Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in 

United States District Courts:

Report on a Pilot Project

Submitted by the Federal Judicial Center to the 

Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States

Molly Treadway Johnson, Carol Krafka, and 

Donna Stienstra

Federal Judicial Center

2016

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory mission to conduct and stimulate research and development for the improvement of judicial administration. While the Center regards the content as responsible and valuable, this report does not reflect 

policy or recommendations of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center.

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

iii

Contents

Acknowledgments, v

Executive Summary, vii

Introduction, 1

Origin and Design of the Cameras Pilot Project, 1

Limitations of the Pilot Project and Evaluation, 3

Judge Participation in the Pilot Project, 4

Notice, Consent, and Declination Procedures, 7

Middle District of Alabama, 8

Northern District of California, 8

Southern District of Florida, 9

District of Guam, 9

Northern District of Illinois, 9

Southern District of Iowa, 10

District of Kansas, 10

District of Massachusetts, 11

Eastern District of Missouri, 11

District of Nebraska, 11

Northern District of Ohio, 12

Southern District of Ohio, 12

Western District of Tennessee, 12

Western District of Washington, 13

The Pilot Project in Numbers, 13

Number of Video Recordings Posted, 13

Number of Proceedings Notified of a Request to Record and Ultimately Recorded, 16

Types of Proceedings Noticed and Recorded, 19

Types of Cases Noticed and Recorded, 20

Sources of Requests or Suggestions to Record, 21

Party Reasons for Non-Consent to Video Recording, 22

Pilot Court Judges’ Views of Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings, 24

Pilot Court Judges’ Perceptions of Effects of Video Recording on Participants and the 

Public, 24

Pilot Court Judges’ Views on the Operational and Administrative Effects of Video 

Recording, 31

Pilot Court Judges’ Overall Views on Video Recording Proceedings, 33

Pilot Court Judges’ Views on Whether They Would Participate in Video Recording in 

the Future, 35
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

iv

Attorneys’ Views of Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings, 37

Attorneys’ Perceptions of Effects of Video Recording on Participants and the Public, 37

Attorneys’ Views on the Voluntariness of Consent, 41

Attorneys’ Overall Views on Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings, 43

Attorneys’ Views on Whether They Would Participate in Video Recording in the 

Future, 44

Court Staff Experience with Video Recording, 45

Staff Tasks Related to Notifying Parties and Tracking Responses, 46

Staff Tasks Related to Video Recording and to Video Recording Technology, 47

Use of the Video Recordings, 49

Conclusion, 53

Appendix A: Guidance from the CACM Committee

Appendix B: Video Recording Technology for the “Cameras” Pilot Project

Appendix C: Federal Judicial Center Questionnaires and Interview Protocols

Appendix D: 2015 Judge Survey Responses—Grouped in Various Ways, Both With and 

Without the Inclusion of No Opinion Responses

Appendix E: Attorney Survey Responses— Grouped in Various Ways, Both With and 

Without the Inclusion of No Opinion Responses

Appendix F: Judge and Attorney Questionnaire Comments
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

v

Acknowledgments

When the pilot project began, the Federal Judicial Center asked each participating 

court to identify a person on staff—the project “liaison”—who could assist the Center 

in collecting data from that court. The liaisons were critical to the study. They helped 

us understand the courts’ procedures, collected forms and kept case-specific spreadsheets, and provided attorney names and addresses for our attorney survey. Below we 

list the liaisons, past and present, and gratefully acknowledge their indispensable assistance.

Alabama Middle Debbie Hackett and Trey Granger

California Northern Chris Wolpert and Zackary Lyons

Florida Southern Michael Beck

Guam Charles White

Illinois Northern Ted Newman and Thomas Bruton

Iowa Southern Jamie Morawski and Jeff Allsteadt

Kansas Neely Fedde and Sharon Scheurer

Massachusetts Ginny Hurley

Missouri Eastern Jim Woodward, Coley Lewis, Greg 

Linhares, and Joseph Vradenburg

Nebraska Therese Bollerup

Ohio Northern Peggy Nichols and Chris Huth

Ohio Southern John Wright

Tennessee Middle Wendy Oliver

Washington Western Eric Smits

We also acknowledge our colleagues whose substantive help was critical for completion of the study and to whom we are very grateful: Meghan Dunn, Rebecca Eyre, 

and Laural Hooper. We acknowledge the additional contributions of Jessica Snowden, a colleague whose assistance in the final weeks of the project went “above and 

beyond.” We also appreciate the help of our research assistants Katelen Walsh, Phillip Wininger, and Katie Kruger.

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

vii

Executive Summary 

Below are key findings from this study of the federal district courts’ pilot project on 

video recording courtroom proceedings.

1. Fourteen federal district courts volunteered to be sites for a pilot project testing the use of court-operated video cameras to record courtroom proceedings

in civil cases. Recording was limited to proceedings in which the judge and all 

other participants consented. Over the four-year project, 64 active and senior 

judges participated—i.e., notified parties of the opportunity to record—and 

33 judges had proceedings that were recorded, for a total of 158 proceedings 

recorded and posted at www.uscourts.gov.

