U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–546 PDF 2015

SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 917 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–121 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

HEATHER SAWYER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013’’ ...................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Ted Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet ................................................................................................... 9 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 10 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................................................... 11 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 19 

The Honorable Julie A. Robinson, Judge, United States District Court for 

the District of Kansas, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel, National Press Photographers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 75 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from Thomas M. Susman, Director, Governmental Affairs Office, the 

American Bar Association (ABA) ........................................................................ 120 

(1) 

SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2013 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino 

(Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coble, Marino, Goodlatte, Chabot, Poe, 

Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Conyers, Deutch, DelBene, Jeffries, 

Cicilline, Lofgren, and Jackson Lee. 

Staff Present: (Majority) David Whitney, Counsel; David Lazar, 

Clerk; (Minority) Jason Everett, Counsel; Norberto Salinas, Counsel; and Susan Jensen, Counsel. 

Mr. MARINO. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet will come to order. Without objection, the Chair 

is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome all of our guests today. 

Unfortunately, Representative and Chairman Howard Coble and 

the Ranking Member, Jerry Nadler, will not be able to make the 

meeting—or the hearing in the beginning. They may be here later 

on. And at the request of them, I stated that I would explain why 

they are not here. 

For the members of the public who are here today or may otherwise be observing our hearing, I am Representative Tom Marino 

from Pennsylvania, the Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. And I will be 

chairing today’s legislative hearing. I will recognize myself and 

then Congressman Ted Deutch from Florida, who is sitting in for 

the Subcommittee Ranking Member, for initial opening statements. 

I will then recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Representative Bob Goodlatte, and the Ranking Member, Representative John Conyers, of the full Committee, to make their introductory remarks. 

With that explanation, today’s legislative hearing is on H.R. 917, 

the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013.’’ 

The bill was introduced by our distinguished colleague, Representative Steve King in April of 2013 and includes three additional members of the Judiciary Committee, Representatives Chaf-
2 

fetz, Lofgren, and Deutch, as original cosponsors. Subsequent to 

the introduction, two additional Members of the House signed on 

in support. Representatives King and Lofgren are present with us 

this morning, and they will soon be recognized to testify on the reasons they believe the legislation should be enacted. 

In addition to Representatives King and Lofgren, we have two 

additional witnesses who will testify on a second panel. They are 

the Honorable Julie Robinson, United States Judge for the District 

of Kansas, who will appear on behalf of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States, and Mr. Mickey Osterreicher—did I pronounce 

that right? Thank you—the general counsel of the National Press 

Photographers Association, NPPA. 

The principal authority contained in H.R. 917 is in section 2B, 

which provides, subject to certain exceptions, the presiding judge, 

which is defined in the bill, of each Federal appellate court and district or trial level court, is authorized to permit the photographing, 

electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any 

court proceedings over which that judge presides. Provisions in 

H.R. 917 would apply this authority to the Supreme Court of the 

United States, as well as United States Circuit Courts of Appeals 

and district courts. The purpose of H.R. 917, as with similar bills 

introduced in prior Congresses, is meant to address the longstanding practice of the Federal courts, which with few exceptions, 

prohibits the live electronic recording of media coverage or proceedings from inside the courtroom. 

In general, proponents for the legislation believe existing prohibitions are a hindrance on transparency, education, and general public awareness of our law and judicial processes due to limited access to the actual proceedings. As one of our witnesses will testify 

today, the ability to disseminate information via electronic coverage 

of courts proceedings is a critical component in affording the public 

the modern equivalent of attending and observing proceedings. 

In sum, the opponents think the potential harm outweighs the 

benefits. Chief among their concerns is the proposition that the legislation has the potential to impair substantially the fundamental 

right of citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security 

and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. Beyond the general questions of whether cameras 

should be permitted in Federal court proceedings are a myriad of 

additional questions that include where and when they should be 

permitted, whether consent of the parties should be required, 

whether the courts should control the operation and dissemination 

of materials, and whether Congress would be required to provide 

additional funding and resources to the courts. Today’s hearing 

presents an opportunity to discuss in detail the issues implicated 

by these fundamental questions. 

With that, I conclude my opening remarks, and recognize our 

acting Ranking Member, Congressman Deutch from Florida, who is 

a cosponsor of the bill that is the subject of today’s hearing. 

[The bill, H.R. 917, follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to our colleagues for their leadership on this issue. 

Judicial Conference policy and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibit the televising of Supreme Court and Federal court 

proceedings involving some of the most critical legal issues facing 

our Nation. These policies impose severe limitations on the public’s 

ability to observe court proceedings interpreting laws that can impact the daily lives of every American. These restrictive broadcasting policies shroud the Supreme Court and Federal court proceedings in secrecy and can raise questions in the minds of the 

public on the administration of justice. Chief Justice Burger wrote 

of the importance of public access to courtrooms in Richmond 

Newspapers v. Virginia, writing that, ‘‘A trial courtroom is also a 

public place where the people generally, and representatives of the 

media, have a right to be present and where their presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what 

takes place.’’ 

And while Richmond Newspapers addressed public access to 

criminal court proceedings, public access has been extended to civil 

trials as well. You can walk into any State or Federal courtroom 

in America and see rows of benches or seats to accommodate public 

audiences interested in watching the legal proceedings. The Supreme Court also has public seating available to accommodate the 

lucky few. Courtroom proceedings for audiences recognizes and accommodates our Nation’s long tradition of public court watching. 

Public court watchers may not be as prevalent now as they were 

in the past, however, for cases on important legal issues, finding 

an available seat in the courtroom can be difficult, if not impossible. Indeed, most people now receive descriptions on important 

proceedings from press reports in various forms of the media outlets. 

And don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the work that SCOTUSblog 

does, but the Supreme Court and Federal courts need to recognize 

and adapt to the changes to permit the next generation of court 

watchers access to proceedings on important legal issues. Such 

changes should include permitting television broadcasting. 

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would improve U.S. Supreme 

Court and the Federal Court transparency by increasing public accessibility to legal proceedings. Under the bill, the presiding judge, 

a majority of the judges participating on the panel, or the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court would have the discretion to permit 

the photography, the broadcasting, the televising of the proceedings. 

The bill also includes numerous protections for the parties involved that would permit the judge or judges to close the court proceedings to being televised. As added protections, the bill would 

permit the judge or judges to consider if televising the proceedings 

would violate the due process rights of a party involved in the proceedings. And in addition, a witness in a court proceeding could request to have their face and voice disguised to protect their identity. Moreover, the bill would prevent media coverage of the jurors 

involved in a judicial proceeding and juror selection. The presiding 

judge of a court also would have the discretion to create rules and 
10 

disciplinary measures that could be enforced against members of 

the media in the interests of preserving justice and fairness. 

The Supreme Court and our Federal courts hear and consider 

some of the most important issues facing our country. These proceedings, and the decisions issued from the proceedings by the Supreme Court and Federal courts, impact every facet of the lives of 

Americans. As just one of many examples, a three-judge panel of 

the D.C. Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments on the 

constitutional privacy issues involving the NSA’s mass collection of 

phone data. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal courts also 

have heard and hear cases involving the Affordable Care Act, our 

Nation’s immigration laws, interpretation of the Second Amendment, housing and foreclosure issues, political and campaign cases, 

and many other pressing issues that face our country. And yet very 

few people have an opportunity, and most people never have the 

chance, to observe the proceedings in person. 

Public access to critical cases in the Supreme Court or Federal 

courthouses is limited to the very few who can wait in line for 

hours and sometimes days or who can hire a person to stand in 

line for them. 

The limited public access to the Supreme Court and Federal 

court proceedings is inconsistent with the modern world of readily 

accessible media. Indeed, video recording devices are permitted in 

State supreme courts. It is time that this U.S. Supreme Court and 

Federal court practice is changed. 

I would like to thank again my colleagues, Congressman King 

and Congresswoman Lofgren, for their work and strong leadership 

on this critical issue. Broadcasting of the Supreme Court and Federal court proceedings will ensure that the public has full access to 

the oral arguments on important legal issues and will, most importantly, help to ensure that justice is carried out for all to see. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Deutch. 

I would now like to recognize the full Committee Chairman, the 

distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bob Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, today’s legislative hearing on H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013,’’ is one that raises substantial 

and important questions that have been the focus of this Committee’s attention before. Indeed, the questions surrounding whether 

and under what circumstances Federal court proceedings should be 

televised or otherwise made available via electronic medium is not 

novel but ones Congress and the Federal Judiciary have considered 

in various forms for many years. In fact, legislation to authorize 

broadcast or television coverage of Federal court proceedings has 

been introduced by Members, typically with bipartisan support, as 

is true in the present case, in every Congress dating back to at 

least the 105th. 

Most recently, the Committee reported a version of this legislation in 2007, when a bill sponsored by our colleague Representative 

Steve Chabot and former Representative William Delahunt was reported favorably. H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 

2013’’ and the 2007 bill are substantially similar. The bill’s spon-
11 

sor, Representative Steve King, succinctly stated in his written testimony his motivation and belief in introducing this bill that Congress has both the constitutional authority to act and the duty to 

use that authority to expand public access to our courts. 

Proponents of the bill believe that the values of transparency, accountability, and education will only be enhanced by expanded public access to our Federal courts. However, the principal opponents 

of cameras in the courtroom legislation are the Supreme Court of 

the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

the latter of which functions as the policymaking body for the lower 

Federal courts. Each would be impacted by the enactment of H.R. 

917, which authorizes the presiding judge of a court to allow cameras and recording devices to be operated in Federal court proceedings, subject to certain exceptions and qualifications. 

I appreciate Judge Robinson’s appearance today, and I believe it 

is vitally important that the Judicial Conference and the Supreme 

Court avail themselves of each opportunity to participate in the 

Committee’s consideration of legislation that impacts our justice 

system. This is particularly true in matters that relate to the administration and operation of the Federal Judiciary. 

