Live coverage in courts popular in two local cases
During the trial of Tyquan L. Rivera on charges that he tried to kill Rochester Police Officer Anthony DiPonzio, the public had unprecedented electronic access to the proceeding without setting foot in the courtroom.
In addition to allowing news media cameras to photograph part of the trial and post livestreaming video to online news sites, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph D. Valentino permitted news reporters to use laptop computers and wireless handheld devices in the courtroom to post contemporaneous accounts to online blogs and social networking sites.
Court officials believe the live online postings were the first to be authorized for a criminal trial in the eight-county judicial district based in Rochester.
News consumers appear to have liked what they saw.
Over an eight-day period from opening statements on Aug. 31 and extending past the trial’s end, a photo gallery from the trial posted on www.DemocratandChronicle.com received nearly 122,000 page views and a live blog tallied 19,000 page views — more than a live blog carried on the newspaper’s online site for this summer’s Buffalo Bills training camp at St. John Fisher College.
Lawyer Nicole Black of the law firm Fiandach & Fiandach, who contributes to a blog that helps lawyers use online tools in their work, said she’s not surprised by the interest the public showed in the trial through online news and social networking sites.
“It’s novel,” she said. “It’s a new way of following it without really being in the courtroom. People can hop on or hop off. They can take a break. I think it’s the wave of the future.”
But that future will be in the hands of individual judges on a case-by-case basis.
Valentino’s decision grew out of a ruling in Ontario County, where County Court Judge Craig Doran permitted only still photography in the August trial of Frank Garcia, who was convicted of killing a Canandaigua couple. In both cases, the judges ruled after the defendants agreed to camera coverage.
The state Civil Rights Law bars cameras from New York’s trial courtrooms by stating it’s illegal to photograph proceedings in which testimony will be elicited from witnesses under subpoena. Doran sidestepped the law by ruling that cameras would be allowed to photograph the opening and closing statements of lawyers, but not to photograph witnesses or jurors.
“The overarching consideration is the Constitution,” Doran said of his decision. “And from a constitutional perspective, the court has to balance the First Amendment right of the public and the press to have access to the proceeding with the right of the defendant to have a fair trial.”
In Rivera’s trial, Valentino allowed still and video photography of the opening and closing statements, his instructions to the jury and the verdict, as well as permitting reporters to use laptops and handheld devices used for texting.
There’s no law banning the use of computers or handheld devices in court, and judges can allow their presence at their discretion, said David Bookstaver, spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration.
“The laptop and the BlackBerry have become standard tools for journalists,” he said. “There’s no prohibition for reporters to use that type of equipment.”
State Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Van Strydonck, who supervises judges in the 7th Judicial District, agreed.
“There’s nothing that prohibits you from sitting in court and scribbling on a notepad,” he said. “The actual taking of notes on a notebook computer is not much different from the old style. It’s just instant communications.”
Although Van Strydonck said he’s leaving it to individual judges to decide on the courtroom use of computers and other devices, he said one reason judges could ban them is their use in sound-sensitive courtrooms where the click-clack of keypads could distract jurors and lawyers.
That’s why Doran banned laptops in court during the Garcia trial. But some media reporters used handheld devices and cell phones to send text messages to their newsrooms.
“I was just constantly sending text messages to my producer,” said reporter Berkeley Brean of WHEC-TV, Channel 10, who covered the sentencing of Garcia. His producer posted some of the comments on the station’s Web site and others on Twitter, a social networking and blogging service that allows users to post short messages known as tweets.
Doran said he was unaware that reporters used hand-held devices in the courtroom.
The Office of Court Administration doesn’t keep figures on the number of cases in which judges allow computers in court.
But the use of laptops and other devices in court has been an emerging trend nationally for several years as they become more popular.
Blogging live
Bloggers were allowed to cover last year’s trial of five men convicted of conspiring to attack the Fort Dix army base in New Jersey. Bloggers also were allowed in the 2007 trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, an aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case, although they worked from an overflow room where they watched the trial on closed-circuit television. During Rivera’s trial, Rachel Barnhart, a reporter and anchor for WHAM-TV, Channel 13, filed commentary from court on her Twitter account. Her tweets also were posted on the station’s Web site, www.13wham.com.
“People consume their news differently now,” Barnhart said. “This is a way of opening up the courts that we’ve never really been able to do before in New York state. I definitely plan to ask for this access again.”
If there was a down side to tweeting, it was concentrating too much on what she was typing while trying to listen to testimony, she said.
“If there’s one thing I missed, it was reaction from jurors, to see their faces. I had to keep reminding myself to look up at Tyquan to see his reaction and demeanor. As far as missing things, it didn’t really happen that much.”
Democrat and Chronicle staff writer Victoria Freile wrote the newspaper’s blog from the courtroom and also posted accounts on Twitter. She wrote so comprehensively that midway through the trial she jolted awake one night to find herself with her arms outstretched, trying to type.
“We’ve gotten many comments from community members and out-of-state residents telling us that they felt as though they were in the courtroom because they were able to follow thorough testimony as it occurred,” Freile said. “Others said, while they appreciated the access, they found that their own productivity spiraled since they kept returning to the blog throughout the week to see what would happen next. The blog definitely gave readers unprecedented access to a live trial. It was as though they were in the courtroom, watching and listening alongside me.”
