Electronic

Media

Coverage

of Federal

Civil

Proceedings

An Evaluation of the

Pilot Program in Six

District Courts and

Two Courts of Appeals

Federal Judicial Center

1994
Electronic Media Coverage of

Federal Civil Proceedings

An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District

Courts and Two Courts of Appeals

Molly Treadway Johnson

Carol Krafka

Federal Judicial Center

1994

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furthe

the Center’s statutory mission to conduct and stimulate resear

development for the improvement of judicial administration. The v

pressed are those of the authors. On matters of policy, the Cente

only through its Board.

iii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

Introduction 1

History and Description of the Pilot Program 3

Pilot Program Guidelines 5

The Federal Judicial Center Evaluation 7

Summary of Findings 7

Limits of the Evaluation 8

Research Approaches and Results 8

Information About Media Activity 8

Judge Questionnaires 11

Attorney Questionnaires 18

Telephone Interviews 22

Content Analysis of Evening News Broadcasts 32

Collection of Information About Extended Coverage of

Civil Proceedings 37

Review of State Studies of Electronic Media Effects on Jurors

and Witnesses 38

Recommendations 43

On Access Generally 43

On Guidelines 43

On Facilities 44

The Issue of Judge Opt-Out 45

Appendix: Guidelines for the Pilot Program on Photographing, Re

and Broadcasting in the Courtroom 47

v

Acknowledgments

Over the course of this evaluation we received assistance from a nu

Research Division staff members at the Federal Judicial Center, in

George Cort, Jim Eaglin, Scott Gilbert, Adam Hodges, Laural H

Carolyn Hunter, Aletha Janifer, Patricia Lombard, Judith McKenn

McLaurin, Melissa Pecherski, Marisa Reddy, John Shapard, 

Stienstra, Charles Sutelan, and Carol Witcher.

In addition, we are very grateful to the pilot court judges, court 

torneys, and media representatives who responded to our research in

1

Introduction

In September 1990, the Judicial Conference of the United States 

the report of its Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom

recommended a pilot program permitting electronic media coverage

proceedings in six federal district courts and two federal courts of 

Under the pilot program, media representatives interested in 

electronic media to cover all or part of a civil proceeding in one of t

pilot courts submitted an application to the court, and the judge p

over the proceeding determined whether to permit coverage. Gu

promulgated by the Judicial Conference set forth the condition

which coverage could take place (see Appendix).

In adopting the committee’s recommendation, the Judicial Con

approved the Federal Judicial Center’s proposal to evaluate the pi

gram, and this report presents the results of the Center’s evaluatio

evaluation covers the period from July 1, 1991, to June 30, 1993.

The research project staff used the following resources to evalu

program: (1) information about application and coverage activity 

court; (2) questionnaire responses from participating and nonparti

judges in the pilot courts; (3) questionnaire responses from attorn

participated in proceedings in which there was electronic media co

(4) telephone interviews with (a) judges who had the most experien

electronic media coverage, (b) media representatives whose organ

participated in the program, and (c) court personnel responsible for 

day administration of the program in each pilot court; (5) a content 

of evening news broadcasts incorporating courtroom footage obtaine

the program; (6) information about coverage provided by extended-c

networks; and (7) reviews of studies exploring effects of electroni

coverage on witnesses and jurors in state court proceedings.

1. In this report the phrase “electronic media coverage” refers to the b

ing, televising, electronic recording, or photographing of courtroom procee

the media.

3

History and Description of the

Pilot Program

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings has been expres

hibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the C

Rules were adopted in 1946.2 In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the 

States adopted a prohibition against “broadcasting, televising, recor

taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately a

thereto . . .” (Canon 3A(7) of the Code of Conduct for United 

Judges). The broad prohibition applied to both civil and criminal c

that time the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial C

contained a similar provision, and cameras were prohibited in mo

courts.

In the mid-1970s, state courts began authorizing broadcast cov

judicial proceedings, on either an experimental or permanent basis. I

the Supreme Court ruled in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (19

the presence of television cameras at a criminal trial was not a denia

process. In 1983, a group of interested media and other organizatio

tioned the Judicial Conference to adopt rules permitting electroni

coverage of federal judicial proceedings, and the Conference appoi

ad hoc committee to consider the issue. In its September 1984 rep

ad hoc committee recommended denial of the requested chan

September 20, 1984, the Conference adopted the committee’s repor

Shortly after the Chandler decision, the American Bar Association 

Canon 3A(7) of its Model Code of Conduct to permit judges to au

broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing civil and crimi

ceedings subject to appropriate guidelines. The canon was ultima

moved from the ABA’s Code of Conduct based on a determination 

subject of electronic media coverage in courtrooms was not directly 

to judicial ethics and was more appropriately addressed by admin

rules adopted within each jurisdiction.3

2. In June 1994, the Judicial Conference’s Standing Committee on 

Practice and Procedure voted to publish for comment a revision of Rule 

would remove from that rule the prohibition on electronic media coverage.

3. See ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibil

Draft of Recommended Revisions to ABA Code of Judicial Conduct (D

1989).
4 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

hibition on electronic media coverage.  In 1988, the Judicial Con

appointed a second Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtr

review recommendations from other Conference committees on th

duction of cameras in the courtroom, and to take into account the A

Bar Association’s ongoing review of Canon 3A(7) of its Code of 

Conduct, dealing with the subject.”5 In September 1990, after recei

put from news organizations and a letter from U.S. Representative 

Kastenmeier, then Chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subco

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and Administration of Justice, the 

committee recommended that the Judicial Conference (1) strike 

3A(7) from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and inclu

icy on cameras in the courtroom in the Guide to Judiciary Poli

Procedures; (2) adopt a policy statement expanding permissible uses 

eras in the courtroom; and (3) authorize a three-year experiment per

camera coverage of certain proceedings in selected federal courts.6

In September 1990, the Judicial Conference adopted these recom

tions 7 and authorized the three-year pilot program allowing electron

coverage of civil proceedings in selected federal trial and appellate 

subject to guidelines approved by the Judicial Conference. The 

Judicial Center (FJC) agreed to monitor and evaluate the pilot prog

its final report to the Conference in March 1991, the ad hoc com

recommended pilot courts for the experiment: the U.S. District Co

the Southern District of Indiana, District of Massachusetts, Eastern 

of Michigan, Southern District of New York, Eastern Dis

Pennsylvania, and Western District of Washington; and the U.S. C

Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits. The pilot courts were 

from courts that had volunteered to participate in the experiment. S

criteria included size, civil caseload, proximity to major metro

markets, and regional and circuit representation. The use of si

caseload, and location in metropolitan areas as criteria reflected a 

4. For a summary of these mostly constitutionally based challenges, se

Television News Directors Association, News Media Coverage of 

Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A Survey of the States (1993).

5. See Report of the Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Camer

Courtroom (September 1990).

6. See Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the Unit

(September 1990).

7. Id.
History and Description of the Pilot Progr

high media interest to support evaluation of the program.

After the ad hoc committee selected the pilot courts and appro

FJC’s proposed evaluation methods, the Conference discharged the 

committee and assigned oversight of the pilot program to the 

Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Managem

Pilot Program Guidelines

The pilot program began on July 1, 1991, and runs through De

31, 1994.8 The program authorizes coverage only of civil proceedi

only in the courts selected for participation in the pilot progra

guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference require reasonable 

notice of a request to cover a proceeding; prohibit photographing o

in the courtroom, in the jury deliberation room, or during recesse

only one television camera and one still camera in trial courts (excep

Southern District of New York, which was permitted to allow two 

in the courtroom for coverage of civil proceedings) and two televisi

eras and one still camera in appellate courts; and require the medi

tablish “pooling” arrangements when more than one media orga

wants to cover a proceeding.9 In addition, discretion rests with the p

judicial officer to refuse, terminate, or limit media coverage.

8. The program was originally scheduled to terminate on June 30, 

March 1994, the Judicial Conference adopted a recommendation of the Co

on Court Administration and Case Management to continue the program in 

courts through the end of 1994 to avoid a lapse in the program while a fina

Conference decision is pending.

9. Pooling involves running an electronic feed from a television camera i

courtroom to a monitor located outside the courtroom, from which other in

media organizations can obtain footage. This procedure enables a number 

organizations to cover proceedings while limiting the number of camer

courtroom.

7

The Federal Judicial Center

Evaluation

So that we could report research results to the Conference prior to 

mination of the pilot program, our evaluation covered the period fr

1, 1991, through June 30, 1993.

Summary of Findings

Our overall findings were the following:

• During the two-year period from July 1, 1991, through June 3

the media filed applications for coverage in 257 cases; 82% 

applications were approved.

• The most common type of coverage was television coverage o

• Overall, attitudes of judges toward electronic media coverage 

proceedings were initially neutral and became more favorab

experience under the pilot program.

• Judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic medi

age under the program generally reported observing small o

fects of camera presence on participants in the proceedings

room decorum, or the administration of justice.

• Judges, media representatives, and court staff found the gu

governing the program to be generally workable.

• Overall, judges and court staff report that members of the me

very cooperative and complied with the program guidelines 

other restrictions imposed.