Perhaps spurred by this Committee’s action in 2007, the Judicial 

Conference authorized a 3-year pilot project in 2010 to evaluate the 

effects of cameras being used in district courts and related matters. 

Fourteen courts volunteered for the project, which is ongoing, limited to civil proceedings, and scheduled to conclude in July 2015. 

Following the pilot’s conclusion, the Federal Judicial Center will 

prepare a report and provide it to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. It is then 

expected that CACM will provide a report to the Judicial Conference regarding the possible future use of cameras in district 

courts. Notwithstanding the ongoing nature of the pilot, the conference currently maintains the view that this legislation will have 

the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and the safety 

of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. 

It is clear the views of proponents and opponents are strongly and 

sincerely held and that a discussion of the relative merits will benefit our consideration. I particularly want to thank Mr. King and 

Mr. Chabot for their work on the Republican side on this issue, and 

Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Deutch for their efforts 

on the Democratic side. This is truly a bipartisan effort, and deserves careful consideration by the Committee. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would now like to recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Congressman 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to begin by mentioning that our colleague from New 

York, Mr. Nadler, wanted to be here today, but he is at the Supreme Court, where there is oral argument going on in a very important case. And I wanted his absence to be noted, and that he 

is very concerned about the proceedings that are taking place here 

in the Judiciary Committee. 
12 

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of course would authorize 

photography, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any 

court proceeding held in the Federal district court, and in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court of the United 

States, subject to some exceptions. As many of you may recall, the 

Committee on the Judiciary previously considered legislation substantially identical to H.R. 917. And although I voted in favor of 

this prior legislation, I still have, nevertheless, several concerns. 

Most importantly, I want the proponents of H.R. 917 to address the 

Judicial Conference’s observation that this measure could potentially impair the fundamental right of a citizen to a fair and impartial trial. 

For example, Justice Elena Kagan earlier this year said that 

televised coverage of Federal court proceedings would or might encourage participants to play to the camera. In fact, the Supreme 

Court in Estes v. Texas, a case involving a State criminal trial that 

was televised, observed that the chief function of our judicial machinery is to ascertain the truth. The use of television, however, 

cannot be said to contribute materially to this objective. Rather, its 

use amounts to the injection of an irrelevant factor into the court 

proceedings. 

In addition, experience teaches that there are numerous situations in which it might cause actual unfairness, some so subtle as 

to defy detection by the accused or controlled by the judge. Accordingly, I want the proponents of H.R. 917 to explain how the bill 

does not undermine a citizen’s right to due process and a fair trial. 

Secondly, we should ensure that the bill adequately protects the 

privacy rights of participants in Federal judicial proceedings. Clearly, we must be cognizant of the fact that electronic media coverage 

presents the prospect of public disclosure of personal information 

that may have a material effect on the individual’s willingness to 

testify or place an individual at risk of being a target for retribution or intimidation. I realize the bill authorizes a witness’ image 

and voice to be obscured under certain circumstances. But is this 

sufficient to protect the witness’ privacy? 

And finally, we must be mindful of the need to ensure the safety 

and security of our judges, our law enforcement officers, and other 

participants in the judicial process. Some believe that cameras in 

the courtroom could heighten the level of, and potential threats to, 

Federal judges, particularly those proceedings involving highly controversial matters. The Judicial Conference is currently in the 

midst of a pilot program expected to conclude next July, that, 

among other things, is examining the impact of electronic media on 

the safety and security of the courtroom. Hopefully, that test program will provide some guidance on this issue so that court security is not undermined. That concludes my statement. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. 

Without objection, the Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

We have two very distinguished panels of witnesses today. Each 

of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record 

in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the timing, 
13 

there is a light on your table. When the light switches from green 

to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the 

light turns red, it signals the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Our first witness today is the Honorable Steve King, the Member 

of Congress who represents the Fourth District of Iowa. Representative King serves as Chairman of the Department Operations, 

Oversight, and Nutrition Subcommittee on the House Agricultural 

Committee. He also serves on the Small Business Committee, and 

here on the Judiciary Committee. Prior to being elected to Congress in 2002, Representative King served in the Iowa State Senate 

for 6 years as Chairman of the State Government Committee and 

Vice-Chairman of the Oversight Budget Subcommittee. Representative King studied math and science at Northwest Missouri State 

University. 

Welcome, Mr. King. 

Our second witness is the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, the Member of 

Congress who represents the 19th District of California. She serves 

as Ranking Member on the Oversight Subcommittee for the House 

Administration Committee, and is a member of the Science, Space, 

and Technology Committee. She also serves as Ranking Member of 

the Immigration and Policy and Enforcement Subcommittee and is 

a member of this Subcommittee, which has oversight over Federal 

courts, intellectual property, and the Internet on the Judiciary 

Committee. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1995, Representative Lofgren served on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for 14 years. She earned her J.D. From the University of 

Santa Clara School of Law, and her B.A. From Stanford University. 

Welcome. 

We will start with you, Representative King. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I thank you 

and our Ranking Member, both the full and the Subcommittee, for 

the opportunity to bring this bill, H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the 

Courtroom Act of 2013,’’ before this hearing today. I would ask consent to introduce my written testimony into the record and then to 

testify orally in addition. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To work our way down 

through this bill, and I also want to thank my colleague, Ms. 

Lofgren, and a good number of others for their bipartisan cooperation on this bill that is before us. H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the 

Courtroom Act of 2013,’’ expands public access to the courts. And 

when we think about what public access means, it is a different 

definition for us in this modern era in the 21st Century than it was 

back when the Constitution was ratified, in that we had small 

courtrooms, a few people traveled, there wasn’t much access just 

because of logistical difficulties. Today, we turn on the Super Bowl, 

and millions of people watch it on television. That is what we consider access. And yet something like Bush v. Gore can be decided 

in the United States Supreme Court with a relative handful of people having only exclusive access to get in to hear a case like that. 

It also was true with Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act. It was 
14 

a significant maneuver for even a member of this Judiciary Committee, meaning myself, to be able to get into the courtroom to hear 

the oral arguments before the court. 

I think that the court needs to have the opportunity to make the 

decision to change that. We don’t direct the courts to open up the 

courtroom to the cameras, but we provide the regulations that 

allow the courts to do so under their judgment and their discretion. 

We protect the jurors from any kind of exposure. They cannot be 

exposed to the media coverage along that. And, again, we don’t 

force the judges to open up their courtrooms. We just provide them 

the opportunity to do so. 

And there may be an argument about where this jurisdiction to 

provide this statutory authority to open up the courtrooms to cameras comes from. And I would point out that in Article I, Section 

8, and in Article III, Section 1, the Congress establishes—it is established that the Congress establishes the courts. And in Article 

III, Section 2, it is clear that we write the regulations at least for 

the Supreme Court, and I might expand that definition in another 

venue. But we need to be expanding the public access and open up 

the machinery of government. When I hear—I remember during 

the Bush administration, I heard comments of the ‘‘appointed 

President.’’ Well, there is a bit of I will say suspicion about what 

went on in a courtroom that very few people had an opportunity 

to witness. And most of us, if we weren’t in the courtroom, then 

we had to rely on the pundits’ analysis or perhaps the legal analysis that informed the pundits’ analysis of what the decision really 

was in the courtroom. It isn’t an eye to eye objective view for hardly anybody in today’s world, given the access we have at all other 

public functions that I can think of. So we expand public access 

and open up the machinery of government. I also would add that 

the Sixth Amendment demands that we have a right to a speedy 

and a public trial. And that takes us back to that definition of, 

what is public? So the Founders knew that opening the government 

to public served a dual purpose of holding our leaders accountable, 

and our appointed and elected officials and confirmed officials accountable, and it had a form of education as well. 

I would just take you back to an experience that frames this for 

me. And this was in a State district court. But I had a case, and 

the name of it was King v. Gustafson. And it was an issue where 

I was collecting on a bill. And we ended up before the district court 

with a judge, who, after the court hearing—and I thought we had 

made our case absolutely irrefutably. We caught our opposition in 

contradictory statements, which I consider to be lies. And yet the 

judge had 90 days to write the decision. This is the irony of life. 

On the 89th day, the judge had a brain aneurysm. He did survive 

that. But out of it came what they said was a 30-day blank spot 

in his memory. Oh, how nice it would have been if he could have 

gone back and reviewed the videotape of the hearing before the 

court. Otherwise, we ended up going to the State Supreme Court, 

and it was a saga that lasted for 8 years. We could have cut that 

by about 2 or 3 years if the judge, who I think had his faculties 

about him, had been able to review the tape rather than review his 

notes. That is just my personal anecdote on this. But I also think 

of the benefits that come from an educational standpoint. We are 
15 

in a position where you look at our law schools. And I understand 

Justice Scalia will write his dissenting opinions so that they are interesting and law students will read them and try to learn what 

goes on in the courtroom. But to be able to study our courts, to be 

able to go back and review Bush v. Gore, or the ACA litigation that 

took place, or any of the huge landmark cases that take place before our Supreme Courts or those that are litigated before our circuit courts, would be a tremendous boon to all of our law schools, 

all of our students, and it would improve our educational process 

in this country. 

Thank you for your attention, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman King. 

