EDITORIAL: Transparency: Court rightly considers cameras, public access
Jun. 27—A push to broaden media and public access to Minnesota criminal court proceedings has long been an uphill battle by First Amendment advocates, but it now appears Minnesota court leaders are seeing the value of transparency.
That's good news for the press and the public whose constitutional rights to witness trial proceedings have long been hindered by roadblocks to access in Minnesota. The state has banned most recording, filming and photographing of criminal court trials and hearings, while other neighboring states have allowed it — for decades in some cases.
Only recently courts began allowing cameras, filming and other recordings in sentencing hearings and this is only after trials have been completed. Judges also have significant discretion to limit recording and prohibit it in some cases under the guise that it would disrupt justice. The rules in Minnesota allow for filming of cases before sentencing if both parties to the trial agree. This almost never happens.
Minnesota Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea issued an order last week for a judicial rules committee to re-examine and consider expanding access for audio and video coverage of criminal proceedings. Gildea said courts had learned to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic by using technology like video conferencing and that it opened up public access without disrupting trials or the administration of justice.
Gildea also pointed to citizens' constitutional right to have public access to trials, citing the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions. "Apart from the pandemic, however, the constitutional right to a public trial, see U.S. Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6, may in some circumstances require expanded media access to or coverage of some proceedings even without party consent," Gildea wrote in her order.
The committee of judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys will make recommendations on changes to the rules by July 1, 2022. Public comments will then be taken into consideration.
First Amendment advocates are praising the move as a precursor to nearly full access to courts in Minnesota. Let's hope their optimism is not misplaced. Many judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors have long opposed greater media access to criminal trials.
And while Gildea did not mention the George Floyd trial in her order, it's clear that has been the most significant example of how a court proceeding can be livestreamed and broadcast worldwide without disruption to court proceedings or harm to the administration of justice. Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill issued a solid ruling to allow livestreaming not only because COVID rules prevented in-person attendance but also because citizens have a constitutional right to an open trial.
It seems the Cahill ruling and the order from Gildea to consider expanding media access may finally create an open and transparent court system that preserves the constitutional right to a public trial and the fair administration of justice.