• Most television evening news footage submitted for content 

(1) employed courtroom footage to illustrate a reporter’s n

rather than to tell the story through the words and actions of 

pants; (2) provided basic verbal information to the viewer ab

nature and facts of the cases covered; and (3) provided littl

information to viewers about the legal process.

• Results from state court evaluations of the effects of electroni

on jurors and witnesses indicate that most participants belie

tronic media presence has minimal or no detrimental effects o

or witnesses.
8 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

Several potentially relevant issues were not examined in the ev

and therefore cannot be addressed in this report. First, the evaluation 

as approved by the Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtro

not include a measure of the actual (as opposed to perceived) effects 

tronic media on jurors, witnesses, counsel, and judges. The only way 

sure objectively the actual effects of electronic media on jurors and w

would be to compare the behavior and perceptions of jurors and witn

two different groups of cases: those covered by electronic media an

not covered. The Federal Judicial Center suggested—and the A

Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom concurred—that this a

was not feasible because, among other reasons, there would be too fe

in the pilot courts with high media interest to support such an evalua

Second, we did not directly measure the attitudes of jurors, witne

parties because most have had little courtroom experience and could 

believed, make judgments (as judges and attorneys could) about the e

electronic media on themselves. (A witness who has never been in 

room might be nervous for many reasons but might attribute that sta

appropriately—to the presence of cameras.) We did obtain some i

tion on these issues through other methods, such as judge and a

questionnaires. Also, we reviewed results from state court studies ex

these questions.

Finally, because the pilot program limited coverage to civil proc

the impact of electronic media coverage on federal criminal proceedi

not addressable in this evaluation. Opinions on the issue of crimina

age were obtained through questionnaires and interviews.

Another consideration relevant to interpreting the findings in thi

is that the pilot courts were chosen from among courts that had volu

to participate, and most of the analyses in our study focused on jud

actually had experience with electronic media coverage. Thus, it c

expected that judges whose responses we report would on average b

favorable toward electronic media coverage than would a randomly-

sample of judges throughout the country.

Research Approaches and Results

Information About Media Activity

From July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1993, media organizations ap

cover a total of 257 cases across all of the pilot courts. Of these, 18

cations were approved, 42 were disapproved, and 29 were not a
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

tion was withdrawn before the judge ruled on the application). T

shows the breakdown, by court, of the outcomes of applications f

tronic media coverage.

Table 1. Outcome of Applications, by Court

% 

Number of in c

applications

Number

approved

Number

disapproved

No

ruling a 

Second Circuit 16 12 4 0 

Ninth Circuit 18 13 4 1 

S.D. Indiana 23 16 1 6 

D. Massachusetts 19 17 2 0 

E.D. Michigan 34 21 8 5 

S.D. New York 40 26 7 7 

E.D. Pennsylvania 78 54 15 9 

W.D. Washington 29 27 1 1 

TOTAL 257 186 42 29 

As can be seen from this table, most application activity was in the 

courts, but there was also variation among the district courts with re

activity. These variations in application activity are generally—but 

fectly—related to the size of the court. In telephone interviews, othe

were suggested that may have influenced the extent of application 

the number of non-participating judges in a court;10 differences 

television and radio station resources across cities of various sizes; an

importantly, the involvement of a media coordinator, an agent of m

ganizations in a particular market.11 There was a very active media 

nator in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which had the greatest 

of application and coverage activity (it was the second-largest distri

in the pilot).

10. Some judges in the pilot courts declined to participate in the pilot pro

11. Media coordinators kept media organizations in a market apprised 

esting cases, coordinated pooling arrangements, and in some instances se

media liaison to the court.
10 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

reported above, provides a very conservative measure of the extent o

age activity. For example, many cases were covered by more than on

organization; our data do not reflect the number of media organizat

terested in covering each proceeding. In addition, several cases i

coverage of more than one proceeding (e.g., a pretrial hearing and t

or multiple days of coverage for one proceeding (e.g., a trial). The 

collected reflect a total of 324 coverage days over the two-year data 

tion period, for an average of 2.2 coverage days for each proceeding 

The longest coverage of a proceeding was 15 days, for a jury trial i

the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and discrimination by an emp

Reasons for Disapproval of Applications

The guidelines do not require judges in the pilot courts to expla

reasons for denying coverage of a case; however, a number of them d

cate reasons in their written orders denying coverage. In the forty-

nials, thirteen did not state a reason and seven were because a judge 

participating in the pilot program. 12 Five of the stated reasons were 

statements that coverage would not be in the interests of justice o

prejudice the parties, without explaining in detail why this was so. 

reasons given for the remaining seventeen denials included the s

nature of a case, witness or party objection to coverage, and untime

applications.

Non-Coverage of Approved Cases

Of the 186 cases approved for coverage, 147 were actually reco

photographed. Nineteen of the 39 approved cases that were not cove

settled or otherwise terminated. Nine applications were withdrawn

11 instances the media failed to appear to cover an approved case.13

Proceedings Covered

Not surprisingly, trials were the type of proceeding most frequen

ered by electronic media; fifty-six trials were covered over the two-

riod. Other proceedings covered included pretrial proceedings (

12. Three of these cases involved appellate panels on which retired 

Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was sitting.

13. According to telephone interviews, media “no shows” usually happen

an event occurred to which a station chose to devote resources that were o

scheduled to cover the court proceeding.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

and other proceedings (forty-three), including hearings for injunctiv

show cause hearings, motions for stay, conferences, and proceedings 

lated to a particular case, such as a judge’s swearing in ceremony or c

tivities filmed or photographed for a special television program or n

ticle.

Type of Coverage

Television was by far the most common type of coverage under 

gram, with 124 proceedings covered. The majority of television c

was done by local stations for use in evening news broadcasts, altho

proceedings were filmed and broadcast by networks such as Court-

C-SPAN, which provide more extensive coverage of proceedings. S

tographers covered 56 proceedings, while radio covered 27. Approx

one-third of the covered proceedings were covered by more than on

electronic media (e.g., television and still photographers).

Types of Cases for Which Coverage Requests Were Made

The types of civil cases in which coverage applications were m

quently made were civil rights cases and personal injury tort cases.14

Judge Questionnaires

Method

Prior to the start of the pilot program, we sent a questionnair

judges (including district, appellate, senior, magistrate, and ban

judges) in the pilot courts asking about their expectations and opi

electronic media coverage of civil proceedings. Judges were asked to 

likelihood of certain potential effects of electronic media coverage 

pared to conventional coverage. These effects included potential 

and negative effects of electronic media on witnesses (e.g., “motiva

nesses to be truthful,” “makes witnesses more nervous than they ot

would be”); jurors (e.g., “increases juror attentiveness,” “signals t

that a witness or argument is particularly important”); attorney

14. Applications were made to cover 107 civil rights cases and 27 person

tort cases. Other types of cases in which applications were frequently filed 

the following: contracts (15); intellectual property (including patent, tradem

copyright) (14); labor litigation (9); bankruptcy and bankruptcy app

environmental matters (8); habeas corpus (8); ERISA (4 ); and constitutio

state statutes (4).
12 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

torneys to be more courteous); judges (e.g., increases judge attenti

“causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions”); and ov

fects of electronic media presence (e.g., “disrupts courtroom proce

“educates the public about courtroom proceedings”). The respon

gories ranged from 1 (effect expected “to little or no extent”) to 5 (e

pected “to a very great extent”). 15 As a baseline, judges were asked 

their views of the same effects for conventional media coverage as co

to the absence of coverage. Finally, judges were asked about their 

attitudes toward electronic media coverage of civil and criminal p

ings; 16 their previous experience with electronic media coverage (e

litigator or state court judge); and their expectations as to wheth

would participate in the pilot program.

After the program had been in operation for one year, we sent fo

questionnaires asking pilot court judges about the following: thei

about the same specific potential effects of electronic media coverag

appeared in the initial questionnaire; the same specific effects of c

tional coverage; whether they had experienced electronic media c

under the pilot program; and their overall attitudes toward electroni

coverage of civil and criminal proceedings. Judges who did not res

the one-year follow-up received the same follow-up questionnaire a

program had been in operation for two years. 17 Overall, 114 out 

district judges (70%) and 34 out of 51 appellate judges (67%) respo

both the initial and follow-up questionnaires.

Results

District judges

Our analysis of responses about the effects of electronic media c

focused on judges who had experienced electronic media coverage un

program. In general, district judges who had experience with electro

dia coverage under the pilot program believed electronic coverage h

minor effects on the participants or proceedings; in the follow-up q

15. Judges were also given the option of indicating they had no opinion.

16. Though criminal case coverage was not allowed in the pilot program

representatives are urging the federal courts to allow criminal covera

therefore we thought opinions of pilot court judges on this issue might be o

to policy makers.

17. Copies of the initial and follow-up questionnaires are on file 

Research Division of the Federal Judicial Center.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

curred to little or no extent or to some extent.