The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman Lofgren. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for holding this hearing. I think the legislation is important, and 

I am happy to be a cosponsor of the Sunshine in the Courtroom 

Act, not only in this Congress but previous versions in previous 

Congresses. Over 100 years ago, Louis Brandeis wrote that ‘‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’’ These now famous 

words reflect a belief that openness and transparency are key components of a functioning democracy. This is a Nation founded on 

the concept of government accountability. And passage of this bill 

would ensure that our judicial system is better able to uphold that 

ideal. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would allow judges to 

open their courtrooms to cameras, granting the public greater insight into the judicial process and building confidence in our legal 

system. As the Supreme Court found in 1948 in In re Oliver, the 

knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous 

review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on 

possible abuse of judicial power. Now, as many of you know, the 

pilot projects have been going on around the country. And one of 

the pilots is in the Ninth Circuit and in the Northern District of 

California, which includes my congressional district. The pilot has 

been extended for a year. But in talking to the judges in the Northern District, there is wide acceptance of the pilot. Most seem to see 

no reason why modern technology should not be part of the judicial 

system. Some of the feedback I have gotten from judges is that although our bill allows the establishing of rules by the Judicial Conference, judges feel very strongly that the—it is essential that the 

identity of jurors continue to remain obscured. They are volunteers, 

and they should not be subject to being part of the televised proceedings. Another interesting issue raised to me by judges was 

that, under the pilot, all the parties need to agree, and consequently, there haven’t been very many actual televised proceedings. And some of the judges wonder whether we shouldn’t revisit that and examine that element of it. This is a big deal. I took 

seriously the comments made by the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers. In terms of playing to the cameras, one of the things that 

judges told me is that if there is a high-profile case, that happens 

without cameras being in the courtroom. 

And, in terms of playing to the camera, you know, one judge 

said, pretty soon you forget the cameras are even there. And lawyers are focused on winning their case. Therefore, they have got to 

appeal to the jury or to the judge, not to the camera. And it was 

not a concern that that was really a disruptive measure. 

Still, it is something that we all should discuss. In terms of personal disclosure of information, that objection to me I find difficult 

to understand because our courtrooms are open. And if you testify 

to a matter it is a matter of public record. It is not private. So I 

look forward to hearing further from the Judicial Conference on 

that point. 
19 

Again, I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for holding this hearing. I think it is an important issue. And if we can 

become familiar with the issues that the courts have raised and address them successfully, I think the country will be a better place. 

One of the judges I talked to in the Northern District said, you 

know, the real thing that all of us want to see is the Supreme 

Court being televised because of the important role that they play. 

And I am hopeful that this hearing and other discussions will ultimately allow that to happen. It would be a tremendous service to 

our democracy. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for holding a hearing on this 

important legislation. I am an original cosponsor of the Sunshine in the Courtroom 

Act, and have been pleased to cosponsor previous versions of this bill in past Congresses. 

Over 100 years ago, Louis Brandeis wrote that ‘‘[s]unlight is said to be the best 

of disinfectants.’’ These now-famous words reflect the belief that openness and 

transparency are key components of a functioning democracy. This is a nation 

founded on the concept of government accountability, and passage of this bill would 

ensure that our judicial system is aiming to uphold these ideals. 

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would allow judges to open their courtrooms 

to cameras, granting the public greater insight into the judicial process and building 

confidence in our legal system. As the Supreme Court found in 1948 (In re Oliver), 

‘‘The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous review in 

the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial 

power.’’ 

As I’m sure many are aware, in addition to the Ninth Circuit’s use of video 

streaming, there are currently fourteen federal trial courts participating in a pilot 

program to evaluate the effect of cameras on courtrooms. The Northern District of 

California, which includes my Congressional district, is one of the participating 

courts as selected by the Judicial Conference. The pilot, initially slated to end this 

summer, has been extended for an additional year. When it concludes next July, the 

federal judiciary will be facing questions about whether or not the use of cameras 

in courtrooms should be expanded. Trials have always been considered public, and 

I see no reason why, with modern technology, the walls of the courtroom should be 

the limits of this privilege. 

This bill largely leaves the establishment of rules governing the use of cameras 

to the Judicial Conference, but I did want to raise a couple of points that I think 

are worth considering after hearing from some of the local judges involved in the 

pilot program. First, with regard to the pilot program rules, not only do individual 

judges need to approve the recording of proceedings, but all parties must consent. 

As a result, very few trials have been recorded in Northern California. Whether or 

not to require or allow all parties to consent may be worth examining further as 

we consider expanding the usage of cameras on a national level. I would also note 

that both the pilot program and the bill prohibit the media coverage of jurors. This 

is important, and some of our local judges have emphasized that this continue to 

be stressed. Judges that I’ve spoken with do support the use of cameras in the 

courtroom both as an educational tool and as a means for increasing transparency. 

I hope that the experiences and lessons learned from this pilot program will be used 

to enact meaningful reforms, including expanded access to our judicial system. 

Again, I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for organizing this 

hearing today and for allowing me to testify in support of this legislation. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues as well as the other witnesses, and I hope that 

we can find a path forward to bring our judiciary into the 21st century, using modern technology to increase access, accountability, and understanding. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren. 
20 

Thank both of you for being here today. I appreciate it. 

We will now seat our second panel. And before you get comfortable, I am going to ask you to stand anyhow to be sworn in. 

I will begin by swearing in our second panel of witnesses. Before 

introducing them, if you would please raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is 

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 

God? 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And you may be seated. Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. I ask that each 

witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To 

help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your 

table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 

1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 

signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Our first witness of the second panel is the Honorable Julie A. 

Robinson, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas. 

Judge Robinson was appointed in 2001 by President George W. 

Bush. She is here today on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. Prior to her position on the Federal bench in Kansas 

City, she served as a judge on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Kansas for 8 years, and assistant United States attorney 

for 10 years—near and dear to my heart—and a law clerk for U.S. 

Bankruptcy Judge Benjamin Franklin for 2 years. Judge Robinson 

earned both her J.D. and B.A. from the University of Kansas. 

Welcome, Judge. 

Our second witness on the second panel is Mr. Mickey 

Osterreicher. Am I still doing well there, sir? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. General counsel of the National Press Photographers Association. In his position, Mr. Osterreicher has been actively involved on issues, such as cameras in the courtroom, the 

Federal shield proposal, and media access. In addition, he is an 

award-winning photojournalist, with almost 40 years of experience 

in print and broadcast. He also served as an adjunct professor, 

teaching courses in media and the law at the University of Buffalo 

Law School. 

Mr. Osterreicher earned his J.D. from the University of Buffalo 

Law School, and his B.S. from State University of New York at 

Buffalo. 

Welcome to both of you. And, Judge, we will start with your 

opening statement. 

Judge ROBINSON. Thank you, Chairman Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Would you please hit the button there so we can 

hear you a little better? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

KANSAS, ON BEHALF OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Judge ROBINSON. Thank you, Chairman Marino and Ranking 

Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee as well as the 

full Committee. I am Julie Robinson. I am a United States District 
21 

Judge for the District of Kansas. And I appreciate Chairman 

Goodlatte’s invitation to appear today to discuss the views of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the issue of 

cameras in the courtroom and, specifically, H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine 

in the Courtroom Act of 2013.’’ With your consent, I will submit a 

written statement into the record, and I will briefly summarize 

that statement this morning. 

I previously served as the chair of the Court Administration and 

Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. And I am familiar with the conference position regarding cameras in the courtroom. Before I discuss the concerns of 

the Federal judiciary, I must emphasize, as did Judge Tunheim in 

his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in September 

2007, that the Judicial Conference does not speak for the Supreme 

Court. Therefore, I am unable to address the provisions of the bill 

that would authorize the broadcasting of Supreme Court proceedings. The legislation before us is designated as a bill to provide 

for the media coverage of Federal court proceedings. For reasons 

that are explained in more detail in my written statement, the Judicial Conference opposes this legislation, primarily because it allows the use of cameras in Federal trial courts, in the district 

courts. If enacted, this legislation will have the potential to impair 

substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while 

undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and 

other trial participants, including judges. 

I would like to emphasize four points this morning regarding our 

concerns at the trial level. First, the intimidating effect of cameras 

on litigants, witnesses, and jurors can have a profoundly negative 

impact on the trial process. Moreover, televising the trial makes 

certain court orders, for example an order sequestering witnesses, 

more difficult to enforce, and could lead to tainted testimony from 

witnesses. Secondly, permitting camera coverage could become a 

potent negotiating tactic in pretrial settlement negotiations. Third, 

allowing cameras in Federal courts would create security concerns, 

and undermine the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, and heighten the level and potential of threats to judges. 

And fourth, cameras can create privacy concerns for countless numbers of persons, many of whom are not even parties to the case, but 

about whom very personal information may be revealed. 

With regard to the issue of cameras in the Federal Courts of Appeal, the conference opposes the bill’s provisions permitting each 

appellate court panel to decide whether to allow cameras rather 

than allowing that decision to be made by each Court of Appeals 

as a whole, which is the existing conference policy. The conference 

did not take these positions because it is against increased publicity for the Federal courts. In many aspects, the Federal judiciary 

is at the forefront of electronic innovation and transparency. Nearly 

every filing, every trial, every appellate argument, decision, and 

opinion is available and open to the public. Over the past decade, 

the Judicial Conference has dramatically expanded that openness 

by making its entire filing system electronically available to the 

public through the Internet. Furthermore, in September of 2010 

the Judicial Conference of the United States authorized a pilot 

project to evaluate the effect of cameras in district court court-
22 

rooms, also the effect of video recordings of these proceedings, and 

the publication of such video recordings. The results of the pilot 

program, which ends in July 2015, will help the judiciary review 

and evaluate our concerns with the use of cameras in the district 

courts. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about whether 

judges have personal concerns regarding camera coverage. It is not 

a debate about whether the Federal courts are afraid of public 

scrutiny. It is not a debate about increasing the educational opportunities for the public to learn about the Federal courts or the litigation process. In fact, open hearings are a hallmark of the Federal 

judiciary. 

Rather, this is a question about how your constituents, individual Americans, whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, jurors, or other participants in court proceedings, are treated by the Federal judicial process. It is the fundamental duty of the 

Federal judiciary to ensure that every citizen receives his or her 

constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. And for the reasons 

discussed in my statement, the Judicial Conference believes that 

the use of cameras in the trial courtroom would seriously jeopardize that right, and, therefore, we oppose this legislation. I would 

ask that my written statement be offered and entered into the 

record. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

And thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Judge. Your full statement will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Robinson follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Mr. MARINO. And the Chair now recognizes Attorney Osterreicher. 

