Cases that the media applied to cover an 82 of those applications were approved. Unfortunately under the new guidelines in this one, not only does everybody consent to the coverage but its not just the coverage of the trial but of each and every proceeding. Were they can object and then there is no coverage. So i dont know if any of you have had the opportunity to look at the recordings on file. In many is done with split screen or quad screen cameras and its like watching somebody on a surveillance camera. From my experience being in the courtroom, for the most part its not anything that watching paint dry. It takes forever for things to happen. When you add to the mix the video that could not be broadcast anywhere where things are not happening, i just dont think that what we will end up with is something of value when this 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 dont have this report and that is a big concern for us. My time has expired and i think the witnesses and i yield back. The chair recognizes the distinguishing gentleman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses and with respect to the privacy expectations of the witness under hr 917, including the obscuring of his or her image during the court proceedings. In your mind, does this protect the privacy expectations of a witness . It is not as much as we believe. I want to wait for the outcome of the study and i will give you an example that i think the most trial judges believe is an issue. Confidential informants and a common type of witness in criminal cases. This is an issue that we are working on and we have worked on for 10 years because when we made our electronic filings opening to the public through the internet, please agreements are now public documents and there has been fallout from that and they have been threatened, there are all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people being injured, perhaps even killed and we are trying to figure out a solution to this in terms of the public records in written form. If that testifies in the courtroom and their voice and face is obscured, they are being cross examined and examine about who they are and what their name as and etc. And that is of particular concern and that includes the criminal Justice System yet they are at risk. And that includes the presence of cameras that we think is a very heightened risk. Thank you so much. Addressing the same question to you. Do you think the obscuring of imaging and voices are sufficient protection for the privacy expectations of the witness . As you said before, this is a bold but open courtroom. Im not sure that there are expectations that this certainly should be the one to make that decision whether to obscuring or alter the voice or whether they testify behind the screen in terms of identification and all of these things are being made public and if someone wants to do someone harm, all they have to do is go get the transcript and they can find out the same information about where they live and what they do and what their habits are. And i dont think that blaming electronic coverage will identify that is the culprit here. Thank you. Let me ask the judge. Would you would your concerns about hr 917 be modified if it was limited to appellate proceedings only . Most of our concerns are about what happened at the trial court level. And that is by virtue of the way the courts govern themselves that they make their own rules of practice and Case Management as a corporate body. That is our only objection in the bill calls for each individual panel on a casebycase or argument by argument basis to make the decision which is inconsistent with the way that they govern themselves and they dont have the ability to make these decisions about how they will be conducted. And that is the status quo and that is what they would like to see continue. Let me ask the attorney about these proceedings. The reporters can come in. You can report all you want. You just cant bring the cameras with you. This should be in evolving standard of openness. A public trial in 2014, and i think there is huge a huge difference between the case that was mentioned earlier. There were 12 cameras in that courtroom during that time. We are not talking about doing Something Like that here. Thank you very much. Thank you, congressman. The chair the chair recognizes the general lady from washington. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thanks to both of you for being with us today. I agree with my colleague who testified earlier and believe that our democracy is much stronger when we leverage technology. We need citizens to be engaged and informed. Part of that means making sure that they have access to the government. 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 in no way that is responsible. We need to make sure we dont compromise the safety of victims of Violent Crimes and maybe witnesses before the court or violate Due Process Rights of defendants. Striking the right balance is key. This bill takes a thoughtful approach, and i want to commend my colleagues for their work on it. It is it. It is important we look a step so we do increase transparency across all three branches of the government. This seems this seems to be a step in the right direction. The Supreme Court reports online audio recordings and has been releasing audio during the same week as arguments since 2010. Before that audio was not available until the beginning of the next term. I was wondering, what is your view on the impact of having these audio recordings available publicly within the same week of the argument . Well, it certainly is a good first step. 