8 Table 2 show

judges’ responses to the follow-up survey about specific effects of cov

When we compared the results in Table 2 to results from th

questionnaire (not displayed here), our analysis showed that distric

who had experience with electronic media coverage rated nine of se

potential effects significantly lower (i.e., as occurring to a lesser ex

the follow-up questionnaire than on the initial questionnaire.19 Thes

included the following items relating to electronic media coverage: “

witnesses’ privacy”; “distracts witnesses”; “makes witnesses more 

than they otherwise would be”; “signals to jurors that a witness or ar

is particularly important”; “causes attorneys to be more theatrical 

presentation”; “disrupts courtroom proceedings”; “motivates attor

come to court better-prepared”; “increases judge attentivenes

“prompts judges to be more courteous.” Thus, judges apparently 

enced these potential effects to a lesser extent than they had expected

In contrast, when we compared ratings of conventional coverag

between the initial and follow-up surveys we found no significan

ences. This suggests that the differences in ratings of effects of el

media coverage between the initial and follow-up questionnaires w

tributable to experience with electronic media coverage and not 

more general shift in judges’ attitudes toward the media.

18. The median represents the midpoint of all responses. The median r

the item “educates the public about courtroom procedures” indicated th

occurred “to a great extent.”

19. Ratings of each potential effect by judges who completed both questi

were compared using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. This analysis exam

number of judges who changed their response in each direction and enab

termination of whether the direction and magnitude of changes in ratings 

the initial and follow-up questionnaires were statistically significant.
14 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings Table 

2. Ratings of Effects by District Judges Who Experienced 

Electronic Media Coverage Under the Program, by Percentage*

Effect

To little or

no extent

To some

extent

To a moderate extent To a great extent To a very great extent No opin

Motivates witnesses tobe truthful 61 7 7 2 0 22Violates witnesses’ privacy 37 34 10 7 5 7Makes witnesses lesswilling to appear in court 32 27 15 2 2 22Distracts witnesses 51 22 15 2 2 7Makes witnesses more nervousthan they otherwise would be 24 37 22 5 0 12Increases juror attentiveness 46 22 7 7 2 15Signals to jurors that awitness or argument isparticularly important 51 15 10 5 7 12Increases jurors’ sense ofresponsibility for their verdict 49 15 15 10 0 12Prompts people who see thecoverage to try to influence
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

To a very

great extent Effect

To little or

no extent

To some

extent

To a moderate extent To a great extent No opini

Motivates attorneys to cometo court better prepared 32 32 15 10 7 5Causes attorneys to be moretheatrical in their presentation 29 37 20 2 5 7Prompts attorneys to bemore courteous 44 20 15 17 2 2Increases judge attentiveness 63 10 15 10 2 0Causes judges to avoid unpopulardecisions or positions 88 2 5 2 0 2Prompts judges to be morecourteous 56 22 15 7 0 0Disrupts courtroom proceedings 83 15 0 2 0 0Educates the public aboutcourtroom procedure 12 20 12 24 30 2

*Note: The figure in each cell represents the percentage of responding judges (N = 41) who selected that answer.

Table 2 (continued)
16 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

civil and criminal proceedings, district judges (including those who 

ally experienced coverage and those who did not experience cover

presumably observed the effects of coverage on their colleagues and 

court as a whole) exhibited significantly more favorable attitudes 

electronic media coverage of civil proceedings in the follow-up qu

naire than they had in the initial questionnaire. The median respons

question in the initial questionnaire was a 3, indicating “I have no 

on coverage,” while the median response in the follow-up questionn

a 2, representing “I somewhat favor coverage.” After the program h

in place, thirty-six judges had more favorable attitudes toward el

coverage of civil proceedings than they had reported in the initial q

naire, fifteen had less favorable attitudes, and sixty-one reported t

attitude that they had in the initial questionnaire.

District judges also indicated less opposition to coverage of crimi

ceedings in the follow-up questionnaire, moving from a median of 

initial questionnaire (indicating “I somewhat oppose coverage”) to a 

of 3 (indicating “I have no opinion on coverage”). In the follow-u

tionnaire, thirty-five judges reported more favorable attitudes towar

nal coverage than they had in the initial questionnaire, seventeen r

less favorable attitudes, and sixty-one reported the same attitude t

initially.

Appellate Judges

Experience with electronic media coverage appears not to have c

the appellate judges’ ratings of the effects of cameras. In both the in

follow-up questionnaires, appellate judges’ median ratings of effec

generally 1 (indicating the effect occurs “to little or no extent

(indicating the effect occurs “to some extent”). The following tabl

responses of appellate judges with electronic media experience to th

tion in the follow-up survey about the effects of coverage.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

To little or

no extent

To some

extent

To a moderate extent To a great extent To a very great extent Effect No opin

Table 

Prompts attorneys to come tooral argument better prepared 52 26 0 17 0 4Causes attorneys to be moretheatrical in their presentation 48 30 9 4 4 4Causes attorneys to change theemphasis or content of theiroral argument 39 43 9 0 4 4Increases judges’ attentivenessat oral argument 70 26 4 0 0 0Prompts judges to be morecourteous in questioning attorneys 57 35 9 0 0 0Causes judges to change theemphasis or content of theirquestions at oral argument 65 30 4 0 0 0Disrupts courtroom proceedings 74 22 0 4 0 0Educates the public about thework of the court of appeals 17 30 30 9 9 4

3. Ratings of Effects by Appellate Judges with Experience in the 

Program, by Percentage*
18 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

sponses to the same questions in the initial questionnaire. Similarly

late judges’ overall attitudes toward coverage, both before and after 

ence with the pilot program, were favorable. In both the initial and 

up questionnaire their median response to a question about overall a

toward civil appellate coverage corresponded with “I somewhat favo

age.” Altogether, of the appellate judges responding to this question 

questionnaires, nine were more favorable to civil appellate coverage 

program, four were less favorable, and sixteen held the same attitude 

civil coverage as they had prior to the program.

With respect to coverage of criminal appellate proceedings, a

judges’ median rating on the initial questionnaire was “I have no opi

coverage,” while their median rating for the follow-up questionnair

somewhat favor coverage.” In particular, eleven appellate judges we

favorable to coverage of criminal cases after the program, four were 

vorable, and fourteen held the same attitudes as previously.

The overall questionnaire results (district and appellate) suggest 

attitudes toward electronic media coverage of civil and criminal proc

generally stayed the same or became more favorable after experien

the program. In addition, judges who dealt with electronic media c

experienced potential effects to either the same or a lesser extent th

had expected. In overall before–after comparisons for judges in each 

court, there were no potential negative effects that were rated sign

higher (i.e., as occurring to a greater extent) after experience with 

than before.

It should be noted that not all judges held favorable attitudes 

electronic media coverage, and some had strong objections. The 

questionnaire comments of judges, some of which express negativ

are on file with the Federal Judicial Center.

Attorney Questionnaires

Method

After the pilot program had been in operation for over two year

tionnaires were sent to lead plaintiff and defense attorneys from 10

covered by electronic media during the first two years of the program

cases reported to have been covered by extended-coverage networ

included in the sample, and the remaining 68 cases were selected ra

from among other cases covered under the program. Questionnair
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

divided fairly equally between plaintiff and defense (or appel

appellant) attorneys.21

We asked attorneys about the following issues: (1) if the court ad

considered their views and those of their clients in deciding whethe

prove coverage requests; (2) whether potential witnesses refused t

because of the prospect of camera coverage; (3) what effects of el

media coverage they observed; (4) whether electronic media cove

fected the fairness of the proceedings; (5) whether, overall, they fav

tronic media coverage of civil proceedings; and (6) whether their v

ward electronic media coverage have changed as a result of particip

the program.

Results

Overall, 72 out of 109 attorneys responding (66%) indicated the

what or greatly favor electronic media coverage of civil proce

Fourteen (13%) said they had no opinion on coverage, while the re

23 (21%) were somewhat or greatly opposed to electronic media co

In response to a separate question about whether experience with c

had changed their views, twenty-nine out of 10422 attorneys resp

(28%) reported they were more favorable toward electronic covera

than they had been prior to having experience with it, 4 (4%) said th

less favorable after experience, and 71 (68%) said their opinions 

changed.

Sixty-three percent of attorneys responding to the survey repor

they had been given adequate time to notify their clients after learnin

prospect of camera coverage, and most (76%) indicated they had bee

an opportunity to object to coverage, although few (8%) had actual

tered an objection. The majority of both district and appellate cou

neys responding thought the court had given adequate consideratio

views of counsel and of the parties in deciding whether to 

20. No information was available for nine attorneys in the sampled cases

21. In particular, of those attorneys responding to this item on the distr

questionnaire, forty-six identified themselves as representing a plaintiff in 

thirty-six identified themselves as representing a defendant, and two i

themselves as “other” (e.g., representing a respondent to a subpoena). Of a

responding to the appellate questionnaire, eleven identified themselves as re

ing the appellant, eleven as representing the appellee, and one as “other.”