TESTIMONY OF MICKEY H. OSTERREICHER, GENERAL 

COUNSEL, NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Marino, 

Ranking Member Deutch, and Members of the Subcommittee, good 

morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

to support H.R. 917, the ‘‘Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013.’’ 

My name is Mickey Osterreicher. I am of counsel to the law firm 

of Hiscock & Barclay in its media and First Amendment law practice in Buffalo, New York, and appear here today in my capacity 

as general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, an organization which was founded in 1946 and of which I 

have been a member since 1973. 

NPPA is the voice of visual journalists, with approximately 7,000 

members, including video and still photographers, editors, and students. During my 40-year career as a photojournalist in both print 

and broadcast, I have covered hundreds of court cases, from the Attica trials to the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. I was actively involved in the 10-year experiment with electronic coverage of courtroom proceedings from 1987 to 1997 in New York. And by ‘‘electronic,’’ I mean audiovisual recording, as well as digital still images. We support H.R. 917 because there is a strong societal interest in public access to the courts. As part of that openness, almost 

every State allows electronic coverage of criminal, civil, and appellate proceedings. 

Unfortunately, that is not the case at the Federal level. In 1991, 

the Judicial Conference of the United States commenced a 3-year 

pilot program permitting the broadcasting, televising, electronic recording, or photographing of courtroom proceedings by the media. 

At the conclusion of that program and despite favorable reports, 

the conference declined to approve the continuation of such coverage, and the program ended in 1994. In 2010, the Judicial Conference authorized a second pilot project. This time, it would be 

court personnel and not the media operating the equipment. The 

guidelines specifically state the media or its representatives will 

not be permitted to create recordings of courtroom proceedings. 

In 2014, electronic media coverage is the unblinking eye of the 

public, with its unrivaled capacity to convey information instantly 

and to the widest audience. As Justice Brandeis noted in 1932, to 

stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with 

serious consequences to the Nation. But in the exercise of this high 

power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices 

into legal principles. The Federal judiciary must be mindful of its 

high power not to erect its own prejudices into judicial rules. Society can ill afford to let the arbitrary and speculative objections of 

jurists antagonistic to the electronic press substantially undermine 

a fundamental constitutional right by lens capping the very tools 

of its profession and eviscerating the very means by which most 

Americans receive their news. The benefits of allowing such coverage are numerous and significant. It brings transparency to the 

Federal judicial system, provides increased accountability from liti-
51 

gants, judges, and the press, and educates citizens about the judicial process. Electronic coverage allows the public to ensure that 

proceedings are conducted fairly, and by extension, that government systems are working properly. In 1965, Justice Harlan predicted that the day may come when television will have become so 

commonplace an affair in the daily life of the average person as to 

dissipate all reasonable likelihood that its use in courtrooms may 

disparage the judicial process. That day has long since passed. 

Justice Stewart was also on point when he wrote, ‘‘The suggestion that there are limits upon the public’s right to know what goes 

on in the courts causes me deep concern.’’ ‘‘The idea of imposing 

upon any medium of communications the burden of justifying its 

presence is contrary to where I always thought the presumption 

must lie in the area of First Amendment freedoms.’’ One would 

only hope that, by 2015, after what will have been a 4-year experiment, the Federal judiciary will finally acknowledge that electronic 

coverage of our courts, and the fair administration of justice, are 

not mutually exclusive. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee as you move forward 

with H.R. 917 and other similar legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions, 

and request that my full statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. And your full statement will be entered into the record without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Osterreicher follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Mr. MARINO. As is my custom, I wait and ask questions last, because I am here and other Congressmen and women need to get 

to other areas. So I am going to defer to my good friend from Ohio, 

Congressman Chabot, who has been a proponent of this legislation 

for years and years. 

Congressman? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And maybe 

just a few thoughts and a little background. This is a topic, as the 

Chairman mentioned, that I have been interested in for a long 

time, at least 30 years. I practiced law for 16 years before coming 

to Congress. And during part of that time I was practicing law, I 

was first elected to Cincinnati City Council about 30 years ago now 

and served there for about 5 years. And one of the things that I 

did when I was there was to have council meetings televised. I 

don’t know how many people actually watched it. It can be a bit 

boring at times. But, nonetheless, the public had access. 

And then moved over to the Hamilton County Commission, 

where I served for about 5 years, did the same thing there. When 

I came to Congress, C-SPAN already existed. Congress itself was 

already on television, despite a lot of the same types of concerns 

that there are relative to courtrooms, that people would play to the 

cameras. And some Members of Congress do. But the fact is that 

we are public folks; that the public pays for the courtrooms, just 

as it pays for our congressional chambers. And I think they ought 

to have access to it. And access nowadays, let’s face it, people really—it is not practical to think that you can just leave your job or 

leave your family and go down and see what is happening in the 

local courtroom. The access is by television should the public choose 

to tune in. And but they should have that opportunity. Again, they 

are paying for it. 

But, in any event, when I introduced the legislation in the House 

about 20 years ago, my colleague, the chief cosponsor, was a former 

Member of the Committee, Rep. Chuck Schumer. And he felt very 

strongly about it and gave innumerable excellent speeches. I disagreed with him on a few other things, but on this particular topic, 

we were in agreement. When he left, I think Rep. Bill Delahunt 

took up on the Democratic side and did a wonderful job over the 

years. But we have been working on this for a lot of years now. 

And then I lost my seat back in 2008 and then won it back in 2010. 

And I want to commend Rep. Steve King for taking it up then. He 

has done a great job. And I want to also thank Rep. Zoe Lofgren 

for her leadership on this issue. But the thing that I keep hearing, 

this business about potentially impairing the right to a fair trial 

that the Judicial Conference talks about, I could understand that 

point of view if we didn’t have years and years of experience on 

this, both when the court had its own pilot project back from 1991 

to 1994, in which there essentially weren’t any significant issues 

during that 3-year period of time, and then we have the States, all 

of whom at this point—we used to be able to say, well, they all except for this one or this one—well, now they all have it, and we 

have had 20 years of experience, 20-plus years of experience, with 

very few problems. And whatever problems there are I think have 

been dealt with. 
72 

Our colleague, Mr. Nadler, as the Ranking Member Mr. Conyers 

mentioned, has been involved in this and supported it. And he had 

a good suggestion. That was to obscure the faces of witnesses in 

sensitive cases. And we are leaving the oversight of this and the 

rules up to the judges themselves. So I just still fail to see what 

the opposition is to this, although I know it is still there, and we 

haven’t been able to accomplish this yet. 

But I think, particularly at the Supreme Court level, as Mr. King 

mentioned, the types of cases that are heard over there, whether 

it is Bush-Gore, whether it is the Affordable Care Act or 

Obamacare, whatever your preferred terminology is, or one of the 

pieces, one of my things I am proudest of that I was the principal 

sponsor, the ban on partial birth abortion, which we fought for 

about 8 years before it went all the way to the U.S. Supreme 

Court, and on a 5-4 vote prevailed. And I remember sitting on that 

side, because we were in the minority then, Republicans, and hearing that the case had been ruled in our favor, which I was really 

happy about, but we couldn’t see the decision. 

So those were some of the frustrations. So I have said a lot. I 

don’t have a lot of time. Either one of you want to respond, especially to the potentially impairment of a fair trial? We have got 

such a long experience. Shouldn’t that be sufficient to show that 

that shouldn’t really be that much of a concern? Your Honor? 

Judge ROBINSON. What we know is that the State courts have 

had cameras in the courtroom, but there is not a uniform approach. 

Some of them place limits on criminal cases. Some of them treat 

civil versus criminal cases differently. Some of them have consent 

requirements. Some of them do not. The Federal judiciary is going 

to need a uniform national approach. That is how we operate. The 

Judicial Conference makes policy for the trial courts. And the trial 

courts asked for the Judicial Conference’s guidance and education 

and policy. And so we are looking at a uniform national approach. 

We know that the State courts don’t have a singular model that 

suggests that this is the way to do it. Certainly studying their experiences is important. But equally important is studying the experience of Federal trial judges and having the benefit of all of those 

experiences in formulating a policy. 

In terms of the denial of fair trial or the impairment of the fair 

trial, what I want to I guess stress to you is that the most serious 

of concerns is not that it is going to change the behavior of lawyers, 

or even change the behavior of other participants in the trial process. The greatest threat I think to the right to a fair trial is that 

in a courtroom—and Representative Conyers spoke to this—it is a 

search for the truth. What happens is rigorous examination of witnesses, both direct and cross-examination. We don’t want a situation where the witness’ testimony is all affected by the fact that not 

only are people that are in the courtroom going to hear it but now 

hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, are going to hear 

it, on television or on the Internet. Perhaps their boss or their minister or their next-door neighbor, who would otherwise not hear 

that testimony. In every case, there are situations where personal 

information becomes a part of the record. And as you have all 

talked about, the fact that we have open trials already, anyone can 
73 

find that, all of our pleadings are open to the public through the 

Internet, as are trial transcripts. 

But imagine, if you will, in a civil trial, it is an employment case, 

one of the claims is emotional distress. I think, Mr. Chabot, you 

will remember this from being a lawyer, but on cross-examination, 

someone that has made that type of claim is going to be examined 

extensively about everything about their personality, their mental 

health issues, et cetera. In a personal injury case, a plaintiff who 

has made, for example, a claim of loss of consortium is now going 

to be cross-examined, if not examined as well, about their sexual 

practices with their spouse or partner. In a criminal case, a confidential informant is going to be rigorously cross-examined in 

ways that are going to identify who that person is, even if their 

voice and even if their face is obscured. I say all of that to say that 

we have legitimate and serious concerns about the impediment to 

a fair trial. 

And this is what we need to study. This is why we have the pilot. 

And these are the many questions that we are looking at and that 

we hope will be answered for us in terms of guidance, best practices, whether it is possible for a judge to use their discretion in 

a way in a given type of case but yet not impede or impair someone’s right to a fair trial. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Judge. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

But, Attorney Osterreicher, would you briefly like to respond? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I would hope that we wouldn’t shoot the 

messenger. There are no less than four cameras in this courtroom 

right now. I don’t think any of us are paying any attention to them. 

