Them gavel to gavel, but my perception, and i think the perception of many were those very concerns in those cases. But i think whats far more important is to survey the people that were involved in a particular case, the lawyers, the witnesses, i mean, the things that our pilot is going to do. Their perceptions, i think, are much more compelling and persuasive than the perceptions of somebody who is watching it on tv, who doesnt know all the facts, who doesnt know what that witness testified to in a deposition and whether theyre shading their testimony now when theyre in front of television camera. We may not. Viewers may not know that but the parties involved on whose bhaf your speaking, the concerns of the parties involved, certainly we would have these are issues that would have come up time and time again, wouldnt they . As we televise trials all over the country, many of them high profile . All i can tell you, sir, is i think its important to survey people. Im not aware in the state courts or in those cases that you mentioned that those participants were surveyed, that their views were called upon. We think its important that the views of the participants are a part of what we consider. Once the trial is over, you know, they move on unless someone asks them, you know, those concerns may never be raised. We want the concerns, if any, raised and the context of the survey. Thats why were doing the pilot in the way were doing it. I know judge robinson, that youre not taking youre not taking position on the Supreme Court, thats correct . The judicial conference does not speak for the Supreme Court. But it seems and ill ask you this question it seems that since judge robinson as you said, the real concern isnt judges playing to the cameras, its all of these other concerns that at the Supreme Court where simply appearing before the Supreme Court is intimidating in itself and these other concerns dont really seem to apply at all. So, what is the argument . Justin keegan said that she worries about people playing to the cameras. Youve been to many Supreme Court oral arguments. For anyone who has been, is that a valid concern . No. Absolutely not. When those red and green lights come on, the only thing you care about is persuading the nine justices that are sitting up there as to your position. I really think that it really does a disservice to the people, to the lawyers, to the judges to really say that people become aware and play to the cameras. I sat in the courtroom during the oj simpson trial. The lawyers there were going to do whatever they were going to do regardless of whether there were cameras or not. As a matter of fact, i use this as a comparison, i believe the public missed a wonderful opportunity to see judge mach who oversaw the Oklahoma City bombing trial. There were cameras in the courtroom there. I mean, most people dont think about it, but they were closed circuit cameras that allowed the broadcast of the proceed thags were occurring in denver to be seen by the people in a courtroom in Oklahoma City. Again, had that been allowed to happen, we might have seen what a wellconducted trial looked like compared to what i will admit was a circus during the oj trial, but that had nothing to do with the fact that there were cameras in the courtroom. And at the Supreme Court, where which is a courtroom our courtrooms have always been public places, always been open to the public, in the Supreme Court, couldnt the argument equally be made that if the concern really is playing to the cameras, that with the Current System where there are a handful of Supreme Court correspondents from the networks, from the major publications who have who are known to the justices, isnt it just as likely if thats really the concern that justices would play to them knowing that theyre going to be the ones that describe what happens in the courtroom . I think obviously from my experience there that sometimes the justices get playful and they really dont care whether that theres cameras there or not cameras there. Thats what theyre doing there. Theyre either trying to ask insightful questions or just trying to be clever. And certainly its good if youre arguing a case if you can come back with a good answer. I know in some of the really seminole cases that weve submitted ak kus briesubmit ed am kus briefs in, i am always in awe and belief that im sitting in this courtroom, the highest court in the land that they will decide how the rest of us will live and theres only this handful of people. Im fortunate that im admitted to the bar so i get to wait on a shorter line, but even then, they cut people off and you have to sit in the overflow room and only get to listen to it over a speaker and dont actually get to see people. I think thats really important also in terms of getting to see people. When people testify in court and its only before the people in that courtroom, they might testify differently if it was on tv, but i would assert they might testify more honestly because of their neighbors happen to know something about them get to see it, they dont want to not be truthful. And if we are in search of the truth in a courtroom, then isnt that much better to have everybody . I mean, thats really what the founders thought about when they were talking about court day, when people could come in and watch. Thank you very much. Thanks, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, congressman desantos. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Judge, i know theres difference in terms of practitioners practicing in federal, state court. People like you that get through the vetting process, sometimes thats not always the case in various state systems. And obviously there are states where they do allow cameras at the trial level and you raised the concern about due process and fairness in those cases. So given that we do have experience with state courts having cameras, does the conference believe that prejudice and ill effects abound from the use of cameras there and if so, what is the basis for that belief . The conference has not taken a position and really doesnt have a basis to make whats going on in the state courts. As i said before, i would characterize what the state court is doing what the state courts are doing is experimental, some of them have been having cameras in the courtroom, there are so many different models. Were just concerned obviously about ensuring that theres due process in the federal courts. I dont think were in a position to evaluate whats going on in the individual state courts. So with respect to this bill, it gives the presiding judge the ability to decide whether or not to broadcast proceedings. Isnt the presiding judge in the best position to differentiate in those cases where it may be appropriate to record and broadcast and those that may be susceptible to undue interference. Its very important that the presiding judge have the ultimate discretion because the presiding judge knows the case. They know the evidence in the case. They can anticipate oftentimes what will happen in the trial. On the other hand, there are times they cant anticipate what may happen in the trial. As trial judge, i think we would all benefit from a policy thats shaped around the results of our study, of our own colleagues across the country, in terms of what happens in certain natures of cases, why i think the consent requirement, for example, will educate and inform us by nature of the case what some of the specific concerns are in particular cases and i just think our pilot is going to show us what are the concerns of lawyers and other participants in the case. Were all going to be informed by that and ultimately what policy the judicial conference adopts will be wellinformed because of the pilot. We ask that we be allowed to continue the pilot. It goads for another year and then to look at the results of that pilot in formulating policy. Is there evidence that you can point to that shows that the state proceedings where you do have cameras have made state officials more accountable and the proceedings less prone to error . I dont know that i could address all of those, but at least i would like to just talk a little bit, if i could, about what went on in the first experiment in federal court. That, as you recall and as i mentioned, those cases were covered by the media. In this experiment, its courtroom personnel that are operating the equipment. So back between 91 and 93, according to the summary from the fjc, there were 257 cases that the media applied to cover. 82 of those applications were approved. Unfortunately under the new guidelines in this one, not only does everybody, all the parties, have to consent to the coverage, but its not just the coverage of the trial. Its the coverage of each and every proceeding where they can object and then there is no coverage. I dont know if any of you have had the opportunity to look at some of the recordings that are on file on the courts website, but many of them are done with either split screen or quad screen cameras. Its like watching somebody watching a surveillance camera. I mean, from my experience, being in a courtroom, being at a trial, for the most part, its not perry maison. Its like watching paint dry. It takes forever for things to happen. When you add to the mix a video, that for the most part really could not be broadcast anywhere, where things are not happening in quadrants and one person is speaking, i just dont think that what were going to end up with is something of value when this pilot is over and thats 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 cameras in the court. Thats a big concern for us. My time is expired. So i thank the witnesses and i yield back. Thank you, congressman. The chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman who is a Ranking Member of this committee, congressman conyers. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses. I would like to begin with judge robinson. With respect to the privacy expectations of a witness under hr 917, authorizes a federal judge to order the obscuring of his or her image and voice during the court proceeding. In your mind, does this sufficiently protect the privacy expectation of a witness . It is not of sufficient protection in some instances, we believe. Again, i dont want to i want to wait for the outcome of the study, but ill give you an example that i think most trial judges believe is in issue. Confidential informants, a common type of witness in criminal cases. This is an issue that we are working on, weve worked on for ten years because when we made our electronic filings open to the public through the internet, plea agreements of confidential informants are now public documents and there has been fallout from that. Confidential informants have been threatened. Theres all kinds of an tech doal evidence of people being injured, perhaps even killed in the bureau of prisons when theyve been identified as a confidential informant. Were trying to figure out a solution to this. If that confidential informant is testifying in the courtroom and their voice and face is obscured, their identity can still be ascertained because theyre being crossexamined about who they are, what their name is, what their background is, where they lived, et cetera. And so that is of particular concern to us. These are people that cooperate with the criminal Justice Department relies upon their cooperation yet they are at risk. Theyre already with some risk with the presence of cameras in the courtroom, we think theres a heightened risk. Thank you, so much. Addressing the same question to you, attorney, do you think the obscuring of images and voices are sufficient protection for the privacy expectation of a witness . Well, as has been said before, this is an open courtroom. Im not quite sure that there are privacy expectations. But certainly the presiding judge in that case should be the one who is in the best position and has the authority to make that decision whether to obscure their face, whether to alter they voice, whether to have them testify behind a