Editor’s Note: At a Relativity Fest 2023 Session entitled “Law and Policy: Cameras in the Courtroom,” a panel of experts from across the legal industry shared their thoughts on this very modern issue in the practice of law. Today, we’re sharing the second piece of our two-part coverage from their discussion.
In our previous post in this two-part series on cameras in the courtroom, we took a good, hard look at the ethical practices journalists and lawyers are beholden to when their professions collide.
But what about how judges conduct themselves? And what about how they feel about it?
If you’ve attended any of our Relativity Fest Chicago conferences, you’ve hopefully sat in on our annual Judicial Panel. Each year, we gather a handful of brilliant legal experts to educate our community and share their perspectives on the preeminent issues of the law in that moment. And each year, without a doubt, I learn a thing. Or two. Or ten.
However, shocking as this may be, the legal insights aren’t really my favorite part.
My favorite part is simply seeing our judicial guests just being human. Being friendly! Being funny, being argumentative when necessary, enjoying a good conversation with one another—and then mingling with attendees as peers.
So, when we get to hear from the judges at Fest each year, I listen carefully. Though their literally elevated status in courtrooms around the world can make them seem intimidating, these conversational moments with our friendly neighborhood jurists are a good reminder that we’re all only human, after all.
(Sidenote: if you haven’t read our coverage of the “Women Judges of Afghanistan” session at Fest last year, please pause here and go do so. The story is a somber yet inspiring reminder that we are all one human community, and we can lift each other up if we’re willing.)
During our “Law and Policy: Cameras in the Courtroom” panel session at Relativity Fest 2023, we got to hear some additional perspective from the Honorable Judge William Matthewman, U.S. Magistrate Judge (S.D. Fla.), on a pertinent issue of legal debate and conduct.
In today’s article, we’ll dig into what he had to say about his profession’s obligations—and his own feelings—on the subject of media coverage in their courtrooms.
Adhering to Judicial Model Rules and Developing a ‘Hard Shell’
In addition to the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges for federal judges, there are ABA Model Rules of Judicial Conduct, just as there are for lawyers in front of the bench. David Horrigan, who moderated our Fest panel, noted that they include instructions that judges “shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.” Not an easy rule to live by, as well-advised as it may be.
“You’re human; you must be influenced somewhat,” David said to Judge Matthewman during the panel at Fest. “But look at this rule. For the judiciary in general, how realistic is this?”
“You have to understand that you develop a very hard shell in this job. You make decisions every day, sometimes 10, 20, 30, or more, and each one—or most—will leave one side happy and another unhappy,” Judge Matthewman answered. “So you get to a point where you don’t pay much attention to that. We’re not allowed to respond to press reports, so our ability to respond to an inaccurate article—we just can’t do it. I just take criticism as part of the job; articles that go one way or another are part of the job.”
That’s good advice for anyone, isn’t it?
“As far as press reporting on it and their right- or wrongness or correct- or incorrectness, I just hope they have all the information before they report on it,” he said.
Joe Patrice, senior editor at Above the Law, responded with a journalist’s eye on the issue.
“I assume judges don’t listen to me, generally. That’s been my career so far,” he said, receiving chuckles from the audience. “I don’t really think they’re going to be influenced; the judges I know do have that hard shell.”
Still, tact and good research are essential skills for any good legal reporter.
“When I criticize judges, I’m very focused on the four corners of whatever they’ve written. I’ll be very pointed about what they write in an opinion sometimes being misguided, but I limit it to what they write and my limited understanding or research on it,” Joe continued. “They’ve already made their decision; they’ve had better lawyers than me point out the opposing side. So I don’t think they’re going to care much what I write.”
At this point in the conversation, a surprise guest from the audience—well-known lawyer, legal expert, and journalist, Bob Ambrogi—stood and posed his own question for the panel.
Regarding the idea that journalists should cover all areas of an argument, “an issue I’ve seen is when a judge makes a ruling from a bench with no written opinion—no basis for journalists to understand why they did what they did. And then I’ve heard judges, off-record, complain that a journalist didn’t report on a case properly,” he said. “I understand a judge is constrained on what they can say, but is there more the courts can do to help public understand why certain matters are decided certain ways?”
