[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25790-25791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      CAMERAS, COURTS, AND JUSTICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Americans have a right to a public trial. This 
right dates back to the founding of this Nation, and it is based on our 
values of fairness and impartiality. The more open and public a trial 
is, the more likely that justice will occur. That's why in this country 
we don't have the secret STAR Chamber. This is a right reserved for 
defendants, but the public also sees it as their right to be informed. 
Cameras enhance the concept of fairness and openness.
  Any American could walk into a courtroom and observe that proceeding. 
But if a person does not physically sit inside that courtroom, that

[[Page 25791]]

person is denied the ability to see and observe the proceedings. This 
doesn't make any sense.
  Placing a camera in a courtroom would allow the trial to be more 
public, more just, just like a trial is supposed to be. While Federal 
court hearings are open to the public, not everyone can actually attend 
Federal hearings. This is certainly true of appellate and Supreme Court 
hearings. And because of the impact that the United States Supreme 
Court and its rulings have on all Americans, those proceedings 
especially should be filmed. It is time to allow cameras in our Federal 
courts, at the discretion of the Federal judge.
  I personally know how important it is to make courtroom proceedings 
in trials accessible by camera to the public because I did it. For 22 
years I served as a State felony court judge in Houston, Texas. I heard 
over 25,000 cases and presided over 1,000 jury trials. I was one of the 
first judges in the United States to allow cameras in the courtroom. I 
tried violent cases, corruption cases, murder cases, undercover drug 
cases, and numerous gang cases.
  I had certain rules in place when a camera filmed in my courtroom. 
The media also always followed the rules that were ordered. Court TV 
even successfully aired an entire capital murder trial that was 
conducted in my courtroom. My rules were simple: No filming of sexual 
assault victims or children or the jury or certain witnesses such as 
informants. The unobtrusive camera filmed what the jury saw and what 
the jury heard. Nothing else.
  After the trial juries even commented and liked the camera inside the 
courtroom because they, too, wanted the public to know what they heard 
instead of waiting to hear a 30-second sound bite from a newscaster, 
who may or may not have gotten the facts straight.
  Those who oppose cameras in the courtroom argue that lawyers will 
play to the camera. No, Mr. Speaker, trial lawyers don't play to the 
camera. Lawyers play to the jury. They always have done so and always 
will whether a camera is present or not. I know. I played to the jury 
in my 8 years as a trial prosecutor.
  Those who oppose cameras in the courtroom argue that it would 
infringe on a defendant's rights, but based on my experience, the 
opposite is actually true. Cameras in the courtroom actually benefit a 
defendant because a public trial ensures fairness. It ensures 
professionalism by the attorneys and the judge. A camera in the 
courtroom protects a defendant's right to that public trial.
  And some members of the bar and judges may not want the public to see 
what is going on inside the courtroom because, frankly, they don't want 
the public to know what they are actually doing in the courtroom. Maybe 
these people shouldn't be doing what they are doing if they don't want 
the public to know by seeing their actions through a camera. A camera 
reveals the action of all participants in a trial.
  If a judge fears that any trial participant's safety is in jeopardy 
or that the identity of an undercover agent or security personnel will 
be revealed by filming, the judge can refuse to have that camera in the 
courtroom and film that trial. I know how it is when you have certain 
undercover agents such as the DEA and informants testify. I had them 
testify in my courtroom, and we took the precautions to secure their 
identity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am no law school academic, but I have 30 years 
experience as a trial prosecutor and a trial judge. And based on those 
real experiences, cameras should be allowed in our courts.
  The public has a right to watch courtroom proceedings and trials in 
person. America should not be deprived of this right to know just 
because they cannot physically sit inside the courtroom during those 
trials.
  We have the best justice system in the world. We should not hide it. 
Many times citizens wonder why certain things happen in courts and why 
the results turned out the way they did. Openness, transparency, and 
cameras will help educate and inform a public that still continues to 
be enthralled with the greatest court system in the world.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________