22. Not all attorneys answered every question.
20 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings Effect Motivate witnesses to be more truthful than they otherwise would be (N = 70)* 58 3 2 0 0 38 Distract witnesses (N = 66)* 52 18 9 5 0 17 Make witnesses more nervous than they otherwise would be (N = 66)* 46 21 12 5 2 15 Increase juror attentiveness (N = 53)* 26 6 8 6 0 55 Distract jurors (N = 54)* 30 9 6 4 0 52 Motivate attorneys to come to court better-prepared (N = 97) 71 11 7 4 1 6 Cause attorneys to be more

theatrical in their presentations(N = 103) 78 7 9 2 3 2

To little or

no extent

To some

extent

To a moderate extent To a great extent To a very great extent No opinion

Table 

4. Attorney Ratings of Electronic Media Effects in 

Proceedings in Which They Were Involved, by Percentage*
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

Effect

To little or

no extent

To some

extent

To a moderate extent To a great extent To a very great extent No opinion

Prompt attorneys to be morecourteous (N = 103) 80 12 3 1 0 5Increase judge attentiveness(N = 101) 54 17 10 6 1 12Prompt judges to be morecourteous (N = 101) 62 12 8 4 3 11

Disrupt the courtroomproceedings (N = 103) 77 10 8 3 0 3

*Note: The figure in each cell represents the percentage of responding attorneys selecting that answer. Items marked with 

Distract attorneys (

an asterisk were presented only to attorneys in district court cases; other items were presented to attorneys in both districand appellate court cases.

N = 103) 73 20 6 1 0 1

Table 

4 (continued)
22 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

courts and 83% of attorneys in the appellate courts did not belie

clients would have chosen to refuse coverage if given an absolute rig

so. Only one attorney reported having a witness or witnesses who d

to testify because of the prospect of camera coverage.

When asked whether the presence of cameras affected the overall 

of the proceeding in which they had been involved, ninety-seven said 

presence had no effect on fairness, three said camera presence incre

fairness of the proceeding, and four said it decreased the fairness of 

ceeding.

Table 4 shows the number of attorneys selecting each answer in r

to questions about effects of electronic media coverage in the case i

they participated.

The table shows that attorneys with experience under the progr

expressed an opinion generally indicated that various effects occu

little or no extent.” These results are consistent with questionnaire r

judges who experienced electronic media coverage under the program

Telephone Interviews

Method

In September and October 1993, we conducted telephone intervie

three groups of participants in the pilot program: (1) judges with the 

amount of experience with electronic media coverage under the pi

gram; (2) representatives of media organizations that covered case

the pilot program; and (3) court staff responsible for the day-to-day a

tration of the program in each of the pilot courts. Members of each 

groups were asked specific questions about their experiences with el

media coverage under the pilot program.23

The overall results from the interviews suggest that judges, medi

sentatives, and court staff thought the Judicial Conference guidelin

very workable and that the pooling arrangements worked par

smoothly. A number of interviewees said that the issue of whether 

proceedings were eligible for coverage had been raised in their cou

issue—which was not addressed by the program guidelines—was reso

the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, w

termined that post-conviction habeas corpus hearings (includin

23. Questions used in each set of interviews are on file in the Research D

the Federal Judicial Center.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

hearings were not.

Judges with Greatest Experience Under the Pilot Program

Twenty judges with the greatest experience with electronic medi

the pilot program (as measured by the number of cases covered in 

they presided on an appellate panel or were the presiding distri

judge) were interviewed. This group comprised judges from each of 

courts and included four appellate judges, fifteen district judges, 

bankruptcy judge. Our database showed that these twenty judges w

volved in sixty-seven proceedings covered under the program. The 

number of covered cases in which any one judge was involved was 

district judges and five for appellate judges.

Experienced judges were asked a number of questions about the

tices in allowing electronic media coverage under the pilot progra

perceptions regarding the effects of electronic media on attorneys

witnesses, themselves, and on courtroom decorum and the administr

justice; and their overall attitudes toward electronic media coverage.

Representatives of Media Organizations That Covered Cases Under the Pr

We interviewed representatives of media organizations that m

quently covered cases under the program. This included represe

from nine local news stations in the pilot court markets, two extend

erage networks, two legal newspapers, and one national organization 

dio and television news directors. Media representatives were ask

they learned about cases to cover and made decisions about what t

how electronic media access to the courtroom had affected the qua

their coverage; about their experiences with and views of the progr

cluding the guidelines; and how they used courtroom footage to e

coverage.

Court Administrative Liaisons

Each pilot court designated an administrative liaison—generally 

ber of the clerk’s office staff—to monitor activity under the pilot p

provide information to the FJC, and oversee the day-to-day admini

of the program. Issues addressed in interviews with these individ

cluded the amount of time spent administering and overseeing the p

24. The committee also determined that extradition hearings were inel

coverage.
24 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

problems were encountered, and whether the guidelines were worka

Results

Judges with Greatest Experience Under the Pilot Program

1. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic media coverage. Judges we

what they saw as potential benefits and potential disadvantages of el

media coverage of court proceedings, and whether they thought thes

were realized under the pilot program. Nearly all judges thought th

cating the public about how the federal courts work was the greates

tial benefit of coverage, and most thought this benefit could be mo

realized with electronic media rather than traditional media. Howev

judges said the educational benefit had been realized only to a mode

tent or not at all under the program. Several judges expressed the v

the education function was best served through extended coverage 

ceedings rather than brief “snippets” of coverage. The potential di

tage of electronic media coverage most frequently mentioned by jud

the possibility of distorting or misrepresenting what goes on in co

though generally they did not feel this problem had occurred under 

gram.

2. Practices in ruling on applications. Most of the judges interview

never denied coverage; those who had did so because the nature of t

ceeding was particularly sensitive or the proceeding was being held i

bers. In reaching decisions on applications, about half of the judge

solicited the views of counsel and/or parties, or at least notified co

the prospect of camera coverage. Most judges also reported giving a

an opportunity to object to coverage, with several mentioning th

overruled objections on this issue on one or more occasions. Judg

heard attorney objections on the issue generally reported that this to

a small amount of their time. When asked, most judges expressed t

that coverage would be reduced considerably if parties or witnesses 

absolute right to refuse coverage in a case.

3. Witness privacy issues. District judges were asked whether they 

witness privacy concerns presented a problem for electronic media c

in civil cases. Most said this was not a big problem in civil cases and 

presiding judge in a particular case would be able to address the prob

arose. One judge thought that even though witness privacy could be 

in some instances, “the public’s right to know outweighs the privacy 

4. Effects of electronic media on trial participants. When asked abou

fects of electronic media coverage on various trial participants, mos
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

detrimental effects. Nearly all such district judges said they 

significant effect of electronic media presence on jurors, with two in

that jurors noticed the cameras for the first few moments of the t

then ignored their presence. One district judge said that he had clo

served the result of a jury trial over which he presided and had spok

jurors after the trial to determine whether the presence of a camera 

an effect; his conclusion was that the jurors were not concerned ab

camera “nor was the result out of line.” Most district judges explai

presence of cameras to jurors at the beginning of a trial, informing th

they would not be photographed, that the presence of cameras for a 

lar portion of a trial should not be considered significant, and tha

should not watch coverage of the trial on television. All district judg

cated they were not aware of any instances in which jurors had view

vised coverage of trials in which they were sitting as jurors.

Most district judges also did not observe an effect of cameras 

nesses, with one judge pointing out that because of the increasing 

video depositions, many witnesses are already “used to having 

poked in their faces.” Two judges said they thought witnesses we

affected than other trial participants, but they did not think the ef

strong.

Most district and appellate judges found electric media to have n

or a positive effect on the performance and behavior of counsel. 

judge said, “[counsel] shouldn’t do anything for cameras they wou

for me or the jury.” Similarly, most judges thought they themselves w

affected by the presence of cameras, or that they were affected in a 

way (e.g., by being more courteous to counsel or more vigilant re

proper courtroom procedures).

5. Courtroom decorum and the administration of justice. District and a

judges were also asked whether the presence of electronic media ne

affected courtroom decorum, and whether it interfered with the adm

tion of justice in any cases in which they had been involved. All 

judge who responded to the decorum question said that the pres

electronic media did not negatively affect courtroom decorum; th

who did report a negative effect described a case involving “a lot o

cians” in which counsel “played to the TV” and their “argumen

overly zealous and exaggerated.” Two judges said that courtroom d

could be even better preserved if cameras could be installed perman

courtrooms in concealed locations.
26 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

thought the presence of electronic media had no effect. One judge w

cerned that the click of a still camera at certain points in a proceedin

an exclamation point on certain testimony,” but thought this was usu

a problem in civil cases.

6. Effects on settlement. District judges were asked whether, to the 

their knowledge, the prospect of camera coverage affected settlemen

cases before them. Although the majority of judges said they had n

this, four said this had happened in one or more of their own cases, 

ported having seen it happen in other judges’ cases, and one said tha

tlement discussions with the parties in a case “there might have bee

or two when a party was being outlandish . . . and I might have su

[that] would look interesting on TV.”

7. Experiences with the media. Judges were also asked about their w

relationship with representatives from the electronic media. All jud

had experience with cases in which camera coverage was poole

satisfied with this arrangement, and most said that issues concerning 

were not brought to the attention of the court. Two judges pointed 

the camera pooling resulted in fewer media representatives being pr

the courtroom, because members of the press who would normally b

courtroom would choose to watch the proceedings from a room d

hall where the electronic feed from the pool camera was sent and wh

could continue other activities without disturbing the court (e.g., ch

phone calls). Judges in courts for which a media coordinator had be

were also pleased with how that system worked. All experienced jud

said—often very enthusiastically—that members of the media g

complied with the Judicial Conference guidelines and with any ad

restrictions imposed by presiding judges, although one appellate ju

lated a concern about the “noisy shutters” of still cameras in a quie

room, and another appellate judge mentioned an episode where a s

tographer used a “bright flash” that he found distracting.25

8. Administrative requirements. Judges reported that involvemen

pilot program had very little effect on their administrative respon

except for the necessity of dealing with some additional paperwork 

ditional people in the cases covered by electronic media. Two jud

had served as media liaison judges for their courts reported a slightly 

time involvement than those who were not liaison judges, particular

25. Use of a flash attachment is prohibited by the guidelines.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

staff absorbed most of the administrative burdens of the program.