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 youre talking about something that we will be released that week a week later is really yesterdays news. For the people that are interested, and there are a surprising amount of them, people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary. I think at least having simultaneous broadcasts of the audio might be a good first start. I have a problem again with the audio, not the courtroom artists. They perform a good function , but in 2014 2014 to be relegated to something that is more akin to cave drawings than High DefinitionTelevision Just seems to be wrong to me. Judge robinson, do you have a a view of the difference between audio and video . I i can only speak to that in terms of the trial court. Posting audio recordings, Digital Audio recordings, and there are some trial courts, district and Bankruptcy Court that are doing the same. Recording by audio rather than by court reporter. A number of them are posting whatever the proceeding might be, posting those to the internet. Obviously it improves Public Access. We recognize we recognize and revere the right of the public to access open courtrooms. The federal courts have evolved. In the right direction. Unlike state courts camilla because of what we have done such now readily available. We are focusing on proceedings themselves, the small percentage of civil cases that go to trial, but in those many cases that do not the public right now has access. And theres a lot of information and a lot of Public Education that happens in the context of what we are already providing. We also no that access to actually get in, the Supreme Court is probably a good example. Very very few members of the public can get in. People pay people to stand in line for them to secure spots in a long line. The opportunity to have access to live arguments. That doesnt seem like that is great Public Access. As was pointed out, in many cases you might be sitting in a room watching on video anyway. It seems like we could do a better job their of improving access. Do you agree . I would. As was was mentioned earlier, this morning the Supreme Court was hearing arguments. I can only imagine how many people would have been very interested hearing those arguments this morning while we have been sitting talking here. Seeing how the proponents argue the case, the justices react to those arguments, i think that is an important part of this process. People people much better understanding how the judicial system works. I would almost go so far as to make a comparison. We talked we talked about things and ferguson. The discussion. I was there dealing with issues of photographers being molested and interfered with. My. Here is that even though grand jury proceedings are secret, and they should be, i think as an analogy, those grand jury proceedings have been open and people have been able to see and understand what went on in that proceeding we might not have had the same reaction as after the grand jury handed up a nobel. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. The chair recognizes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, congressman jeffries. Thank you, you, mr. Chairman. I think the witnesses for their presence here today. We have three branches of government, all of which are coequal and are incredibly important our democracy, but we also have a Fourth Estate and sometimes the media has been colloquially referred to which also plays a very good role in our democracy and projecting that outward and making sure 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. So do you think that the role that the media plays in the context of helping to bring our democracy to life is a. Worthy of consideration as we determine the best way to proceed . Absolutely. That is an easy answer for me to give, but also it is important to note that our pilot, this pilot provides for video recording pushed out on the us courts website available to everyone, not just those recordings that the media have decided to record that they think are interesting enough for people to test listen to. We have evolved as a nation. Twenty years ago when we do that first it was based on media recordings. Recordings. We made a deliberate decision this time to not have reporting space bar what the media wanted to record. People that report and people that create youtube videos and all that. Sometimes they actually find themselves in the hands of the media and are used by professional journalists to report. Separate and co equal. Take a position on whether its appropriate for congress 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 a separation of powers concerns that should legitimately be considered in the context of this debate . With respect to the circuit courts of appeal we have not raised the separation of powers argument. Study and formulate policy as further informed by the study itself. We Case Management while it is clear that congress promulgates rules that governs 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 to ensure the parties receive a fair trial. Not to mention the separation of powers argument, but when you give credence to the fact that we are studying this, our experts, if you will, and you will, and want to make sure that whatever policies formulate are shaped and informed by our experience. Is there a legitimate distinction that can be drawn between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings thus that a greater degree of access is allowed on the civil side . s we need to think through particularly as it relates to confidentiality and privacy and the adverse implications of unwanted exposure dont necessarily exist on the civil side. We have concerns with respect to the affect on witnesses and particularly the effect on the substance of the witnesss testimony, witnesses testimony, but we have more concerns on the criminal side. That is because we have witnesses that are confidential informants and cooperators, undercover operative. They they routinely testify. We are concerned about their security and safety. 