Judge Matthewman had a very thoughtful response:
I think it’s important for a judge to explain the basis of a decision to the extent time permits. I’ve handled hundreds of bail and detention decisions, but for parties and families more than the press or public, I try to explain my reasoning. You’re either going to have the family of a defendant be very upset, or a prosecution/law enforcement team who will be upset, and both sides deserve an explanation. I think it’s good practice to explain why I’m reaching a decision I’m reaching. So that’s something a journalist would have information to act on. Sometimes you are busy and can only do so much, but I always try, and when I can’t do that orally, I try to follow up with a written order. Journalism is a very important profession; journalists covering courts perform a really important job. My whole thing is that I know it’s tough and you’re only there for a little time, but trying to get a balanced view so readers can determine what they think a correct result should’ve been is important. Any decision can be criticized—that’s the nature of a public democracy—and a lot of them are. But by and large, when I explain my rationale, most people understand—whether they like the decision or not.
Are Courtroom Cameras Educating or Sensationalizing?
So, where does all this debate leave us? To film or not to film?
“I’ve thought about this for a long time. As a trial lawyer in Florida and elsewhere, state courts allowed filming, and where I am now, we do not. I think there are pros and cons,” Judge Matthewman shared as the panel drew to a close. “Just speaking for myself, my last trial ended about eight days before I took the bench. It was a multi-week murder trial broadcast live on Court TV, followed up by Dateline and others; I’ve been through other high-profile cases where cameras were not allowed. I think as long as the cameras can be done in a professional manner, not disrupting proceedings, there’s some benefit to it.”
That requires ethical practices from the journalists, as well as thoughtful accommodation by the court.
“If you have unobtrusive cameras in a courtroom that you don’t notice and they’re not recording jurors or things they shouldn’t—like private conversations between attorneys and clients—and jurors are not affected by it, and you don’t have situation where a witness comes in and cameras are pointed at them and turning toward them—then it benefits public understanding of how our system works,” he continued.
“I believe that the more the public would watch my colleagues handle cases in court, the more they’d respect the system, because courts by and large do a good job trying to be fair and equitable. My colleagues are wonderful at it. So cameras can be helpful to educate the public on the system and how it operates. But on the other hand, if it turns into a sideshow, and cameras are clearly focusing on witnesses and not accounting for juveniles, vulnerable, and so on—without these rules, it’s not good,” Judge Matthewman concluded.
David agreed.
“I was in law school during the OJ Simpson trial, and our professor told us we would not discuss it in class because it will be nothing like we will ever encounter in our career. Ever,” he recalled.
David then posed a final question to the panelists: “One of the arguments made against cameras in the courtroom is that everyone would play to the camera—and what if the judges do that? Judge Lance Ito becomes a minor celebrity, and what if he likes seeing himself on TV? What happens then?”
“It’s bad enough if lawyers and witnesses start playing for the camera. I’m torn on this question because, generally speaking, I’m on the side of transparency, but I get nervous about cameras because of that idea of people playing to them. It introduces a new level of showiness; a new audience that is different,” Joe answered. “Maybe you could argue the court is already public and now it’s just public to more, but I don’t know if that’s true because when it’s only public to those who will invest the time and energy to show up in a person—they interact differently than those who just flip on the TV and watch it. That difference in how it’s consumed, and the showiness that rises up, worries me.”
“I think there’s a difference between print reporting and broadcast, and the influence they can have,” Isha Marathe, a reporter for Legaltech News, added. “I don’t think cameras should be allowed in courtrooms because of social media. Print and broadcast are super different; the point of every story we tell is the truth, but it all begins to look different if you package it as a TV story versus as a news article.”
Legaltech News Editor-in-Chief Stephanie Wilkins took a different stance, though not without a similar sense of caution.
“In theory I’m very pro cameras in court, but in practice it still raises a lot of issues. It does have the possibility of turning into a spectacle. But the media has evolved. People might invest time to go to a courtroom, but those who would like to might also be unable to go. And we are a visual society,” she observed. “It does help people understand the inner workings of the system more and, hopefully, it will teach more and instill more respect. There is a system here—some people may say it’s broken, but a lot of judges are working hard to uphold it. However, we have to be willing to shift our opinions based on the nature of a case, too.”
From beginning to end, this panel discussion kept a large Relativity Fest audience—including this writer—quite engaged. But honestly, in the end, I remained unsure of exactly what the “right” or “wrong” answer to this question might be.
As it turns out, though, that flexibility—the willingness to keep having this conversation again and again, case by case—might just be the point.
Sam Bock is a member of the marketing team at Relativity, and serves as editor of The Relativity Blog.