9. Use of footage. Judges were asked whether they thought the au

video material obtained as a result of the program enhanced news c

of the cases; they were also asked how electronic coverage compares 

ventional coverage in terms of informing the public about the court

The majority thought that audio and video access enhanced news c

and that electronic coverage was somewhat more beneficial and reali

conventional coverage. Several judges pointed out that many peopl

their information these days through television rather than thro

print press.

10. Media knowledge. Judges were asked whether they thought m

of the media were generally well informed about cases that might be 

ered for coverage. About half thought the media were not well in

with one judge lamenting that “they’re poorly informed and I don

how to get them informed without denigrating our impartiality.” 

thought the media were reasonably well informed, particularly in 

where the media received information about upcoming cases from th

or a media coordinator. Several judges added that they thought som

tronic media representatives were not well informed about court pro

For example, one judge cited an instance in which a news story in

that the judge had decided a case when in fact it had been decided b

it appears, however, that misinformation such as this was an anomaly

11. Potential direct costs associated with electronic media coverage. Judg

asked to comment on potential costs of electronic media coverage id

by the Judicial Conference in 1984, including the need for increased 

tration of jurors, increased difficulty impaneling an impartial jury 

event a retrial was necessary, and the need for larger jury panels. Al

responding to this question said they had not seen any evidence of th

tential costs, although five mentioned they thought the potential cos

be of greater concern in criminal cases.

12. Changes in the guidelines. Though we asked, most judges did n

gest changes in the guidelines governing the program. Three said i

be helpful for the guidelines to suggest how to handle and weigh lit

witness objections to coverage. Another interviewee suggested t

guidelines cover where cameras can be placed in a courtroom. One a

judge mentioned a preference for presumptive coverage (i.e., not re

judge consent), at least for appellate proceedings. Finally, one jud

gested the media should be required to notify judges when their p

coverage change.
28 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

questionnaire results, when asked whether their attitudes toward el

media coverage had changed after experience in the program, ten 

judges indicated their attitudes had remained relatively stable, four s

are now more favorable toward electronic coverage, and one reporte

less favorable. The judge who reported being less favorable explain

“Originally [I] thought cameras would be a good thing; now, [I’m

sure. TV destroys the dignity of the courtroom . . . it does not giv

picture and more often than not distorts reality.” In contrast, two 

who reported being more favorable now indicated that concerns t

about electronic media coverage were alleviated after experience. T

appellate judges who answered this question indicated that their a

had remained stable.

14. Extension of electronic media coverage to criminal proceedings. 

judges were asked whether, based on their experiences, they would 

mend extending camera coverage to criminal proceedings. Seven 

judges answered yes to this question, two said no, and three said the

favor expansion with some hesitancy (e.g., proceeding on a pilot basi

parties the option of not being photographed). Of the remain

judges,26 one said he had not thought about the issue and did not kno

his view would be, and the other said he would not favor extending c

if it would affect a defendant’s decision regarding whether to tes

three appellate judges who answered this question, all said they wou

expanding coverage to criminal appellate proceedings, with two sp

they would not recommend allowing electronic media access to tr

criminal proceedings.

Media Representatives

1. Overall experiences with the program. Overall, the media represe

interviewed were pleased with their experiences in the pilot progr

thought that federal court personnel and judges were very cooperat

the media. The pooling procedures worked smoothly, as most media 

zations were already familiar with pooling arrangements from sta

coverage or other contexts. Last-minute changes in court schedule

ally did not pose a problem for media organizations, as they normal

out about these changes before sending a crew to the courthouse.

26. Some judges did not complete the full interview, either because 

constraints or because they did not think they had enough experience t

specific questions.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

sentatives learned about proceedings that might be considered for c

through a media coordinator (if there was one for the court they cov

by their own tracking of a case once they had learned about it at the 

filing (i.e., prior to when schedules were set for case events). Represe

from legal newspapers said they have reporters who are constantly 

cases in the local federal courts. Most media representatives also s

the media coordinators played an important function in keeping th

abreast of interesting cases—indeed, several suggested that media c

would undoubtedly be increased through the presence of this type 

dinator for each court. In addition, media representatives said court 

judges occasionally alerted them to upcoming cases that might be co

for coverage. Most media representatives thought they had genera

informed about cases with enough time to make coverage decisio

some saying they would like the courts to provide more informatio

media.

3. Judgments about which cases to cover. Media representatives repor

used the following criteria in deciding whether to cover cases with el

media (in descending order of frequency of mention): whether the 

matter of the case had universal relevance or broad applicability; wh

was “newsworthy”; whether the story was relevant to local intere

whether the case involved “high profile” litigants.

4. Extent of coverage. Most representatives from local news stati

their organizations did not generally cover cases electronically from 

finish, because of limitations on station resources. Aspects of proc

most frequently mentioned as being covered included opening arg

key testimony, closing arguments, and the verdict, all of which sug

emphasis on trial proceedings. This is in contrast to extended-cover

works, representatives of which reported they cover proceedings fr

ginning to end (“gavel-to-gavel”).

5. Amount of coverage. The majority of media interviewees from te

stations said their organizations report on more cases now in the 

courts than they did before camera and audio access was a

Descriptions of this increase in coverage ranged from “maybe a tad b

now” to “much more frequent [now].” Most local media representat

that since the pilot program started they had reported on some case

pilot courts without including camera footage. When this occurred

most frequently because camera access was denied or the station or n

per did not have a photographer available to cover the proceeding.
30 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

their organization had been denied access to one or more proceed

addition, one extended-coverage network representative reported 

network declined coverage of one approved case because additiona

tions were imposed that made coverage impractical. In particular, the 

ing judge indicated that witnesses could not be covered if they obj

coverage, but this would not be known until each witness appeared to 

This condition made it impossible for the network to plan coverage.

7. Adequacy of lighting and sound systems. Media representatives g

thought the lighting and sound systems in the federal courtroom

technically adequate, although there were problems in some situatio

media representative said his organization did not rely on the court

system.

8. Use of courtroom footage. Local news media representatives were 

what way audio and video material obtained through the pilot prog

hanced news coverage of cases. The two most common responses 

question were that use of courtroom footage produced a more real

piction of the proceedings and that it allowed viewers to see the exp

and emotions of the courtroom participants. As one respondent de

“Video tells a much better story than a sketch artist’s rendition—one 

when a judge gets angry and the facial and body expressions of the pa

9. Experiences with the program guidelines. The majority of media i

wees said the program guidelines were applied consistently. Whe

whether they would recommend changes in the program guidelin

most frequently suggested extension of the program to criminal proc

and shortening of the deadlines for media applications for coverag

least allowing for extenuating circumstances. Three interviewees, in

representatives from two extended-coverage networks, suggested per

two cameras in trial courtrooms. When respondents were explicit

how often their organizations would take advantage of the opport

use two cameras in trial courtrooms, the majority of local news 

representatives said they would use this opportunity in half or fewe

cases they covered, while extended-coverage network represe

indicated they would make use of two cameras in nearly every case

representative of an extended-coverage network pointed out, if o

camera is permitted and an attorney steps in front of that camera for 

hour, this causes serious problems for a network trying to broad

entire proceeding.

10. Predictions about coverage of criminal cases. Media representativ

asked if they could give a guess as to the level of coverage their organ
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

Most predicted a substantial increase in the amount of coverage, a

some—including representatives from two legal newspapers and 

tended-coverage network—said their coverage would not increas

over what is being done for civil proceedings. Overall, the response

question ranged from a prediction of no increase in coverage to a pr

that coverage would increase “by a factor of ten.”

Court Administrative Liaisons

1. Amount of time spent administering program. Court personnel r

ble for the day-to-day administration of the electronic media program 

pilot courts were asked what percentage of their time was spent adm

ing and overseeing the program. These estimates ranged from 1% to 

their time, with most interviewees indicating that the time they spen

program was greatest when it was first starting up and that the am

time demanded of them fluctuated.

2. Functions performed. Court personnel performed the followin

tions in administering the program: received applications from th

and forwarded them to presiding judges; notified media of judges’ d

on coverage applications; generally served as liaison between the co

the media (e.g., informed media of problems that arose); notified 

personnel when representatives of electronic media were coming 

courthouse; dealt with the media on days when they came for cover

corted them to courtrooms, and showed them where to set up; gener

sured that media representatives complied with the guidelines; a

records to document application and coverage activity.

3. Experiences with the media and pooling arrangements. Court adm

tors were very satisfied with the operation of pooling arrangemen

interviewees said that in their courts the first media organization t

application was automatically designated as the pool camera (i.e., the 

cated inside the courtroom). In all courts, it was up to the media to w

pooling arrangements, as required by the guidelines. The court adm

tors said that the media were very cooperative, although one mentio

compliance with the dress code was occasionally a problem.

