CLARK COUNTY — If state Rep. Steve Stemler gets his way, Clark County's circuit courts could set the pace in Indiana with allowing news cameras inside the courtrooms as part of a proposed pilot program.
Indiana and South Dakota are the only two states in the country to still prohibit cameras in trial courts without special permission from the states' supreme courts. Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, said the country's heightened awareness of decision making in courts, particularly because of the attention paid to police-involved shootings, makes now a good time for Indiana to get on board with the rest of the country.
"I think if we can remove any barriers and make it more transparent for the public, it can be more of an educational tool for citizens to understand the process better," Stemler said.
As it stands, the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct outlines the rules regarding cameras in the state's trial courts. Those rules prohibit the broadcasting, recording or photographing inside courtrooms during official proceedings, including criminal trials. Some exceptions are made for purposes of presenting evidence or to be used for instructional purposes by an educational institution.
If a trial court judge wanted to open his or her courtroom to cameras, that judge would have to get permission from the Supreme Court of Indiana. In some cases, like National Adoption Day proceedings, the state Supreme Court will issue an order allowing trial courts to open their doors to cameras for that day or purpose only. Clark County Circuit Court No. 4 Judge Vicki Carmichael said those rare times when the courtroom opens to cameras are good opportunities to show the community what the courts do.
Carmichael used to practice law in Louisville where cameras are allowed in the courtrooms and she would often forget the cameras were even there. She's also use to presiding over more serious felony cases that already get media attention in Circuit Court No. 4. But she understands not everyone may be as comfortable with the camera's spotlight.
" ... There could be some concern among other judges, and not necessarily here, but across the state which is why it's not been done before, in that I think that it does sometimes lead to bits and pieces being shown and not the whole story," Carmichael said. "And sometimes that's not as helpful to the public when they only hear a snippet of it as opposed to the whole story."
There are other concerns, too. Like protecting the rights of defendants who appear in court and are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"Because I think it affects the public perception of that person, whoever that person is, from the get-go," Carmichael said. "And I think there's some danger to that to defendant's rights in that you've got some bad publicity in the front end, you've got some, perhaps, prejudicial impression that somebody's guilty because they're standing there being charged."
But Clark County Prosecutor Jeremy Mull said he thinks the jury selection process is enough to overcome those concerns.
"I don't see a danger of that, I don't. The voir dire process of selecting a jury is very effective for ensuring that at the end of the day that you have a fair and impartial jury. And that occurs all across the country, even in states that do allow cameras [in the trials courts]."
Mull said he would be proud for the public to see the work he and his deputy prosecutors do inside the courtroom. People would be able to watch everything from witness testimony to judge's rulings from the comfort of their home, he added. He's not sure why Indiana is one of only two states to keep its trial courtroom doors closed, but he said it's about time Indiana opens up to the community.
"The bottom line is the people in our community have to go to polling locations and decide who they want to prosecute cases [or] be the judge, and most of them have no idea what's going on in the courtroom on a daily basis," Mull said.
TRIED AND TESTED?
Stemler has drafted a bill to push for a pilot program in Clark County, but the program could also be issued by way of a state Supreme Court order. And it wouldn't be the first time. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Indiana approved an 18-month pilot program to allow video and audio coverage of trial court proceedings throughout the state. Trial court judges had the discretion to prohibit certain proceedings from being recorded, or to not participate at all.
By August 2013, four months before the pilot program was to conclude, the South Bend Tribune reported that the program was largely "a bust." The article reported that between July 1, 2006, when the pilot program went into effect, and September 2007, only six cases total had been recorded or photographed.
"In that particular pilot program, it was so broad in that everyone had to agree to allow it," Stemler said. "In other words, the defense, prosecutor, the judge of course, and some of the defendants themselves [had to agree]. So getting everyone to agree to have cameras in the courtroom it just never would happen because they couldn't get that many individuals to agree on it."
Stemler and Carmichael agree that the 2006 pilot program had too many limitations. For Carmichael, the most important piece to a pilot program would be retaining the discretion to say no to cameras.
"There are some cases that are that sensitive, whether it's because of victims, child victims or rape victims, or whatever the case may be, I think some cases are sensitive enough ...," Carmichael said. "[And] even though it's public and the news media can come in and people can come, in most people don't. And to open that up with victims possibly being on camera ... there would need to be some judicial discretion."
As it was with the 2006 pilot program and as it is in other states, Carmichael would like to see an agreement that allowed one camera or one feed for all media to use, instead of cramming several cameras into Clark County's small courtrooms. As for her concern that the public and media would only see snippets of the process, one idea Carmichael saw implemented in another county was to require media to stay for the entire proceedings.
Stemler said he's met with Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush and was encouraged by their initial conversations. Kathryn Dolan, the court's chief public information officer, said Rush is favor of the news media understanding how the courts work.
"She promotes greater transparency as a way to encourage media to cover the courts," Dolan wrote in an email, adding that Rush has not seen a draft of Stemler's bill. "Chief Justice Rush is willing to look at this issue in the future in a measured, studied manner."
Carmichael said she'll sit down with Clark County's three other circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of bringing a pilot program to the county. The judges would then meet with state Supreme Court officials, including Dolan, to generate ideas and talk about next steps. Other county judges have had similar conversations in the past, Carmichael said, but Clark County could be one of the few to follow through with a pilot program.
"So that's exciting to me. It's exciting to do those new things and new projects and say, 'Hey this is innovative for Clark County," she said. "I think it's great. I think any time that we can get at the front of something it's a good thing."