We are talking to you. You are talking to us. That is what happens 

in a courtroom. That is what my experience has been throughout 

all the cases that I have covered. 

In New York, during the 10-year experiment, I think there is a 

telling statistic. Not one of those cases was ever appealed on the 

grounds that somebody did not receive a fair trial because their 

trial was televised. I think that speaks volumes. 

In terms of what other information we are going to obtain from 

this new experiment, you know, I look back from ’91 to ’94. The 

FJC report talks about their confidence in—they went through the 

same empirical data, the same anecdotal data. 

They, along with the Case Management Committee, both recommended it. And, yet, at the end of the day, even with a supplemental report supporting the continuation of cameras in the courtroom and electronic coverage, the judicial committee decided to not 

go forward with it. 

So I am not really sure, you know, how much more data we need 

to convince people. I know that the Honorable Judge Robinson put 

some statistics in her written report. If you will look at them, I believe that there are 17 points that were addressed. And, yet, only 

three of those were over a 50 percent concern by the people filling 

out whatever type of questionnaire there was. 

So I think, unfortunately, what we see is that it could, it might, 

it is possible. I think this is all speculative. But the overwhelming 

amount of evidence shows that it just hasn’t happened in the expe-
74 

rience of the courts throughout the States and even during the experimental time that they had. 

Mr. MARINO. All right. Thank you, sir. 

I am just going to take a moment here to enter something into 

the record. 

Without objection, I request permission to submit for the hearing 

record materials from CSPAN, the Radio and Television News Directors Association, and Ms. Maureen Mahoney of Latham & Watkins. These materials have been circulated to all the Members of 

the Subcommittee. Hearing no objection, I will enter these into the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

ATTACHMENT 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 

Mr. MARINO. All right. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Congressman Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the witnesses for being here. 

I wanted just to follow up on what you both were talking about, 

which is the pilot programs, the need for additional investigation 

into whether this might work over the long-term and, Judge Robinson, ask you to look at some of the cases, the most highly publicized cases, that were televised, the O.J. Trial, William Kennedy 

Smith, Ted Bundy, Florida—in Florida, in the Florida Supreme 

Court, where cameras are permitted, Bush v. Gore. In those cases, certainly, the three trials, was there evidence of— 

of the concerns that you raised that would undermine a fair trial, 

the intimidating effect of cameras, threats to judges, privacy concerns for nonparties? 

I mean, we have a long history at the state level of cases that 

have been tried in public and on television. Do we—instead of simply waiting to see what we learn from the pilot, from our history, 

have your concerns been addressed in any of these cases or to what 

extent did we see those concerns about undermining a fair trial 

really come into play? 

Judge ROBINSON. Well, I have to tell you the high-profile cases 

that have been televised that you mention, I didn’t watch any of 

them gavel to gavel. But my perception, I think, and the perception 

of many were those very concerns in those cases. But I think what 

is 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 doesn’t 

know all the facts, who doesn’t know, perhaps, what that witness 

testified to in a deposition and whether they are shading their testimony now when they are in front of the television cameras. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. We may not—viewers may not know that. 

But the parties involved that—on whose behalf you are speaking— 

the concerns of the parties involved, certainly, we would have— 

these are issues that would have come up time and time again or 

would come up time and time again, wouldn’t they, as we televise 

trials all over the country, many of them high profile? 

Judge ROBINSON. All I can tell you, sir, is that I think it is important to survey people. And I am not aware that, in the state 

courts or in those cases that you mention specifically, that those 

participants were surveyed, that their views were called upon. 

We think it is 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 in the context 

of the survey. And so that is why we are doing the pilot in the way 

we are doing it. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I know, Judge Robinson, that you are not—you 

are not taking a position on the Supreme Court. Is that correct? 

Judge ROBINSON. The Judicial Conference—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. 

Judge ROBINSON [continuing]. Does not take a position. 
100 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. 

So—— 

Judge ROBINSON. It does not speak for the Supreme Court. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But it seems—and, Mr. Osterreicher, I will ask you 

this question. It seems that, since—Judge Robinson, as you said, 

the real concern isn’t judges playing to the cameras. 

It is 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 don’t really seem to apply at all. 

So, Mr. Osterreicher, what is—what is the argument? Justice 

Kagan said that she worries about people playing to the cameras. 

You have been to many Supreme Court oral arguments. For anyone 

who has been, is that a—is that a valid concern? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. 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 mean, I sat in the courtroom during the O.J. Simpson trial. The 

lawyers there were going to do whatever they were going to do, regardless of whether there were cameras or not. And, as a matter 

of fact—and I use this as a comparison—I believe that the public 

missed a wonderful opportunity to see Judge Matsch, who oversaw 

the Oklahoma City bombing trial. 

There were cameras in the courtroom there. I mean, most people 

don’t think about it. But they were closed-circuit cameras that allowed the broadcast of the proceedings that 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 well-conducted trial looked like compared to what I will 

admit was a circus during the O.J. Trial. But that had nothing to 

do with the fact that there were cameras in the courtroom. 

Mr. DEUTCH. 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, couldn’t 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, isn’t it just as likely, if that 

is really the concern, that Justices would play to them, knowing 

that they are going to be the ones that describe what happens in 

the courtroom? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I think, obviously, from my experience there, 

that sometimes the Justices get playful and they really don’t care 

whether—that there is cameras there or not cameras there. That 

is what they are doing. 

They are either trying to ask insightful questions or just trying 

to be clever. And, certainly, it is good, if you are arguing a case, 

if you can come back with a good answer. 

I know, in some of the really seminal cases that we have actually—NPPA submitted amicus briefs in, I am always in awe and 

disbelief that I am sitting in this courtroom, the highest court in 
101 

the land, where they will decide how the rest of us will live and 

there is only this handful of people. 

You know, I am fortunate that I am 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 don’t actually get to see people. I think that is really 

important, also, in terms of getting to see people. 

When people testify in court and it is only before the people in 

that courtroom, they might testify differently if it was on TV. But 

I would assert that they might testify more honestly because, if 

their neighbors who happen to know something about them get to 

see it, they don’t want to not be truthful. 

And if we are in search of the truth in a courtroom, then, isn’t 

that much better to have everybody? I mean, that is really what 

the founders thought about when they were talking about court 

day, when people could come in and watch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Congressman 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge, I know there is a difference in terms of practitioners practicing in Federal, state court. Part of the reason is because of people like you that get through the Article III vetting process that 

tend to be well-qualified and good judges. 

And sometimes that is not always the case in various state systems. And, obviously, there are States where they do allow cameras 

at the trial level. And you had raised the concern about due process 

and fairness in those cases. 

And 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? 

Judge ROBINSON. The Conference has not taken a position and 

really doesn’t have a basis to make an evaluation of what is 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 in the sense 

that, even though they—some of them have been having cameras 

in the courtroom for a long time, there are so many different models. 

We are just concerned, obviously, about ensuring that there is 

due process in the Federal courts. I don’t think we are in a position 

to evaluate what is going on in the individual state courts. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So with respect to this bill, it gives the presiding 

judge the ability to decide whether or not to broadcast proceedings. 

So isn’t the presiding judge in the best position to differentiate 

between those cases where it may be appropriate to record or 

broadcast and those that may be susceptible to undue interference? 

Judge ROBINSON. I think it is 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 
102 

hand, there are times that they cannot anticipate things that may 

happen in the trial. 

At the same time, as trial judges, I think we would all benefit 

from a policy that is 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. We are all 

going to be informed by that. And, ultimately, whatever policy the 

Judicial Conference adopts, I think we will be well informed because of the pilot. 

We ask that we be allowed to continue the pilot—it goes for another year—and then to look at the results of that pilot in formulating policy. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Osterreicher, 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? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I don’t know that I could address all of—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, it is 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 and 82 

percent 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 

it is not just the coverage of the trial. It is the coverage of each 

and every proceeding where they can object and then there is no 

coverage. 

I don’t know if any of you have had the opportunity to look at 

some of the recordings that are on file on the court’s Web site, but 

many of them are done with either split screen or quad screen cameras. It is like watching surveil—you know, somebody watching a 

surveillance camera. 

I mean, from my experience being in a courtroom, being in a 

trial, for the most part, it is not Perry Mason. It is 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 parts—in quadrants and one person is speaking, I just don’t 

think that what we are going to end up with is something of value 

when this pilot is over, and that is 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 don’t have 

cameras in the court. That is a big concern for us. 

Mr. DESANTIS. My time is expired. 

And so I thank the witnesses. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 
103 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman who is the 

Ranking Member of this Committee, Congressman Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have enjoyed the testimony of the witnesses. And I would like 

to begin with Judge Robinson. 

With respect to the privacy expectations of a witness under— 

H.R. 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? 

Judge ROBINSON. It is not a sufficient protection in some instances, we believe. Again, I don’t want to—I want to wait for the 

outcome of the study. 

But I will give you an example that I think most trial judges believe is an issue: confidential informants, a common type of witness 

in criminal cases. This is an issue that we are working on, we have 

worked on for 10 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. There are all 

kinds of—there is all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people being 

injured, perhaps even killed, in the Bureau of Prisons when they 

have been identified as a confidential informant. We are trying to 

figure out a solution to this just in terms of the public records that 

we push out in written form. 

If that confidential informant is testifying in the courtroom and 

their voice is obscured and their face is obscured, their identity can 

still be ascertained because they are being cross-examined and examined about who they are, what their name is, you know, what 

their background is, where they lived, et cetera. And so that is of 

particular concern to us. 

