A federal appeals court grappled on Wednesday with whether to revive a lawsuit seeking to release Michigan courtroom audio from a hearing in which a judge allegedly verbally abused a defendant, after the state court only released a transcript of the proceeding.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit heard arguments in the case brought by Samantha Hallman, who claims her brother was verbally abused by a judge during a plea hearing, over whether the Oakland County, Michigan, court should have to release the audio of the proceeding. Hallman claims in a filing to the appeals court that the judge overseeing the proceedings “lost her temper, refused to allow Mr. Hallman a promised opportunity to explain his conduct, and engaged in other ‘extremely unfair and intemperate conduct.'” Hallman wanted the recording to be published to “encourage voters to elect a better-qualified judge” and argued that the state court’s rule blocking the recording violates the First Amendment.
“The proceeding is open, the transcript is open, but the recording remains a secret. That result is inconsistent with the First Amendment right of access and principles long governing access to judicial proceedings,” said Sophia Miller, a law student who argued before the panel for Hallman at Wednesday’s hearing.
Lawyers for the Oakland County judges argued there is no constitutional right to access the recordings, instead claiming that the court transcripts are sufficient to address transparency requirements for the court proceedings.
“The First Amendment to the Constitution does not provide a right of access to or copying of the recordings at issue,” the lawyers for the Oakland County judges said in a brief to the appeals court. “There is no history of ‘experience’ of such access nor does ‘logic’ require it. Whether these kinds of recordings should be publicly available and under what circumstances is a question of public policy to be determined by the public policy makers, not the courts.”
The three-judge panel appeared skeptical of Hallman’s claims that there is a right to publishing the court recordings, and the judges appeared concerned that if they find that audio recordings must be published, then courts may stop recording audio completely. The federal appeals court panel did not indicate how or when it would rule in the case.
The judges on the 6th Circuit panel that heard oral arguments in the case included U.S. Circuit Judges Eugene Siler, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush; Karen Nelson Moore, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton; and Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.
WHY SPECULATION ABOUT JUSTICE ALITO’S FUTURE CONTINUES DESPITE HIS REJECTION OF RETIREMENT
Public access to court proceedings varies widely between state and federal courts, with some offering full video recordings of proceedings and others only offering in-person access to hearings and other proceedings. Federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court offer audio streams of most of their hearings, while only some federal district courts offer audio streams of their hearings.
While several courts still heavily limit audio or video access to court proceedings, activists have increased pressure on opening up courts to cameras as a means of public access to proceedings. The Supreme Court is famously resistant to cameras in the courtroom, only adding the audio livestream of oral arguments in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
