Pending Rule Change

The Supreme Court of Arizona has enacted a rule change (effective 1/1/09) that I find somewhat disturbing- and I find it somewhat disturbing that I find it disturbing, too.
Under current rules, all trials open to the public are of course open to members of the print media, sans cameras. Reporters and photographers can make prior arrangements to use cameras in the courtroom. Starting the first of the year, that prior arrangement nonsense will be gone. Instead, should a judge wish to keep out cameras (and we'll get to that forthwith, I promise), he or she must stop the underlying proceedings and immediately hold a hearing on the admission of cameras- and I believe that standard is clear and convincing. This poses an inordinate burden on the court's ability to function as well as on the court's ability to maintain some semblance of order. I know that trials are circuses- believe me, I know- but making the default into "allow in all and sundry" makes for an even more circuslike environment.

Another concern is for witnesses. I've seen now what cameras in a courtroom do to a witness or defendant's ability to testify. Think about cases with reluctant witnesses: do you think that the camera's help that? What about when we're talking about pretrial proceedings? In-custody defendants appear in shackles and jumpsuits for those. In-custody defendants don't have (visible) restraints and wear appropriate going-to-court garb when they're on trial, in font of a jury, to avoid tainting the jury. When you have a market saturated with photos and videos of a defendant in chains, what does that do to her right to a fair trial starting with a fair and impartial jury pool?

I understand that the media, as the representative of the people, must be allowed almost unfettered access to courts. I guess my issue is really one of concern as to the inability of grown-ass reporters to call ahead. And I have a deep concern with the idea that the media truly looks to educate the people at large as to what the court looks and sounds like; while this justification has been advanced, successfully, I can't help but think that perhaps the public, should it want an inside look at trials rather than a sensationalized look at cherry-picked moments of high-profile cases, could head on down to the courthouse and have a seat in the gallery.

I'm uncomfortable with myself for feeling uncomfortable with a limitation of First Amendment rights, and I can't help it. Exercise of the right has a real potential to trample on the rights of others. There's no amendment or guiding language anywhere in the Constitution letting us know which rights have priority, and Lord knows that a strict constructionist would have to concede that our forefathers had no way of knowing that Court TV (now Tru TV) would be infatuated with the seamier elements of the courthouse, to the point that the viewing public became a second jury of sorts.

I think that all of this is most ably summed up by cnn.com changing the name of the section dealing with courts from "law" to "crime" on its website. That says terrible things about the public's true interest in the process, doesn't it?

Here's an article on the rule change: http://tucsoncitizen.com/daily/breakingnews/96841.php