These are people that cooperate. The criminal justice system relies upon their cooperation; yet, they are at risk. They are already 

at some risk. But with the presence of cameras in the courtroom, 

we think that there is a heightened risk. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Attorney Osterreicher, addressing the same question to you, do 

you think the obscuring of images and voices are sufficient protection for the privacy expectation of a witness? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Well, as has been said before, this is an open 

courtroom. I am 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 their 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. They are 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 don’t think blaming electronic coverage or identifying that 

as the culprit here is the solution. 
104 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Let me now ask the Judge with the—would your concerns about 

H.R. 917 be mollified if it was limited to appellate proceedings 

only? 

Judge ROBINSON. Most of our concerns are about what happens 

at the trial court level. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. 

Judge ROBINSON. Our only opposition to that part of the bill that 

pertains to the circuit courts of appeal is, by virtue of the way that 

circuit courts govern themselves, it is a decentralized governance 

structure, but they make their own rules of practice and case management, you know, as a corporate body. That is our only objection. 

The bill, of course, calls for each individual appellate panel, a 

panel of three, typically, on a case-by-case or argument-by-argument basis to make the decision. That is inconsistent with the way 

they govern themselves. 

Appellate judges don’t have the authority to make governance decisions about how oral arguments are going to be conducted. They 

do that as a corporate body. That is the status quo, and that is 

what we would like to continue. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me ask Attorney Osterreicher about the 

appellate proceedings issue. 

What is your view, sir? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Well, certainly, I don’t 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. 

I mean, there is no testimony. We are just making appellate arguments. So it is really even harder for us to understand the objections when we are 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 Marshall 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 can’t bring the cameras with you,’’ I would 

think that there should be this evolving standard of openness and 

what openness in an open courtroom trial and a public trial means 

in 2014. 

And I think that there is a huge difference even between the case 

that was mentioned earlier in Estes in 1965. There were 12 cameras in that courtroom during that trial. We are not talking about 

doing something like that here. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, Congresswoman DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks to both of you for being here with us here today. I 

appreciate it. 

I agree with my colleagues who testified earlier and believe that 

our democracy is much stronger when we leverage technology that 
105 

we have available to increase the public’s participation in this process. 

We need citizens to be engaged and informed, and part of that 

means making sure that 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 

that we don’t 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. It is important that 

we look at steps where we do increase transparency in our system 

across all three branches 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 it has been releasing audio during the same week as 

arguments only since 2010. Before that, audio from one term generally wasn’t available until the beginning of the next term. 

And so I was wondering, Mr. Osterreicher, what is 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? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Well, it is certainly a good first step. But 

when we are talking about the age of the Internet, when somebody 

can tweet something and millions of people can see it and read it 

and share it seconds after it has been sent, especially in news— 

when you are talking about something, ‘‘Well, we will release it 

that week’’—I mean, in the news business, a week later is really 

yesterday’s news. 

So for the people that really are interested—and there are a surprising amount of them that—whether they are shut-ins 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 disparage courtroom artists. They certainly perform a good function. But, 

in 2014, to be relegated to something that is more akin to cave 

drawings than high-definition television just seems to be wrong to 

me. 

Ms. DELBENE. Judge Robinson, do you have a view of the difference between audio and video when—as you have talked earlier. 

Judge ROBINSON. Well, I can only speak to that in terms of what 

is going on in the trial courts and the circuit courts of appeal. 

There are circuit courts of appeal that are posting digital—or, 

rather, audio recordings—digital audio recording 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 by court reporter, and a number of them are posting— 

whatever the proceeding might be, they are posting those to the 

Internet. Obviously, it improves public access. We recognize and 
106 

really revere the right of the public to—access to our open courtrooms. 

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 because 

of what we have done with our electronic case filings. 

And all of that information is now readily available on the Internet. So we are focusing, of course, on proceedings themselves, on 

the small percentage of civil cases that go to trial and the small 

percentage of criminal cases that go to trial. 

But in those very many cases that don’t, the public right now in 

the Federal system has access to virtually every pleading that is 

filed, obviously, every judicial decision. And there is a lot of information and a lot of public education that happens in the context 

of what we are already providing in the public sphere. 

Ms. DELBENE. Now, we also know that, you know, access to actually get into the court—and the Supreme Court is probably a good 

example—very few members of the public can actually get in. 

In fact, you can—people pay people to stand in line for them right now, and they are paid up to $50 an hour to secure spots in 

a long line for people to get in. 

So that makes it pretty difficult for people to have the opportunity to have access to live arguments in the courtroom or in the 

Supreme Court, in particular. So that doesn’t seem like that is 

great public access either. 

And, as Mr. Osterreicher pointed out, in many cases, you might 

be sitting in a room watching it on video anyway. So it seems like 

we could do a better job there of improving access as well. 

Mr. Osterreicher, do you agree with that? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I would. 

As was mentioned earlier, this morning the Supreme Court was 

hearing arguments in Young v. United Parcel, which was a case 

about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I can only imagine how 

many people would have been very interested in hearing those arguments this morning while we have been sitting talking here. 

Hearing them, watching them, seeing how the proponents argue 

their case, seeing how the justices reacted to those arguments, I 

think that is all a very important part of this process and people 

much better understanding how the judicial system works. 

I would almost go so far as to make a comparison. We have 

talked about things in Ferguson. It has been a big discussion. I was 

there dealing with issues of photographers being arrested and 

interfered with. 

But my point here is that, even though grand jury proceedings 

are secret—and they should be—I think as an analogy, if those 

grand jury proceedings had been open and people had been able to 

see and understand what went on in that proceeding, we might not 

have had the same reaction as we had after the grand jury handed 

up a no bill. 

Ms. DELBENE. My time has expired. So I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries. 
107 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for their presence here today. 

We have got, of course, three branches of Government, all of 

which are coequal and all of which are incredibly important to our 

democracy. 

But we also have a fourth estate, as sometimes the media has 

been colloquially referred to, which I think also plays a very important role in our democracy in projecting that outward and making 

sure that people are informed about the things that are occurring 

certainly with the executive branch and with the legislative branch 

and, hopefully, increasingly as it relates to the judicial branch. 

And so, Judge Robinson, I just wanted to ask: Do you think that 

the role that the media plays in the context of helping to bring our 

democracy to life is a point worthy of consideration as we determine the best way to proceed? 

Judge ROBINSON. Absolutely. I am a Jay school graduate. So that 

is an easy answer for me to give. 

But I think, also, it is important to note that our pilot—this pilot 

provides for video recordings pushed out on the uscourts.gov Web 

site, available to everyone, not just those recordings that the media 

has decided to record that they think are, you know, interesting 

enough for people to—to their subscribers or to the public to listen 

to. 

We have evolved as a Nation. We have evolved as an institution. 

20 years ago, when we did that first pilot, it was based on media 

recording. We made a very deliberate decision this time to not have 

recordings based on what the media wanted to record, but to make 

all recordings that, you know, meet the requirements of the pilot 

pushed out to the public. 

I mean, what we have found is that the media now is much 

broader in terms of their, you know, public reporters in the sense 

of people that tweet and people that report and people that, you 

know, create YouTube videos and all of that that sometimes actually are—find themselves in the hands of the media, and they are 

used by professional journalists to report on the news. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, we have three branches of Government, as 

I mentioned, all of which, in our founders’ wisdom, are separate 

and coequal. 

Does the Judicial Conference take a position on whether it is appropriate for Congress, a different branch, to be making determinations about the best way for a separate and entirely coequal branch 

to proceed as it relates to cameras in the courtroom? 

In other words, is there—is there a separation-of-powers concern 

that should legitimately be considered in the context of this debate? 

Judge ROBINSON. With respect to the trial courts and the circuit 

courts of appeal, we haven’t raised a separation-of-powers argument. But what we have asked is for you to let us study and then 

formulate policy on the basis of our experience, as further informed 

by the study itself. 

We—case management—while it is clear that Congress promulgates rules that govern what goes on in Federal litigation, at the 

same time, we also need to be in control of our case management 

practices and how we can best go about controlling what happens 

in the courtroom to ensure that the parties receive a fair trial. 
108 

And so that is why—it is not so much a separation-of-powers argument, but an argument that you give credence to the fact that 

we are studying this, that we are experts, if you will, in what happens in the courtroom, and that we want to make sure that whatever policy we formulate is shaped and informed by our experience 

and our information. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is there a legitimate distinction that can be 

drawn between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings, such 

that perhaps a greater degree of access is allowed on the civil side? 

Because some of the concerns that may be implicated that we 

need to think through in the context of a criminal trial, particularly 

as it relates to confidentiality and privacy and the adverse implications of unwanted exposure, don’t necessarily exist on the civil side. 

Judge ROBINSON. We have concerns with respect to the effect on 

witnesses and particularly the effect on the substance of the witnesses’ testimony in civil proceedings. 

But we have more concerns on the criminal side, and that is because we have witnesses, as I mentioned before, that are confidential informants and cooperators. We have undercover officers and 

agents who routinely testify in criminal cases. We are very concerned about their security and safety. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And, Mr. Osterreicher, is it legitimate for the parties who are participating in the actual trials to have an opportunity to object based on their determination that the presence of 

cameras in a courtroom will complicate the ability for them to receive a fair trial or should we completely dismiss the concerns and 

simply just allow a judge to be the arbiter? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Once again, I think that a trial court judge 

could make that decision. The problems that I see are, if everybody 

objects, we are not going to have very much of a pilot study for 

them to have some evaluations from. 

So, you know, my experience in state court in New York was 

many times, when the media made an application to cover it, you 

could certainly expect out of hand that there would be an objection. 

And we would make those arguments to the judge, and the judge 

would decide with a presumption of coverage whether or not that 

objection would overcome that presumption. So I think that might 

be a good way to start. 

I just also wanted to go back to one other point in terms of the 

media deciding which cases to cover. That is true. But what is also 

true, at least in my understanding of this pilot program, is that 

none of the video that is recorded in any of these cases gets posted 

to the Web site until the judge in the case has reviewed the video. 

So, in a way, if there is something there that might be problematic, that’s something that, you know, he could—he or she could do 

as well. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
109 

The bill before us today, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, 

promises to provide greater access to the public and to the inner 

workings of our justice system. 