4. Providing case information to the media. Court administrators we

whether they ever provided information to media organizations abo

that might be considered for coverage. Three interviewees said they 

do this, three said they provided general information about cases pen

the court (e.g., a listing of scheduled cases or a copy of the court’s ca
32 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

pending cases that might be interesting to cover.

5. Time periods for applications. Most of the administrators said that 

vance notification periods set by their courts for coverage appli

which ranged from one hour to seven days, were not strictly enforce

also thought the time periods could be shortened without a great 

additional burden, although they generally said that deadlines were 

have so that not all requests would be made at the last minute. As 

ministrator said, “If [there is a] late-breaking news story, we can

against a last-minute request—but this shouldn’t become a habit.”

6. Media “no shows.” Administrators were asked whether they 

problematic when media representatives did not show up to cover 

proved proceeding. Most did not think this was a problem, with four 

ing it had never happened in their court.

7. Problems in the administration of the program. Administrators we

whether they had encountered any problems in the overall administr

the program or in particular cases. Most reported no problems, with 

porting minor disruptions in particular proceedings.

8. Issues not covered by the guidelines. Court administrators wer

whether any situations had arisen in their courts that were not cov

the guidelines. Four responded that the issue of whether habeas proc

could be covered under the program had been raised in their court.

9. Changes in program guidelines. Administrators were asked if the

recommend any changes in the program guidelines. Three said they 

have specific suggestions, four recommended expanding coverage to 

proceedings, one suggested that courtrooms have cameras instal

manently (at media expense), and one suggested that interviews be 

inside the courtroom after proceedings have adjourned.

Content Analysis of Evening News Broadcasts

Method

Part of the Center’s evaluation, as approved by the Judicial Con

involved an analysis of how courtroom footage obtained under the pi

gram was used and what information about the recorded proceedi

made available to the public. Our main approach to this issue depend

content analysis27 of evening news broadcasts using footage obtained 

27. Content analysis is the objective and systematic description of commu

material. The content analysis performed for this study proceeded in two 

First, a qualitative analysis was used to identify the symbols, stylistic devices, 
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

Public Affairs under a contract with the FJC.

8

 Initially, the Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom

request of the Center, required media organizations to provide any 

and photographs that were used on the air or published. At the re

media representatives who pointed out many practical problems, 

quirement was modified to require only television footage to be sub

The requirement was also changed from mandatory to voluntary aft

period that determined that an adequate number of tapes would be 

ted voluntarily. The relaxation of the mandatory submission requ

means that the cases analyzed in the content analysis do not repre

stories produced under the program, or even a random sample of th

produced; thus, conclusions based on this analysis must be viewed w

tion. 29

At three points (November/December 1991, April 1992, and Ma

the Center requested footage obtained under the program. Stati

sponded to our requests for footage 58% of the time, either by provi

tape or an explanation of why it could not be provided.30 A total o

news stories were obtained for use in the content analysis. These 

which covered thirty-six different cases, were broadcast on twenty te

stations located in nine media markets.

The content analysis technique was used to examine how cou

footage was used in the news stories; the type and quality of info

provided to viewers about the particular cases covered; and the qu

information that news stories conveyed about the legal process.

rative techniques shaping the form and substance of the news stories; this all

researchers to develop analytic categories based on the actual content of th

rather than imposing a priori categories. Second, the analytic categories that 

veloped and pre-tested formed the basis of a quantitative analysis, which inv

systematic coding of story content into discrete categories.

28. The contractor’s report and code book are on file with the Research 

of the FJC.

29. For example, it is conceivable—though we have no reason to belie

that stations refrained from sending broadcast tapes containing uses of co

footage that they thought would be considered lacking in educational value.

30. Some requested footage could not be provided because the tapes 

longer available.
34 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

Use of Courtroom Footage in News Reports

The content analysis revealed that in news stories on covered pro

footage from the courtroom occupied 59% of the total air time. Th

stories analyzed presented a total of one hour and twenty-five min

courtroom footage, with an average of fifty-six seconds of courtroom 

per story. Across stations, the total amount of courtroom foota

ranged from a low of 20% of a story to a high of 97%. Stories that 

the first day of the pilot program and that were generally aimed at ex

the media access available under the program used the least am

courtroom footage, averaging 47% of air time. Stories covering ca

several days did not use a significantly higher proportion of cou

footage than did stories covered on a single day.

The analysis also examined the extent to which courtroom foot

voiced over by a reporter’s narration. On average, reporters narrated 

all courtroom footage. 31 The percentage of the story narrated by a 

varied widely across stations and across cases covered, but did not a

be related to either the length of the story or the nature of the case.

Overall, participants in the federal proceedings (witnesses, partie

neys) spoke on camera during or outside the proceedings for jus

forty-seven minutes, or 31% of the total air time. Most stations use

ture of participant statements from inside and outside the cou

Overall, plaintiffs were given 42% of the total air time that was dev

participant statements, while defendants spoke for 27%.32 Other part

who spoke in broadcast coverage included judges, outside exp

analysts, witnesses, and court personnel.

In addition to verbal coverage, visual patterns of courtroom c

were also examined. For this analysis, each camera shot that appe

screen was separated out. The results were similar to the analysis of s

time, with plaintiffs (and their attorneys) shown in 30% of the sh

were devoted to participants, and defendants (and their attorneys) s

20% of these shots.

Information Provided in Stories About the Cases Covered

A second aspect of the content analysis examined how well the 

conveyed the facts or details of the cases presented. Four variables w

veloped to assess the information provided in the stories: (1) identific

31. With “first day” stories removed from the analysis, this drops to 61%

32. These figures include the parties and their attorneys.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

(3) statements of the facts of the case; and (4) mentions of what the 

sought in the case.

Overall, 91% of the stories identified the plaintiff and 86% ident

defendant; with first day stories removed from the analysis, all but o

identified the plaintiff and all but two identified the defendant. In a

100% of the non-first day stories mentioned the nature of the case (e

it was a civil rights suit) before the court. In half of these stories, info

on the nature of the case was provided by reporters or anchors witho

ing on the participants, while in 44% of the stories this information w

vided by a combination of reporters and participants in the courtroo

remaining 6% of stories conveyed information about the nature of 

through a combination of reporters and participants outside the cour

The stories were also analyzed for information about the facts of 

including who was involved in the proceedings, what happened to s

dispute between the parties, and when and where the events in ques

curred. Ninety-nine percent of the non-first day stories provided at l

of these four elements. Most stories identified the parties involved an

tioned the reason the case was in court; the location and time of the 

issue were less frequently mentioned.

Finally, the stories were examined for a mention or explanation 

the plaintiff in the case was seeking or what would happen if the 

prevailed. Sixty-two percent of the non-first day stories mentio

plaintiff’s goals, and 34% of the stories explained in more detail w

plaintiff sought. Virtually all (94%) statements of plaintiffs’ goals we

by reporters.

An overall analysis of these measures reveals that most stories co

an explanation of the basic details of the case. Multiple-day cover

case slightly improved the depth of coverage. Interestingly, there 

correlation between the percentage of courtroom footage used in t

and the performance on the above measures. The contractors conclu

“it would appear from viewing the tapes that the participants’ comm

quently added color or emotion rather than substance to the discussi

Information Provided in Stories About the Legal Process

To determine the extent to which the stories provided basic edu

information about the legal system, the content analysis of news sto

examined the information available to viewers about the legal proce

analysis examined whether five pieces of information were conveye

viewer: (1) identification of the case as a civil matter; (2) identificatio
36 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

was present; (4) descriptions of the proceedings on a given day; and 

cussion of the next step in the legal process.

The vast majority of stories (95% of non-first day stories) did not 

the proceeding covered as a civil matter. In addition, 77% of the 

failed to identify the type of proceeding involved. Almost three-

(74%) of all stories did not provide information about whether a j

present, including half of the stories that identified the covered pro

as a trial.

Most stories (74%) did explain what transpired in court on a pa

day, such as who testified or what evidence was presented. In mult

cases, 90% of the stories explained the daily proceedings, compared 

in single-day stories. Seventy-six percent of the daily proceedings in 

were explained by a combination of reporter narration and particip

cussion. Only 29% of stories mentioned the next step in the litigati

cess in the case.

Thus, the stories did not provide a high level of detail about t

process in the cases covered. In addition, the analysis revealed that 

ing the proportion of courtroom footage used in a story did not sign

increase the information given about the legal process.

Overall, the content analysis revealed considerable variation—acr

stations and cases—of the following: amount of courtroom footage u

its integration with other elements of the story; the information c

about the facts of the case and the legal processes involved; and the d

which both sides of the case were presented. There were, however

patterns identified in the analysis.

