[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 23, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1252) to 
     modify the procedures of the Federal courts in certain 
     matters, and for other purposes:

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 1252, the 
Judicial Reform Act, but would like to say a few words about one 
provision of the bill that merits strong bipartisan support.
  I refer to Section 8 of the bill, which would allow Federal appellate 
judges, in their sole discretion, to permit televised transmission of 
court proceedings. It would also allow Federal district court judges to 
permit televised proceedings on a three-year experimental basis.
  Americans have always taken a strong interest in the workings of the 
justice system. Yet those who have had little direct exposure to the 
process derive their impressions largely from fictional courtroom 
dramas and sensational coverage of high-profile trials. It is little 
wonder that many lack a proper understanding of the process by which 
justice is meted out in our society, and hold in scant regard the 
judicial officers upon whom the integrity of that process depends.
  Cameras in the courtroom offer the public an alternative: an 
unfiltered, unedited, unvarnished glimpse of the judicial process as it 
really is. Like C-SPAN, which enables viewers to interpret legislative 
proceedings for themselves, free of intrusive commentary, televised 
trials allow viewers to make their own judgments regarding the fairness 
of the judge, the competence of counsel, the credibility of witnesses, 
and the quality of the evidence presented. Through first-hand 
observation, the average citizen can develop a greater respect for the 
requirements of due process, and a fuller appreciation of the 
importance of an independent judiciary in preserving the rule of law.
  The 48 states that permit broadcast coverage of court proceedings 
have also found that the presence of cameras has a salutary effect on 
the proceedings themselves, exposing the trial process to public 
scrutiny and encouraging fair play, professionalism and decorum. Even 
judges who were hesitant to authorize television coverage have 
generally found the experience to be a positive one. Concerns that the 
media would detract from the solemnity of the proceedings and would 
violate the sensibilities of the participants have generally proven to 
be unfounded.
  As a district attorney, I strongly supported the introduction of 
cameras into Massachusetts courtrooms, and chose to participate in the 
pilot program which Massachusetts undertook in the 1980s. In fact, I 
prosecuted the first case to go to trial under the program in 1980. The 
Massachusetts experiment was an enormous success, and led to the 
adoption of a court rule instructing judges to permit electronic 
coverage of public proceedings, subject to various limitations designed 
to ensure fairness to the parties and to safeguard the integrity of the 
proceedings.
  From 1991-93, the Judicial Conference of the United States conducted 
a pilot program in six U.S. district courts and two U.S. courts of 
appeals which yielded similar results. A 1994 evaluation by the Federal 
Judicial Center concluded that cameras should be permitted in all 
Federal civil proceedings.
  Naturally, there are some cases in which trial participants have an 
overriding need for anonymity, and in such cases the judge must have 
the discretion to bar cameras form the courtroom. Some 15 years after 
that first televised trial, I was the prosecutor in a highly publicized 
trial involving the murder of two women at a family planning clinic. In 
order to protect the victims' families and witnesses who were clinic 
patients and employees, I filed a motion asking the court to exercise 
its discretion to exclude cameras from the trial. The judge granted our 
motion based on the special circumstances of the case.
  The bill provides for such situations by giving Federal judges 
unfettered discretion to exclude cameras at any time and for any 
reason.
  Mr. Chairman, an educated and informed citizenry is essential to a 
healthy, functioning democracy. This measure will enhance public 
understanding of a central pillar of our democracy, and deserves our 
support. While I regret that it was attached to a highly controversial 
bill whose other provisions I could not support, I very much hope that 
it can be included elsewhere on our legislative agenda.

                          ____________________