should be a per se ban. I don't think
    there should be a per se ``We are coming in whether you like it
    or not.''
        I mean, a judge needs to conduct his or her courtroom in
    the way he or she sees fit and--and make sure that justice is
    fairly served. So that is really all I am saying here.
        You know, it is unfortunate in this day and age, you know,
    people are often targeted, whether--now on social media. It is
    not just broadcasts anymore that leads to this kind of mob
    mentality that is out there.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
        I just want to make one sentence. I appreciate the
    testimony of both witnesses. I believe it has been very
    helpful. This is an important legislative initiative. It has
    some protective measures to it.
        Judge Robinson, you have indicated some protective measures
    through the pilot. I would hope that we could see the report of
    the pilot.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that we will have the
    opportunity to vigorously look at this and the legislation and
    make an important decision that will be fair to both of the
    witnesses' testimony.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think it is my turn to ask some questions, and I am
    staying as neutral as possible on this.
        I was a prosecutor at the state and at the Federal level as
    a U.S. attorney, and I tried my own cases. So I know what goes
    on in the Federal courtroom.
        I am going to play a little bit of a devil's advocate here
    with the two of you and get your reactions.
        Do we agree that--and I have tried these cases in Federal
    court--when a minor is involved in a case, that there is no--
    nothing divulging who that minor is as far as a TV is
    concerned? There is an agreement there?
        Judge Robinson. We agree. In fact, that is consistent with
    our privacy policy now in terms of written--the trial
    transcript and pleadings, that minors are identified by
    initials, not by name.
        Mr. Osterreicher. I certainly think that is true. And, for
    the most part, in cases where the media does cover these
    trials, if that is what is indicated by the judge, then media
    will follow along with those guidelines.
        Mr. Marino. And I am particularly concerned about a victim,
    because I prosecuted cases concerning sex trafficking of
    minors.
        Mr. Osterreicher. I think, in much the same way as the
    media often does not report the name of a victim in cases, it
    certainly would follow that you wouldn't show their identity.
        Mr. Marino. Do either of you have a distinction whether the
    proceedings concern testimony, demonstrative evidence, or
    appellate oral argument? Do you draw a distinction between the
    two of whether one or the other should or should not be
    televised?
        Judge?
        Judge Robinson. Again, the circuit courts of appeal can
    make the decision as corporate bodies individually whether to
    allow for cameras in their courtroom. There are different
    concerns. But there are many more concerns at the trial court
    level, as I have articulated today.
        Mr. Marino. This is probably rhetorical, but from what I
    have seen, there is no money allocated for this. Who is going
    to pay for it? Taxpayers.
        Mr. Osterreicher. Well, I would argue that if the media
    were allowed to cover these cases, it would be their cost, not
    the courts'.
        Mr. Marino. Who is going to be the, for lack of a better
    term, and I don't mean to be facetious about this, who is going
    to be the director? Does just my local news guy come in and
    take control and film, or is the judge now going to have the
    responsibility of being the director and calling the shots?
        Judge Robinson. Well, the concern that the Judicial
    Conference has, and the reason we structured the pilot the way
    we had, is we want to be in control of the equipment, to make
    sure that jurors or witnesses are not inadvertently recorded.
    If you are talking about a live broadcast, once the toothpaste
    is out of the tube, it is out of the tube. You can't fix
    something like that. But you are right: It takes resources. It
    takes labor. It takes someone monitoring the equipment.
        Mr. Marino. Mr. Osterreicher.
        Mr. Osterreicher. I think there certainly are ways to make
    sure that the jury is not recorded. In the O.J. trial, for
    example, the camera was mounted on the wall above the jurors'
    heads. There was no way for it to look down at all. So there
    was no inadvertent. Certainly as a photojournalist, if I was
    told by the judge, this person doesn't get recorded, that is
    what that means.
        Mr. Marino. Am I correctly assuming that neither one of you
    are--I know certainly, Judge, you are not, but Attorney
    Osterreicher, are you saying that you do not want to have an
    individual come in the courtroom with his or her own camera and
    photograph this?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I certainly think there needs to be rules
    and decorum. I can't imagine, just as in those trials of the
    century during the Lindbergh baby, where you had photographers
    literally running around the courtroom with big Speed Graphics,
    that is not what we are talking about here. So, in this day and
    age, where everybody has got a phone, and everybody has got a
    camera in that phone, I am certainly not suggesting that
    everybody in the courtroom sit there and record it on their
    own.
        Mr. Marino. But I do not hear you saying that you agree
    with what I am purporting here, that the court cameras are the
    only cameras in the courtroom and the judge controls them. Do
    you not agree with that?
        Mr. Osterreicher. I have a problem with that.
        Mr. Marino. Okay. What do we do about--my time is running
    out here--but what do we do about the situation where once
    these digital recordings are released, now what is going to
    happen when the public gets a hold of it? What is going to
    happen when the comedians on late night TV get a hold of it?
    What is going to happen when someone out there who has the
    ability, and it is very easy today--my kids teach me how to do
    it--taking that video and altering it and then putting it out
    on YouTube?
        Judge Robinson. Obviously, we have no control of any of
    that. But to suggest that because that is a problem, the
    public--if there is value in the public having a right to
    record proceedings or having access, I should say, to record
    proceedings, that is one of the risks attendant with that.
        Mr. Osterreicher. I think there is always going to be a
    parade of horribles, and no matter what we do, no matter how
    far we try and think this ahead, there is going to be an issue.
    But I don't think that is a valid one.
        Mr. Marino. But I agree with my friend Judge Poe that we
    have the best legal system in the world. It is a sanctity that
    we have to cherish. And I would hate to see it be ridiculed.
    So, with that, I would thank you very much for your testimony
    today. It has been very helpful to all of us. This concludes
    today's hearing. Thanks to all of our witnesses and those
    attending.
        Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
    additional materials for the record. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]