First, most footage was accompanied by a reporter’s narration rat

the story being told through the words and actions of the participan

the visual information was typically used to reinforce a verbal prese

rather than to add new and different material to the report. Second

tiffs and their attorneys received more air time than defendants a

attorneys. Third, the stories did a fairly good job of providing info

to the viewer about the specific cases covered; however, the am

courtroom footage was not related to the amount of information co

cated. Fourth, the coverage did a poor job of providing information 

ers about the legal process.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

Civil Proceedings

Because the content analysis was limited to televised evening new

casts, we also obtained information about more extended coverage p

by Court-TV and C-SPAN, which were the two national networks m

tive in the program. Each of these networks provided information 

Center—in the form of printed material and interview responses by 

representatives—about the cases they had covered under the progr

the content of their coverage.

Thirty-two cases in the pilot program received extended cover

tween July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. FJC records indicate that 

these cases were in district or appellate courtrooms where two cam

erated. Network representatives said that working with a single 

causes problems for “gavel-to-gavel” coverage, because participants 

casionally block the camera for extended periods of time. As a resu

said that if two-camera access were allowed, they would take advan

this opportunity in nearly every case covered.

Court-TV Network, which covered and broadcast twenty-eight c

der the program during the evaluation period, covers cases in their 

when they are broadcast live. When taped proceedings are broadc

are sometimes edited to take out moments of inactivity, such as 

conferences. Recaps of events that have occurred in the proceeding a

vided at regular intervals, and experts in relevant areas of law provid

mentary and analysis of the legal proceedings covered.

Similarly, C-SPAN, which covered and broadcast seven cases b

July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, covers gavel-to-gavel and provides 

mentary information to viewers about each case, including intervie

counsel, parties, and relevant interest groups concerning the pro

being covered. In addition, C-SPAN representatives say they ha

ducted and broadcast interviews with judges in the cases being cov

the interviews, judges were asked to talk about how the federal cour

tion and what being a federal judge involves, not about the specific 

hand.

Thus, according to network representatives, these networks pro

tended coverage of proceedings as well as educational information a

dividual cases, substantive law, and court processes.
38 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

Jurors and Witnesses

In response to an inquiry from the Committee on Court Admini

and Case Management, we reviewed the results of studies others ha

on the effects of electronic media on jurors and witnesses. The studie

that the majority of jurors and witnesses who experience electroni

coverage do not report negative consequences or concerns. These 

are consistent with what judges and lawyers in the pilot courts o

about jurors and witnesses in those courts.

Below we summarize results from studies conducted in state 

(Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massac

Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia) of the potentia

of electronic media on witnesses and jurors.33 For witnesses, rese

have looked at such effects as distraction, nervousness, distortion or 

cation of testimony, fear of harm, and reluctance or unwillingness t

with electronic media present. For jurors, researchers examined such 

as distraction, effect on deliberations or case outcome, making a case 

ness seem “more important,” and reluctance to serve with electroni

present. Most state evaluations have studied jurors and witnesses 

surveys, although California researchers also observed the behavior

rors and witnesses in proceedings covered and not covered by el

media.

We should note that in all of the state courts whose evaluations 

cussed here, electronic media coverage was allowed in criminal as 

civil cases, and the majority of coverage was in fact in criminal c

pointed out by several judges interviewed in our study, certain effec

be expected to occur to a greater extent in criminal cases than in ci

(e.g., a witness’ fear of harm from being seen on television). Thus, 

33. Studies of the effects of electronic media in state courts have genera

conducted by state court administrators, special advisory committees appo

the court, bar associations, or outside consultants. A handful of state stud

than those mentioned here address juror and witness issues; we did not inclu

them, however, because some reports do not provide enough detail about m

determine what questions were asked and how, and others used methods w

consider sufficiently rigorous to rely on for this evaluation (e.g., a judge po

jury after a trial about whether cameras affected them). But even the less 

studies tend to report results that are similar to our findings and other sta

findings. A more detailed description of the studies summarized in this rep

file with the Research Division of the FJC.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

findings from studies focused solely on experiences in civil cases.

Effects on Witnesses

• Distraction. One concern is that witnesses in cases covered 

electronic media will be distracted and unable to focus on t

testimony. A number of state evaluations addressed this issu

surveys and found that, although a small number of witnesses 

ported being distracted, the vast majority reported no distrac

at all or only initial distraction.

• Nervousness. Another concern is that witnesses will be made n

vous by the presence of electronic media, that this nervousn

will make them uncomfortable, and thus that jurors will fin

difficult to judge the veracity of their testimony. In state stu

that asked witnesses about nervousness, the great majority 

they were not at all or were only slightly nervous due to the p

ence of electronic media during their testimony. In addition, 

rors in a 1991 New York survey were asked whether the credi

ity of witnesses was affected by their relative insecurity or ten

ness caused by audio or visual coverage. The majority of jur

indicated this did “not at all” affect the credibility of witnes

and most indicated that the presence of audio and visual m

did not in fact tend to make witnesses appear tense or insec

Similarly, over 90% of responding jurors in Florida and N

Jersey surveys said the presence of electronic media had “no 

fect” on their ability to judge the truthfulness of witnesses.

Finally, in addition to surveying witnesses, the consultants w

conducted the California study systematically observed proce

ings in which electronic media were and were not present. T

concluded that witnesses were equally effective at communica

in both sets of circumstances.34

34. In an experimental study comparing the effects of conventional and e

media coverage on mock witnesses and jurors, researchers at the Univ

Minnesota found that witnesses who were covered by electronic media repo

ing more distracted and more nervous about media presence than witne

were covered by conventional media. There was no difference between the 

ditions, however, in mock juror perceptions of the quality of witness testim

cluding ratings of the extent to which the testimony was believable. See 
40 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

cerns is that witnesses who testify will distort or modify their 

timony because of the presence of electronic media. In state e

uations in which this issue was addressed, most witnesses repo

that the presence of electronic media had no effect on their te

mony and did not make it more difficult for them to testify

small number of witnesses indicated an inhibitory effect.

• Fear of harm. Several surveys in state studies asked witnesse

most of whom had testified in criminal trials—whether the p

ence of electronic media caused them to fear they would 

harmed. Most witnesses surveyed said they had no fear of h

stemming from electronic media coverage of a proceeding 

which they testified, although a minority said they did fear h

to some extent.

• Reluctance to testify with electronic media. Surveys in several st

asked witnesses if they were reluctant to testify at all becaus

electronic media or if they would be reluctant to testify again 

proceeding covered by electronic media. In general, about 80% 

90% of witnesses said the presence of electronic media did not 

fect their desire to participate or would not affect their willing

to serve as a witness in a future proceeding, a finding clo

parallel to the attorney survey responses on this issue in 

study.35

Effects on Jurors

As in the federal pilot program, most state programs discussed h

not allow electronic media coverage of jurors. In some programs, 

could be shown in the background of a shot, but no individual juror c

shown in an identifiable way. Other kinds of problems have, howev

posited.

Borgida et al., Cameras in the Courtroom: The Effects of Media Coverage on 

Testimony and Juror Perceptions, 14 Law & Hum. Behav. 489 (1990).

35. In our attorney survey, we asked attorneys who participated in pro

covered by electronic media whether they had any witnesses who declined 

because of the prospect of electronic media coverage. Out of sixty-eight dist

attorneys responding to this question, sixty-three (93%) reported they had 

nesses who declined to testify, one reported he had, and four reported they 

say.
The Federal Judicial Center Evaluati

this could decrease their ability to concentrate on testimony, 

tentially affecting the outcome of the proceedings. The s

court results, however, suggest that this is not a problem for 

majority of jurors. In California, results of the observational p

tion of the study indicated that jurors in proceedings covered 

electronic media were slightly more attentive to testimony t

jurors in proceedings not covered by electronic media. In ad

tion, when asked about their level of distraction from the e

tronic media presence, most jurors responding to surveys in s

court evaluations indicated they were not distracted or were 

tracted only at first.

• Effect on deliberations or outcome. Some commentators on electro

media in the courtroom fear that coverage will influence jur

decisions—for example, by creating more public pressure to 

cide the case in a particular way. At least four state studies h

surveyed jurors about this issue; all found that the vast majo

said there was no influence of electronic media coverage on t

deliberations or that they did not feel pressured by the medi

decide the case in a particular way. In addition, the California 

searchers found that jurors who had experience with electro

media coverage were less likely to think it would affect the o

come of trials than did jurors who did not have experience w

electronic media coverage.

• Highlighting importance of a case or witness. Another concern ab

cameras in the courtroom is their potential to distort the imp

tance of a case or, if present only for a portion of the proceedi

that they will make jurors think certain witnesses or testimony 

more important than others. The state court results on this i

indicate that the majority of jurors do not think the presenc

electronic media signals that a case or witness is more import

although a minority do think it lends importance to the case (v

few think it makes a witness more important).

• Reluctance to serve as a juror. There is some concern that allow

camera access to proceedings will make it more difficult to 

panel juries because some prospective jurors will try to avoid 

duty in a particular case if they think it will be covered by e

tronic media. Again, the state court results suggest that this is 
42 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

that the presence of electronic media would not affect their w

ingness to serve in a future proceeding.

The results summarized above are consistent with our findings f

judge and attorney surveys; that is, for each of several potential neg

fects of electronic media on jurors and witnesses, the majority of 

dents indicated the effect does not occur or occurs only to a slight 

while a minority indicated the effects occur to more than a slight ext

state court findings, to the extent they are credible, lend support 

findings and the recommendations made in our initial report.