As my colleague, Congressman Lofgren, noted in her testimony, 

trials have always been open to the public and the enactment of 

this legislation would expand upon that promise of transparency. 

And it is very hard for me to understand the argument that the 

quality of our system of justice or the fairness of our courts is impaired by—or is improved by limiting public access. 

And, Judge Robinson, I am going to start with you. 

Because, you know, if you look at the history of the right to a 

public trial, it is, of course, grounded in the Anglo-Saxon history of 

the common law in the 17th century, and the idea of it was that 

the public proceedings would operate as a check against malevolent 

prosecution, corrupt or malleable judges, or perjurious witnesses, 

the idea that a public trial would aid the fact-finding mission and 

make—encourage citizens to come forward and speak truthfully, 

whether providing inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. 

So your testimony that the single greatest threat to underlying 

media exposure in the courtroom is—to the search for the truth 

seems to turn the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial on its 

head. I mean, the whole idea was it would be a check, it would provide assurances that people would be truthful because it would be 

exposed broadly to the public. 

So why do you conclude or why does the Judicial Conference believe that that public—the expansion of that public trial will undermine the search of the truth rather than advance it even more? 

Judge ROBINSON. That is—that is a critical question that we are 

studying. The right to a public trial is sacrosanct. The right to a 

fair trial is sacrosanct. We are balancing those two. To the extent 

we have to worry—and we don’t know whether—how much we 

have to worry. But I think, anecdotally, we have all experienced 

this. 

But to the extent we have to worry that a witness hedges or 

shades the truth, is not forthcoming with information that they 

would otherwise be forthcoming with when they are testifying in 

front of a courtroom with, say, 20 people because they know that 

there may be millions of people that are watching that, including 

people that are of particular importance to them, like their boss or 

their pastor or their next-door neighbor who otherwise probably 

wouldn’t go online and get the transcript of the trial and go 

through that effort, we have to worry. 

And I gave some examples earlier in a civil case. I have had a 

case recently that I thought the parties might agree to record. They 

did not. I wasn’t surprised because it was a case about trade secrets. They come into a public courtroom. They are looking around, 

seeing who is in there, hoping none of their competitors are in 

there. If their competitors are in there, they have a right to be in 

there. But they are going to be more concerned if their competitors 

are out watching it on the Internet, something that they won’t 

know. 

And this comes up in a variety of contexts. It comes up in terms 

of are witnesses going to be concerned about hedging or shading 

their testimony when they are being cross-examined about a loss 
110 

of consortium claim or an emotional distress claim or, in a criminal 

case, if they are a confidential informant. I mean, there a number 

of concerns, depending on the type of case and depending on the 

nature of the witness. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But, as a general rule, do you agree with the 

proposition that it is more likely that people will testify truthfully 

when it is broadly exposed? 

Because if you don’t accept that proposition, then this notion underlying the right to a public trial doesn’t make any sense. 

I mean, the idea is, if you are going to make an assertion and 

the whole world is going to hear it and it is not true, then there 

is someone who might be able to prove it is not true. If it is a 

truthful statement, then you are less concerned that the whole 

world hears. 

So I just think that your argument—or the argument of the Judicial Conference really undermines a basic notion of the public trial 

as being a very effective tool. 

And I was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer, did a lot 

of state and Federal practice. And I think that a public trial, the 

notion of being subjected to cross-examination and being done 

broadly and not in sort of a secret way or way that limits public 

access, actually enhances the truthfulness. 

But I want to go to a second question. You also said in your written testimony that the presence of cameras in the trial courtroom 

is likely to heighten the level and potential of threats to judges. 

What is the basis for that conclusion? And have you seen any 

evidence in the state court practice that the presence of cameras 

in the courtroom has increased the level or potential for threats to 

judges? 

Judge ROBINSON. Of course, our study is focused on Federal practice in Federal district courts. We haven’t studied what has happened in state courts. But there are judges who have had threats— 

all of us have had threats, some more serious than others. 

The fact that your face—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. But the question is about the presence of cameras 

as a source of that. 

Judge ROBINSON. Well, the fact that your face is broadcast is a 

concern, if it is the type of case where you have been—you know, 

the—you have received threats. That is a concern. 

There are a number of concerns, and that is one of them. It won’t 

happen in every case. It probably won’t happen except in a small 

number of cases. But, nonetheless, it is a concern. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Osterreicher, you looked like you were about 

to say something. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Yeah. I can certainly understand it being a 

concern. But is it any more of a concern than—Judge Robinson, I 

have never met you. Last night I went on the Internet. I Googled 

you. I found a picture of you. I said, ‘‘Oh, I know who to look for.’’ 

It is not that difficult in this day and age. You don’t need to have 

a proceeding of somebody testifying and having their face on television to find out what they look like. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 
111 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Congressman 

and former Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. I thank the Chair. 

Thank you all for being here. 

A couple of points to begin with, and then I want to get your 

input. 

As the Chair mentioned, I served on the criminal court district 

bench in Texas for 22 years, tried felonies, everything from stealing 

to capital murder. Before that, I spent 8 years as the trial prosecutor at the DA’s office in Houston. 

And when I took the bench a long time ago, the idea of cameras 

in the courtroom was just, you know, nonexistent. And I actually 

allowed cameras in the courtroom very early on in my judicial career, and it was based upon the philosophy, the belief, the frustration—and I am going to agree with Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island. I know that shocks him that I agree with him on this. 

The public—the public—the mystery of the courthouse still exists 

with the public. They pick up the newspaper in the morning and 

they read that this happened in a courtroom somewhere. And many 

times they are frustrated. ‘‘Why in the world did that happen in 

the courtroom?’’ 

And it is because all they get is a little blip in the paper about 

the trial. They don’t have access to the public trial. Public trial, I 

agree, it is public so that the public knows what is taking place. 

We get away from the Star Chamber of England when they did 

things in the back room. 

And the more the public knows, the better they understand why 

the outcome turned out the way it did. So, with that, I allowed 

cameras in the courtroom. We had—we heard all those arguments. 

You know, we protected victims of crime. They weren’t televised. 

The media always worked with that. Children weren’t televised, 

special cases. The jury wasn’t televised. We kept it focused on the 

importance of the trial. We never had a problem. 

We heard these arguments about that lawyers will play to the— 

would play to the cameras. They don’t play to the cameras. They 

play to the jury, like they have always done throughout centuries. 

They play to the trier of fact, whether it is the Court or whether 

it is the jury. And I always thought that, if judges didn’t want cameras in the courtroom, why was that? Maybe they would be doing 

things that the public should be know—they shouldn’t be doing 

things that they are doing. 

So I have had experience with cameras. It worked out. We did 

a capital murder case of a juvenile, and both sides agreed to the 

trial—filming most of the case. And so I am a big supporter of the 

public knowing about the greatest judicial system in the world. It 

is the American judicial system. It is not somebody else’s. It is 

ours. 

And blocking and preventing that access when they have the 

right to sit there and watch it and saying, ‘‘But we put a camera 

and view it on television. You are not allowed to do that,’’ that does 

not make any sense to me. So I do believe that we ought to allow 

that in Federal court as well. 

You go over to the Supreme Court and you get a 15-minute 

snippet, if you are a guest, on what is taking place in a very impor-
112 

tant trial with the most important court in the world, because the 

public is allowed to walk in and then they rush them out to bring 

in more people who are wanting to see what takes place. Reading 

the transcript is not the same as watching the trial. 

So without elaborating so much on that specific issue, what does 

the—what does the media, those in the business of filming courtroom trials, think how that would help or hinder the public perception of the judicial system that is taking place? Got an opinion on 

that? Either one of you. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Certainly, I think that the more informed the 

public can be—the fact that—you know, when I first started doing 

this, as you said, I might be at the courtroom all day and we are 

going to run a minute-30 story on the trial. 

That day has also long since passed because now, with the Internet, if you work at a television station, they can live-stream the 

trial all day long and it doesn’t take away from their broadcast 

abilities. So if somebody wants to watch gavel to gavel, they get to 

watch gavel to gavel, if they allow the cameras in, and certainly 

the more informed you can be. 

I mean, I would much rather watch a courtroom proceeding without any of the commentary. I would just like to see, as if I were 

sitting there, what is being said, what is being asked, what evidence is being introduced. 

Now, I realize I am a lawyer, but I think there are a lot of people 

that have that same interest. And if I can just watch for myself— 

I believe that happened during the civil trial of O.J. Simpson. And 

you just—there were really no commentators. You could just turn 

it on and watch it. It was on every day. And I think Court TV did 

gavel-to-gavel coverage, and you could form your own opinions or 

learn things. 

And I think that is the real benefit of allowing the cameras in. 

And I think, unfortunately, far too often the electronic coverage 

gets confused with the commentators and the pundits and the spin 

and all the other stuff that comes with, well, what used to be news 

and is now infotainment. 

Mr. POE. I am out of time. I had another question for the Judge. 

But thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MARINO. If the Judge wants another 30 seconds, fire away. 

Mr. POE. Well, I appreciate the Chairman. 

I was just going to—Judge, I was going to ask your personal 

opinion. 

Do you think, if the public had more visibility of what we did in 

the courtroom, whether it is at the trial bench or whether it is at 

the appellate bench or the Supreme Court—do you think maybe 

they would understand and appreciate the judicial system more or 

not with the—with cameras? 

Judge ROBINSON. That would be my hope, Mr. Poe. Maybe I 

should call you Judge Poe. 

I think all judges want the public to be better informed about our 

branch of Government and recognize that the public is not as well 

informed as they used to be, perhaps, when we were in school 

many years ago. 

We recognize and embrace the fact that public access to the 

courts is very important. They are public proceedings. We under-
113 

stand that, you know, cameras may augment that. At the same 

time, though, we are balancing other interests. 

I appreciate that you have had seasoned experience as a trial 

judge in Texas. And there are a number of judges in the pilot itself 

that came from state court experience. 

