Making the case, again, for cameras in courtrooms.

Preliminary hearings are underway this week in the case of James Holmes, the man accused of the horrific shootings last year at an Aurora Movie Theater.

National and local media are on the scene, ably reporting on what's going on inside the courtroom. Just one problem: There are no cameras or microphones inside the courtroom. Instead we get reporters telling us about testimony instead of hearing it ourselves. Instead of seeing the testimony, we get "Courtroom Sketches" which are akin to cartoons. Courtrooms aren't artist studios.

In this digital age, it's shameful that "We the people" aren't allowed to watch the legal process. It's OUR process yet our court has decided we're not worthy of watching it. One can assume the judge thinks we're not intelligent enough to observe. It's one of the reasons we as a society know so little about what goes on in courtrooms, instead basing our perception from watching shows like "The Good Wife." (A great drama by the way, but not the real deal)

As a former Board Member of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association, I spent a lot of time fighting for electronic access to our courts, including speaking twice before the National Judicial College. It's a tough sell. To RTDNA's credit, they keeping up the fight.

Think about it. We have cameras taking our picture at stoplights, yet they're banned in far too many courtrooms.

Some say we don't need to see/hear graphic testimony or evidence. Then don't watch. Judges have told me they worry about the trial turning into a circus. For the life of me I can't see how being able to observe the process creates a circus-like atmosphere. It's the judge's job to control the courtroom. Others say having cameras in the courtroom somehow glorifies people like James Holmes.  Glorifies how? Then there's the oldest and weakest of excuses, that lawyers will showboat in front of the camera. Part of a lawyer's job is to showboat. If it gets out of hand, then the judge has the power to step in.

But to essentially lock us out of what goes in in our court system? No excuse. None.

In this digital world, there is absolutely no reason video and audio, from cameras that do nothing to distract from the proceedings , could be streamed on the 'Net or on numerous digital channels available. Just one camera and mic, shared pool-style for all reporters but more importantly for us.

These types of stories are rough, I know first-hand from covering the Oklahoma City Bombing Trial. Some of the testimony was horrendous. It was a horrendous act. We're being accused as a society of being desensitized to these types of crimes. That may be, and if true, it's due in no small part to being so insulated from coverage of them.

Ultimately it's our justice system. Not allowing electronic access is in a word, shameful. I find the court out of order and in contempt of the society it supposedly serves.

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relation
"We start the conversation about you"

Making the case, again, for Cameras in the Courtoom.

Two horrific criminal cases here in the Denver area have me raising the issue of cameras in the courtroom, or in too many cases NO cameras in the courtroom.

I begin with the mass-shooting in Aurora. James Holmes is charged with shooting 12 people to death and wounding 58 others in a movie theater. Other than his initial appearance we the people have been denied live/taped coverage of proceedings. What we get are "Artist's Sketches" or in my opinion, cartoons.

                                                               (Courtesy: Denver Post)

Another sad case involves Austin Reed Sigg, charged with the abduction and subsequent murder of Jessica Ridgway.

Both have made the beginning of a line line of court appearances as the "justice" system drags on to a conclusion, we hope, likely years down the line.

Judges make the decision whether or not to allow cameras in courtrooms. Judges are either appointed to the bench by people we elect, or are elected themselves. They are servants of the people, not the other way around. But they are the undisputed rulers of their domains and in too many cases don't allow cameras, and by extension we to see the legal process as it happens, either live or taped.

Here are the current laws, by state as to access to courts by cameras.

As a 4-term board member of the Radio-Televison News Directors Association, I twice represented RTNDA (Now RTDNA) twice at the National Judicial College in Reno making the case for full access by cameras to courts ranging from Federal to Local. While many judges have saw the proverbial light, many have not. The most frequent push back I always got was that judges didn't want lawyers "showboating" in front of the cameras. Really? As opposed to showboating in front of juries and judges themselves?

The worst offender of course, is the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court. Other than the rarest of occasions with audio being allowed, nary a camera has made inside the room where the most important legal precedents of our nation are set. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by an elected President and approved by an elected Senate. Servants all of we the people.

Coming full circle to the Holmes case, RTDNA Executive Director makes a clear and concise case in how a"Colorado Court got it wrong."  I've known Mike and worked with him for a long time and his points are well taken. Today's cameras as incredibly small. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, in private and public buildings, stop lights and the list goes on. Ironically courts use them in legal cases as evidence.

They just don't allow them to document the process itself. And that, is wrong.

The courts belong to us. The judges work for us. The time is long overdue for them to realize just that. Nothing about the judicial process should be cartoonish. Yet sadly, it is.

Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations
"We start the conversations about you"