Although indications from even a small number of participants th

eras have negative effects can be cause for concern, perhaps these c

are addressed adequately by the federal court guidelines. These gu

give the judge trying the case discretion to limit or prohibit, if ne

coverage of any proceeding or of a particular witness or witnesses. I

tion, coverage of jurors is proscribed (see Appendix ).
43

Recommendations

Note that these are recommendations of the research project staff, n

Federal Judicial Center or its Board.

On Access Generally

Recommendation 1: The research project staff recommends t

Judicial Conference authorize federal courts of appeals and distric

nationwide to provide camera access to civil proceedings in thei

rooms, subject to Conference guidelines (as discussed below). This 

mendation is based on information obtained in response to questio

sented by the Judicial Conference and addressed in this report and d

imply any position on legal or constitutional issues.

Explanation: The converging results from each of our inquiries s

gest that members of the electronic media generally complied w

program guidelines and that their presence did not disrupt court p

ceedings, affect participants in the proceedings, or interfere with 

administration of justice. To the extent decisions about expand

access would rest on these considerations, our results support exp

sion.

On Guidelines

Recommendation 2: The research project staff recommends tha

committee and Conference decide to continue or expand the progr

guidelines in effect for the pilot program remain in effect, subjec

modifications recommended in the Center’s initial report (and set 

Recommendations 3, 4, and 5 below).

Explanation: As we reported, judges, court staff, and media rep

sentatives all indicated that the guidelines are very workable and p

vide judges with the discretion needed to deny or limit electro

media coverage based on the circumstances of a particular case.

Recommendation 3: The research project staff recommends t

guidelines be modified to call for a standard practice of informing co

a party appearing pro se that an application for media coverage has b
44 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

applications.

Explanation: Some attorneys responding to our survey complai

that they were not informed about electronic media coverage prio

appearing for a hearing or trial. Because most judges are willin

entertain attorney and party objections, a notice requirement se

reasonable. However, experience in the pilot program suggests 

conditions that might warrant denial of an application are so spec

that guidelines would have to be so general as to provide little h

The inevitably general guidelines would then be likely to prod

unnecessary motion activity. The basic questions arising from the 

sertion of personal right to privacy and the public right to kn

should be left for decision in the normal course of litigation.

Recommendation 4: The research project staff recommends t

guidelines be modified to reflect the committee’s determinations re

the eligibility of extradition and habeas proceedings for electroni

coverage.

Explanation: We learned in telephone interviews that the issu

whether habeas proceedings could be covered was raised in severa

the pilot courts. If the program is continued or expanded, we 

ommend the committee’s determinations on these issues be incor

rated into the guidelines so they will not be raised anew by m

representatives unaware of the committee’s determinations.

On Facilities

Recommendation 5: The research project staff recommends t

guidelines be revised to permit two television cameras in trial cou

and appellate courtrooms.

Explanation: The absence of problems reported from the South

District of New York suggests that permitting two cameras in t

courtrooms does not cause additional disruptions. In addition, p

mitting two television cameras in the trial courtroom encoura

coverage by extended-coverage networks, which provide the typ

coverage that most judges favor. The majority of cases covered un

the program by extended-coverage networks were in courts (b

trial and appellate) that allow two television cameras, and repres
Recommendatio

the ability to use two cameras is important when providing gavel

gavel” coverage of proceedings. In comparing the type of cover

provided by extended-coverage networks to the type of coverage a

lyzed in the content analysis, it would appear that extended cover

likely serves a greater educational function, which is a function ju

interviewees identified as the greatest potential benefit of allow

electronic media access to the courts. Judges would retain discre

under the guidelines to limit the number of cameras in a partic

case.

Recommendation 6: The research project staff recommends that m

ganizations be invited to submit to the Committee on Court Admini

and Case Management proposals for constructing and regulating 

permanent camera facilities in federal courthouses.36

Explanation: Several interview and questionnaire responde

(including judges, court administrators, attorneys, and media rep

sentatives) expressed the view that electronic media coverage of p

ceedings would be least intrusive if cameras were installed per

nently in federal courtrooms. Most who raised the issue sugge

this be done at media expense.

The Issue of Judge Opt-Out

In our initial report, we brought the following issue to the attentio

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management 

making a recommendation:

Another policy issue the committee and Conference may want 

sider is the extent to which individual judges in a court should be abl

out completely from allowing electronic media coverage in thei

rooms. Media representatives argue that the question of coverage sho

depend on the fortuity of the judge to whom a case is assigned, and 

judges in the pilot program expressed disappointment at the less-t

participation of their court. On the other hand, judges who chos

36. Subject to numerous assumptions set forth in more detail in our Supp

Report to the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management 

18, 1994), we estimate the cost of permanently equipping one federal courtr

electronic media coverage of cases would be $ 70,000–$120,000. The Supp

Report is on file with the Research Division of the FJC.
46 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

by their questionnaire responses and comments.

Explanation: This issue is entirely one of policy and is not addres

by the research project. Research staff has no empirical basis 

which to make a recommendation on the relative values of unifo

practice and individual judge control.
47

Appendix

Guidelines for the Pilot Program on

Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasti

in the Courtroom

(Approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Septemb

Revised June 1991.)

1. General Provisions.

(a) Media coverage of federal court proceedings under the pilot p

on cameras in the courtroom is permissible only in accordance wi

guidelines.

(b) Reasonable advance notice is required from the media of a re

be present to broadcast, televise, record electronically, or take phot

at a particular session. In the absence of such notice, the presiding 

officer may refuse to permit media coverage.

(c) A presiding judicial officer may refuse, limit, or terminat

coverage of an entire case, portions thereof, or testimony of particu

nesses, in the interests of justice to protect the rights of the parti

nesses, and the dignity of the court; to assure the orderly conduct of 

ceedings; or for any other reason considered necessary or appropriat

presiding judicial officer.

(d) No direct public expense is to be incurred for equipment, w

personnel needed to provide media coverage.

(e) Nothing in these guidelines shall prevent a court from plac

ditional restrictions, or prohibiting altogether, photographing, recor

broadcasting in designated areas of the courthouse.

(f) These guidelines take effect July 1, 1991, and expire June 30, 

2. Limitations.

(a) Coverage of criminal proceedings, both at the trial and a

levels, is prohibited.

(b) There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of conference

occur in a court facility between attorneys and their clients, betw

counsel of a client, or between counsel and the presiding judicial 

whether held in the courtroom or in chambers.
48 Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceedings

the jury box, in the courtroom, in the jury deliberation room, or du

cess, or while going to or from the deliberation room at any time, 

permitted. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is also 

ited.

3. Equipment and Personnel.

(a) Not more than one television camera, operated by not mo

one camera person and one stationary sound operator, shall be perm

any trial court proceeding. Not more than two television cameras, o

by not more than one camera person each and one stationary sound 

shall be permitted in any appellate court proceeding.

(b) Not more than one still photographer, utilizing not more t

camera and related equipment, shall be permitted in any proceed

trial or appellate court.

(c) If two or more media representatives apply to cover a procee

such coverage may begin until all such representatives have agreed 

pooling arrangement for their respective news media. Such poo

rangements shall include the designation of pool operators, proced

cost sharing, access to and dissemination of material, and selection o

representative if appropriate. The presiding judicial officer may not b

upon to mediate or resolve any dispute as to such arrangements.

(d) Equipment or clothing shall not bear the insignia or mark

media agency. Camera operators shall wear appropriate business atti

4. Sound and Light Criteria.

(a) Equipment shall not produce distracting sound or light. Sign

or devices to show when equipment is operating shall not be visible. 

lights, flash attachments, or sudden light changes shall not be used.

(b) Except as otherwise approved by the presiding judicial office

ing courtroom sound and light systems shall be used without modi

Audio pickup for all media purposes shall be accomplished from 

audio systems present in the court facility, or from a television c

built-in microphone. If no technically suitable audio system exist

court facility, microphones and related wiring essential for media p

shall be unobtrusive and shall be located in places designated in adv

any proceeding by the presiding judicial officer.

5. Location of Equipment and Personnel.

(a) The presiding judicial officer shall designate the location 

courtroom for the camera equipment and operators.
Appendix: Guidelines for the Pilot Progr

nor shall there be placement, movement, or removal of equipment

changing of film, film magazines, or lenses. All such activities shall ta

each day before the proceeding begins, after it ends, or during a rece

6. Compliance.

Any media representative who fails to comply with these guidelin

be subject to appropriate sanction, as determined by the presiding 

officer.

7. Review.

It is not intended that a grant or denial of media coverage be su

appellate review insofar as it pertains to and arises under these gui

except as otherwise provided by law.

Guidelines Addendum:

The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration a

Management made a number of recommendations in a June 1991 r

the Judicial Conference Executive Committee. The recommendatio

sequently approved, include:

(1) That the Executive Committee endorse the [CACM] Com

interpretation that the ban on the changing of film included in g

5(b), does not include the changing of video cassettes.

(2) That the Executive Committee approve an expansion of th

iment to permit the Southern District of New York to allow the us

cameras during court proceedings.

(3) That the Executive Committee direct the Committee on 

Administration and Case Management to notify courts that strict ad

to the guidelines approved by the Conference is a condition for parti

as a pilot.