screen. In terms of identification, you know, as has been said, all of these records are being made public, theyre on the internet. And if somebody wants to do someone harm, then all they have to do is go get the transcript and they can find out that same information about where they live and what they do and what their habits are. So i dont think blaming electronic coverage or identifying that as the culprit here is the solution. Uhhuh. Thank you. Let me now ask the judge with the would you would your concerns about hr 917 be modified if it was if it was limited to appellate proceedings only . Most of our concerns are about what happens at the Trial Court Level. Our only opposition to that part of the bill that pertain stos the circuit courts of appeal is by virtue of the way that circuit courts govern themselves, its a decentralized government structure. They make their own rules of practice. Thats our only objection. The bill, of course, calls for each individual appellate panel, panel of three typically, on a case by case or argument by argument basis to make the decision. Thats inconsistent with the way they govern themselves. Appellate judges dont have the authority to make govern nans decisions how oral arguments are going to be made. Well, let me ask the attorney about this appellate proceedings issue. What is your view, sir . Well, certainly i dont think that the sixth or the 14th amendment rights of any defendant will be violated by covering an appellate proceeding, especially one in the Supreme Court. There is no testimony. Were just making appellate arguments. Its really harder for us to understand the objections when were looking at the appellate courts. I just want to go back to something for a second. You know, during the Supreme Court has found in capital cases this evolving standard of decency and that was something that justice marble articulated. And i would suggest here because most of the courts have pretty much found, look, the reporters can come in, you can report all you want, you just cant bring the cameras with you. I would think that there should be this evolving standard of openness and what openness and an open courtroom trial and a public trial means in 2014. And i think that theres a huge difference, even between the case that was mentioned earlier in 1965. There were 12 cameras in that courtroom during that trial. Were not talking about doing Something Like that here. Thank you very much. Thank you, congressman. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from washington. Thank you, mr. Chair and thanks to both of you for being here with us today. Appreciate it. I agree with my colleagues who testified earlier and believe that our democracy is much stronger when we Leverage Technology that we have available to increase the publics participation in this process. We need citizens to be engaged and informed and part of that means making sure they have access to their government. So, 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 it in a way that is responsible is going to be very important. We need to make sure we dont compromise the safety of victims of Violent Crimes who may be witnesses before the court as has been brought up earlier or violate Due Process Rights of defendants and striking the right balance is key. This bill, i believe, takes a thoughtful approach and i want to commend my colleagues for their work on it. Its important that we look at steps where we do increase transparency in our system across all three branchs of government and this bill seems to be a step in the right direction. The Supreme Court provides online audio recordings of oral arguments and its been releasing audio during the same week as arguments only since 2010. Before that, audio from one term generally wasnt available until the beginning of the next term and so i was wondering, whats your view on the impact of having these audio recordings available now publicly within the same week of the argument and has there been an improvement in Public Access . Well, it certainly a good first step, but when were talking about the age of the internet, when someone can tweet something and millions of people can see it and read it and share it seconds after its been sent, especially in news when youre talking about something well release it that week. I mean, in the news business, a week later is really yesterdays news. So, for the people that really rl interested and there are a surprising amount of them that whether theyre shutins or just people interested in the way that we conduct ourselves in the judiciary, i think at least having simultaneous broadcast of the audio might be a good first start. I just have a problem again with the audio only. Not to disbare raj courtroom artists. They have a good function. 2014, cave drawings than High DefinitionTelevision Just seems to be wrong to me. Judge robinson, do you have a view of the difference between audio and video . Well, i can only speak to that in terms of whats going on in the trial courts and the circuit courts of appeals. There are circuit courts of appeal that are posting audio recordings, Digital Audio recordings of their arguments in short measure and there are some trial courts, district and bankruptcy courts that are doing the same. Those are courts that are recording their proceedings by audio rather than Court Reporter and they are posting those to the internet. Obviously that improves Public Access. The federal courts have really evolved over the last 20 years in the right direction in terms of becoming more transparent. Unlike state courts, who look to us, i think with some reverence but because of what weve done with our electronic case filings and all of that information is readily available on the internet. Were focussing on the small percentage of civil cases that go to trial and the small percentage of criminal cases that go to trial but in the very many cases that dont the public right now in the federal system has access to virtually every pleading thats filed and obviously every judicial system and theres a