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 the courtroom will complicate the ability for them to receive a fair trial or should we completely dismissed the concerns . Once again, i again, i think the Trial Court Judge could make that decision. The problems that i see are if everybody objection not going to have very much of a pilot study for them to have some evaluations. So, you know, my experience in state court in new york, many times in the media made an application you could certainly expect out of hand that there would be an objection. We would we would make those arguments to the judge and the judge would decide for the presumption of coverage whether or not the objection would overcome the presumption. That might be a good way to start. Also wanted to go back to one other. In terms of the media deciding which cases to cover. What is true and my understanding of this Pilot Program is that none of the video that is recorded in any of these cases get posted to the website until and tell the judge in the case has reviewed the video. So if there is something there that might be problematic, that is something that, you know, he or she could do as well. My time has expired. Thank you, congressman. The congressman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sunshine in the courtroom act promises to provide greater access to the public into the inner workings of our Justice System. As my colleague noted in her testimony, trials of always been open to the public. The enactment the enactment of this would expand upon our promise of transparency. Its hard for me to understand the argument, the fairness of our court is impaired or improved by limiting Public Access. Ill start with you because if you look at the history of the public trial, grounded in the anglosaxon history of common law in the 17th century, and the idea was the public proceedings would operate as a check against malevolent prosecution, corrupt or malleable judges are precarious witnesses, the idea that a public trial would aid the Factfinding Mission and encourage citizens to come forward and speak truthfully whether providing inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. Your testimony, the single greatest threat to underlying Media Exposure in the courtroom is to search for the truth. The rights of public trial got turned on its head. A whole idea was that it would be a check, provide assurances that people would be truthful. So why do you conclude or what does the judicial congress believe that that public, the public, the expansion of the public trial will undermine the search rather than advance it even more. The right to a public trial is sacrosanct. We are balancing those two. To the extent we have to worry command we dont no how much. We have all experienced this, but to the extent we have to worry that a witness hedges or shaves the truth is not forthcoming with information that they would otherwise be forthcoming with when they are testifying in front of the courtroom with 20 people. If your boss or the pastor was her nextdoor neighbor who otherwise would not go online and get the transcript of the trial, we have to worry. I have had a case recently that i i thought the parties might agree to record. They did not. It was a case about trade secrets. If their the competitors are in there they have a right to be in their. It comes up in terms of witnesses in concerned about hedging or shaving her testimony, and emotional stress claim or in a criminal case, a confidential informant. Depending on the type of case and the nature. And general do you agree with the proposition that it is more likely people will testify truthfully when it is broadly exposed . This notion doesnt make any sense. The idea if you make an assertion and the whole world will here it and is not true there is someone who might feel to prove. So your argument or the argument of the judicial really undermines the basic notion of a public trial as being a very effective tool. I was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer, a lot of state and federal practice. The notion of being subjected to cross examination broadly not in as sugar way or way that limits Public Access actually enhances. You also said in your written testimony the presence of cameras is likely to heighten the level and potential threats to judges. Of course my study is focused on Federal District court. Is the source of that. The fact that your face is broadcast is a concern. There were a number of concerns. It probably wont happen in a small number of cases. Nonetheless, its a concern. You look like you are about to say something. I certainly understand it being a concern, but is it any more of a concern . I never met you. Last night i went on on the internet, googled you. I found a picture of you. I know who to look for. You dont need to have a proceeding of somebody testifying to find out what they look like. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you congressman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, congressman and former judge. Take the chair. There are a couple of points to begin with. With. As the chair mentioned, i served on criminal court i spent eight years at the trial prosecutor. When i took the bench along time ago the idea of cameras in the courtroom was just nonexistent. And i actually allow cameras in the courtroom very early on in my judicial career. It was based upon the philosophy, the belief, the frustration. I will agree with him on this, the public the mystery of the courthouse still exists. Why in the world did that happen in the courtroom . And it is becausea