We are going to be serving all of the participants in the pilot, including judges. Some of us didn’t have that experience before being 

on the Federal bench. Others did. 

It will be interesting, I think, to hear from those judges that 

have that prior state court experience as well. But that is going to 

inform how we go about formulating policy forward. 

There are concerns. I think there are legitimate concerns. We are 

balancing the right to fair trial versus the public’s very important 

right to access. 

We just ask that you allow us to complete our study and to formulate our policy and our procedures and our guidance going forward. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for the additional time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the Ranking Member as well for his leadership and 

the questions of my colleagues, who have expressed vigorously our 

collective commitment to justice and fairness and the importance 

of the judiciary. 

I would offer to say that I think the issues have been raised here 

legitimately, Judge Robinson, that give merit to concerns and comments that you have made, along with those of Mr. Osterreicher, 

who has likewise raised this open transparency. 

And so I hope that, as we deliberate as a judiciary committee, 

that we will act with judiciousness and take all of these issues into 

consideration. 

I want to ask about the pilot. Give me the ending time of the 

pilot. 

Judge ROBINSON. It is July 2015. It was originally a 3-year pilot. 

We extended a year and now into a fifth year. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, at that point, you will have a collection of data that included cameras in the courtroom of varying levels of the judiciary, state, county, Federal or—— 

Judge ROBINSON. No. The pilot is focused only on Federal trial 

courts, the district courts, and the participants are Federal district 

judges. 

So, in July 2015, the recordings will stop and then the Federal 

Judicial Center will be the one compiling the data, including the 

very many surveys of practitioners and lawyers and other participants in the process. 

We hope at the Court Administration and Case Management 

Committee’s biannual meeting in December of 2015 that report will 

be ready for the consideration of the Committee. 

I am no longer on that Committee. I chaired that Committee 

until September 30 of this year. But I would anticipate that it is 

at that meeting that we—this is a horrible government acronym— 
114 

CACM is what we call the Committee, C-A-C-M—but at that meeting that that body will consider that—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you have had—excuse me for interrupting. 

But you have had cameras in the courtroom now for a number 

of different Federal courts. Do you, by any chance, know how 

many? 

Judge ROBINSON. There are 14 courts participating in the pilot. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am going to ask you a series of questions. 

Judge ROBINSON. That is fine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So let me just—— 

Judge ROBINSON. There are 14—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is all I need, the 14. 

And you do what with the video now? 

Judge ROBINSON. The video is posted to the uscourts.gov Web 

site. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So it is—it is able to be viewed? 

Judge ROBINSON. And they are posted fairly quickly. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Judge ROBINSON. The goal is to post them that day or the following morning. 

Mr. Osterreicher had talked about the fact that judges review the 

videos before they are posted. That is not the practice. 

The judges may review the video if there is a problem. But if 

there is not a problem, the video is posted. And you know there is 

a problem because you are there and contemporaneously you can 

usually determine that there is a problem and you may need to go 

back and ask for some—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask some—a series of questions. 

Thank you very much. 

So, in essence, this is a judicial CSPAN somewhat? CSPAN is 

current and present. You don’t post it until the next day? I just 

need a yes or no. 

Judge ROBINSON. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Judge ROBINSON. Correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Osterreicher, we are getting your name 

correctly? Maybe we should say Mr. Mickey. But we thank you for 

your intolerance—your tolerance. Not intolerance, but your tolerance. 

In the bill, I note that there is an effort to protect witnesses, for 

judges to ask the question about witnesses, blurring their particular faces. 

Let me ask you this. And I have heard enthusiastic expression 

by my colleague. Being a lawyer and a champion of the First 

Amendment, which is what the intentions are here, that wonderful 

First Amendment and that recognition of the importance of speech 

not being, if you will, unfettered speech, which in the courtroom 

there is speech, and then the whole judicial system that gives every 

party an opportunity to be heard, but then, also, for witnesses to 

be heard as well, what comes to mind is the unfortunate case of 

Mr. Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin and the demonizing of a 

beautiful young lady because she happened to be different. 

What is your response to witnesses who may look differently and 

speak differently and people are across the country watching and, 
115 

even though this is just unfettered video, then it becomes in the 

open sphere and that person—that innocent person, that beautiful 

young African-American woman, became the—not of her own fault. 

She was doing her civic duty, and the horror of demonizing her was 

inexcusable. How do you answer to the potential of those kinds of 

things happening? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I certainly believe that that was very unfortunate. I have always been a proponent of the fact that cameras 

and electronic coverage should be up to the discretion of the trial 

court judge. 

I don’t think there should be a per se ban. I don’t think there 

should be a per se ‘‘We are coming in whether you like it or not.’’ 

I mean, a judge needs to conduct his or her courtroom in the way 

he or she sees fit and—and make sure that justice is fairly served. 

So that is really all I am saying here. 

You know, it is unfortunate in this day and age, you know, people are often targeted, whether—now on social media. It is not just 

broadcasts anymore that leads to this kind of mob mentality that 

is out there. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

I just want to make one sentence. I appreciate the testimony of 

both witnesses. I believe it has been very helpful. This is an important legislative initiative. It has some protective measures to it. 

Judge Robinson, you have indicated some protective measures 

through the pilot. I would hope that we could see the report of the 

pilot. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that we will have the opportunity to vigorously look at this and the legislation and make an 

important decision that will be fair to both of the witnesses’ testimony. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I think it is my turn to ask some questions, and I am staying 

as neutral as possible on this. 

I was a prosecutor at the state and at the Federal level as a U.S. 

attorney, and I tried my own cases. So I know what goes on in the 

Federal courtroom. 

I am going to play a little bit of a devil’s advocate here with the 

two of you and get your reactions. 

Do we agree that—and I have tried these cases in Federal 

court—when a minor is involved in a case, that there is no—nothing divulging who that minor is as far as a TV is concerned? There 

is an agreement there? 

Judge ROBINSON. We agree. In fact, that is consistent with our 

privacy policy now in terms of written—the trial transcript and 

pleadings, that minors are identified by initials, not by name. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I certainly think that is true. And, for the 

most part, in cases where the media does cover these trials, if that 

is what is indicated by the judge, then media will follow along with 

those guidelines. 

Mr. MARINO. And I am particularly concerned about a victim, because I prosecuted cases concerning sex trafficking of minors. 
116 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I think, in much the same way as the media 

often does not report the name of a victim in cases, it certainly 

would follow that you wouldn’t show their identity. 

Mr. MARINO. Do either of you have a distinction whether the proceedings concern testimony, demonstrative evidence, or appellate 

oral argument? Do you draw a distinction between the two of 

whether one or the other should or should not be televised? 

Judge? 

Judge ROBINSON. Again, the circuit courts of appeal can make 

the decision as corporate bodies individually whether to allow for 

cameras in their courtroom. There are different concerns. But there 

are many more concerns at the trial court level, as I have articulated today. 

Mr. MARINO. This is probably rhetorical, but from what I have 

seen, there is no money allocated for this. Who is going to pay for 

it? Taxpayers. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. Well, I would argue that if the media were 

allowed to cover these cases, it would be their cost, not the courts’. 

Mr. MARINO. Who is going to be the, for lack of a better term, 

and I don’t mean to be facetious about this, who is going to be the 

director? Does just my local news guy come in and take control and 

film, or is the judge now going to have the responsibility of being 

the director and calling the shots? 

Judge ROBINSON. Well, the concern that the Judicial Conference 

has, and the reason we structured the pilot the way we had, is we 

want to be in control of the equipment, to make sure that jurors 

or witnesses are not inadvertently recorded. If you are talking 

about a live broadcast, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is 

out of the tube. You can’t fix something like that. But you are 

right: It takes resources. It takes labor. It takes someone monitoring the equipment. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Osterreicher. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I think there certainly are ways to make 

sure that the jury is not recorded. In the O.J. trial, for example, 

the camera was mounted on the wall above the jurors’ heads. There 

was no way for it to look down at all. So there was no inadvertent. 

Certainly as a photojournalist, if I was told by the judge, this person doesn’t get recorded, that is what that means. 

Mr. MARINO. Am I correctly assuming that neither one of you 

are—I know certainly, Judge, you are not, but Attorney 

Osterreicher, are you saying that you do not want to have an individual come in the courtroom with his or her own camera and photograph this? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I certainly think there needs to be rules and 

decorum. I can’t imagine, just as in those trials of the century during the Lindbergh baby, where you had photographers literally 

running around the courtroom with big Speed Graphics, that is not 

what we are talking about here. So, in this day and age, where everybody has got a phone, and everybody has got a camera in that 

phone, I am certainly not suggesting that everybody in the courtroom sit there and record it on their own. 

Mr. MARINO. But I do not hear you saying that you agree with 

what I am purporting here, that the court cameras are the only 
117 

cameras in the courtroom and the judge controls them. Do you not 

agree with that? 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I have a problem with that. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. What do we do about—my time is running 

out here—but what do we do about the situation where once these 

digital recordings are released, now what is going to happen when 

the public gets a hold of it? What is going to happen when the comedians on late night TV get a hold of it? What is going to happen 

when someone out there who has the ability, and it is very easy 

today—my kids teach me how to do it—taking that video and altering it and then putting it out on YouTube? 

Judge ROBINSON. Obviously, we have no control of any of that. 

But to suggest that because that is a problem, the public—if there 

is value in the public having a right to record proceedings or having access, I should say, to record proceedings, that is one of the 

risks attendant with that. 

Mr. OSTERREICHER. I think there is always going to be a parade 

of horribles, and no matter what we do, no matter how far we try 

and think this ahead, there is going to be an issue. But I don’t 

think that is a valid one. 

Mr. MARINO. But I agree with my friend Judge Poe that we have 

the best legal system in the world. It is a sanctity that we have 

to cherish. And I would hate to see it be ridiculed. So, with that, 

I would thank you very much for your testimony today. It has been 

very helpful to all of us. This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to 

all of our witnesses and those attending. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(119) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
120 
121 
122 

Æ