Freile said her greatest challenge was trying to field readers’ questions on the blog while writing what witnesses said.
“Readers often requested clarification but some asked questions such as ‘What is Tyquan wearing?’ or ‘What are the jurors doing?’ and ‘How many people are in the courtroom?’ At times I couldn’t even look at readers’ questions on the blog until there was a lag in testimony or a recess, because the questioning was so fast-paced.”
DiPonzio’s mother, Joanne DiPonzio, said the live blogs from court helped inform friends and relatives who couldn’t attend the trial.
“It was a great idea that people outside of the courtroom could be kept updated on what was going on,” she said. “They were happy to be kept updated.”
Although Frank Paolo of Rochester followed the trial through the “blog sessions,” he was critical of anonymous commentators on the blogs.
“What I read was disturbing at times,” he said. “Most of the comments I read had negative racial overtones and many people could not even wait for the jury’s decision before declaring the defendant guilty and suggesting inhumane ways to punish him.”
Local lawyer Jack Edward Fisher said he welcomed live blogging from the trial because cameras weren’t allowed to record testimony.
“I found the live blogging from the courtroom intriguing,” he said. “In the absence of a camera/audio presence (for testimony), it was the next best thing.”
Camera coverage
Whether cameras are in court is more problematic for judges to decide than blogging. Ultimately, full camera coverage is expected to require action by the state Legislature.
New York banned camera coverage in trial courts in 1952 but restored it in 1987 for a series of experiments that lasted 10 years. Coverage expired in the wake of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, which many observers said descended into sensationalism because of camera coverage. Cameras, however, are allowed in New York appellate court proceedings — the appeal of judgments reached in lower courts.
But in trials across New York — again, not enumerated by the Office of Court Administration — judges have either declared the law unconstitutional and allowed cameras or found ways to get around the ban by allowing coverage of everything but testimony.
In the trials of Garcia and Rivera, the defendants approved of the arrangements finally ordered by the judges.
Doran expressed satisfaction with the way the media covered Garcia’s trial.
“I didn’t hear any complaints from anyone,” he said.
The courtroom photography, which included emotional images of family members of the victims listening to testimony and reacting to the sentence, served a legitimate purpose, said Lori Monachino, the sister of Christopher Glatz, one of Garcia’s victims.
“I think people understood by looking at the pictures, they could see the devastation that the family has been through,” Monachino said.
Valentino, who declined to comment for this story pending Rivera’s sentencing Oct. 16, hasn’t decided whether to allow photography at the sentencing.
Van Strydonck tells judges that they can allow cameras into courtrooms if they follow rules set by Doran and Valentino.
“My advice to the judges has been that if they are going to allow it (camera coverage), to limit it to non-testimonial parts of the trial, such as the openings and summations and the judge’s instructions, and to make sure the defendant doesn’t object,” Van Strydonck said.
Van Strydonck believes the use of cameras in the Rivera and Garcia trials will spur more requests for coverage by the media.
What’s uncertain is whether it will spur an interest in changing New York’s law to allow coverage of entire trials.
Only Indiana and the District of Columbia ban cameras altogether in courts. But the degree of coverage varies by state, ranging from 34 states that permit coverage of most civil and criminal proceedings to 15 states, including New York, that virtually prohibit coverage, either by requiring the consent of all parties or by limiting coverage to appellate courts.
Legislation that would restore cameras in courtrooms has languished in the state Legislature for more than a decade.
In 2001, Rochester lawyer A. Vincent Buzard headed a New York State Bar Association committee that recommended that cameras be restored to the courts. His opinion hasn’t wavered.
“I think cameras, particularly in high-profile cases, help the community understand what is going on and see the system and see that the system of justice works, and even if a defendant seems to have a lot of evidence against him, there’s a lawyer working very hard to make sure his rights are protected,” said Buzard, former president of the Monroe County and state Bar Associations.
Monroe County Public Defender Timothy Donaher, however, said his office opposes cameras in court.
“Our job is to protect the rights of individual defendants,” he said. “Ultimately that defendant is entitled to a fair trial, and unfortunately when cameras are in the courtroom, issues arise. They have a chilling effect (on bringing) out witnesses on the defendant’s behalf.”
District Attorney Michael C. Green, who prosecuted Rivera, said he supported the use of cameras in that trial and believed they had no impact on the outcome.
“I’m very much in favor of raising public awareness of what happens in the courts,” he said. “I think you have to balance that with making sure that whatever you do does not interfere with everyone’s right to a fair trial, whether it’s the people’s right or the defendant’s right. A lot of times you have outrage over verdicts because people don’t know the real facts. I think the coverage did a nice job, through the photos and the blogs, of telling the public what was happening in court.”
Karen M. Magnuson, editor and vice president/news of the Democrat and Chronicle, said the newspaper is committed to seeking public access to the courts.
“It’s critical for our court system to be as transparent as possible so the public has a clear picture of the process. Media consumption habits are evolving to the point where people expect reporting minute-by-minute around the clock. The public is extremely interested in trials of this nature and should have access to coverage in all forms.”
Robert J. Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said he believes Doran’s and Valentino’s rulings honor public access to government.
“It seems to me that these judges are recognizing the realities of 2009,” he said. “Maybe we’re on the cusp of a new era.”
MZEIGLER@DemocratandChronicle.com
Includes reporting by staff writers James Goodman and Claudia Vargas.