2. At the time the pilot project began, a few pilot courts already had video recording equipment in one or more courtrooms. The Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts provided other pilot courts with equipment for a limited

number of courtrooms, for equipment costs of nearly $460,000. Labor costs 

for the Administrative Office (but not the courts) were just over $435,000, and 

video hosting services costs were close to $96,000.

3. In a pilot project that required consent from all participants, including the 

presiding judge and the parties, it was possible to obtain consents and to record proceedings, though not in large numbers.

4. More proceedings were video recorded in courts where parties in every scheduled courtroom proceeding were notified of the opportunity to record or 

where at least one judge had a particular interest in video recording and encouraged parties to use it relative to the number of cases pending in the pilot 

courts.

5. Although video recording occurred only with full consent, leaving open the possibility that only certain types of proceedings might be video recorded, a wide 

variety of proceedings were in fact recorded, including trials, hearings on dispositive motions, hearings on routine motions, and evidentiary hearings. Likewise, a wide variety of case types were recorded, including contracts, personal 

injury, and civil rights cases, which are among those most frequently filed in the 

federal courts, but recordings were also made in less commonly filed case types,

such as patent/copyright/trademark, immigration, and bankruptcy cases.

6. The wish to maintain confidentiality (e.g., of proprietary business or personal 

medical information) and the desire to avoid publicity are the most commonly reported reasons parties gave for declining to video record, though in 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

viii

many cases parties declined without giving a reason. Few parties voiced concerns about traditional arguments for prohibiting cameras in courtrooms, 

such as the risk of making participants anxious or distracting them or the risk 

of disrupting the decorum and dignity of the courtroom.

7. The study asked pilot court judges and participating attorneys to describe 

their views on a number of hypothesized effects of video recording by marking 

categories on a questionnaire. The categories reflected the degree to which an 

effect was perceived to be present (to no extent, to a small extent, to a moderate extent, to a great extent). Categories may be grouped in different ways; 

depending on the research question of interest, the choice will reveal different 

aspects of the data. This report makes all respondents’ data available in tables, 

but, for the discussion, this report groups the two lowest categories (to no and 

to a small extent) and the two highest (to a moderate and to a great extent). 

Tables summarizing judges’ responses under four different grouping arrangements appear in Appendix D.

8. It is important to note that judges and attorneys participating in the pilot project did so voluntarily. On average, they are likely to be favorable in their views 

of video recording. Further, their views do not necessarily represent the views 

of judges and attorneys nationwide.

9. The majority of judges in the pilot courts think most hypothesized effects of 

video recording occur to little or no extent, whether the impact is on witnesses, jurors, attorneys, or judges, and whether the effect is positive or negative. A majority of those who expressed an opinion think video recording has 

a moderate to great effect only with regard to increasing public access to the 

federal courts and educating the public about courtroom procedures and legal 

issues. Judges’ views are evenly split on the extent to which video recording 

causes attorneys to be more theatrical and increases public confidence in the 

federal courts. Around a third of pilot judges think three hypothesized effects 

occur to a moderate or great extent: distracts witnesses, motivates attorneys 

to come to court better prepared, and prompts attorneys to be more courteous.

10. Very few judges who participated in video recorded proceedings experienced 

negative operational or administrative problems, except with regard to operation of the video equipment, which half the judges think, to at least some extent, 

took too much time.

11. More than three-quarters of the attorneys who participated in a video recorded proceeding did so because they had no inherent objection to video recording.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

ix

12. Like judges, attorneys who participated in a recorded proceeding think most 

of the hypothesized effects of video recording occur to no extent or to a small 

extent, with most responses falling in the “no extent” category. Also like the 

judges, the only effects a majority of attorneys think occur to a moderate or 

great extent are positive effects on the public. At most, about a third of the 

attorneys see any other effects as occurring to a moderate or great degree (e.g., 

motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared).

13. In their overall views of video recording during courtroom proceedings, more 

pilot court judges favor than oppose it. Very many more judges who participated in the pilot project favored video recording than judges who did not

participate. While the majority of judges in the pilot courts would permit 

video recording if authorized for future proceedings, more judges who participated in the pilot would permit it than judges who did not participate.

14. When the 32 judges we interviewed were asked about changes they would 

make to the conditions of the pilot project if video recording were to be continued or expanded, one-third of judges with recording experience under the 

pilot project suggested modifying the party consent requirement (either by 

making it an “opt-out” rather than “opt-in” process or doing away with the 

requirement), and more than a quarter suggested allowing video recording of 

certain criminal proceedings. 

15. Almost three-quarters of attorneys who participated in the pilot project favor 

video recording of courtroom proceedings, whether their experience is limited to the federal court video recording pilot or includes experience with 

cameras in state and other courtrooms. Three-quarters of attorneys would 

participate in video recording if authorized for future proceedings.

16. A majority of both judges in the pilot courts and attorneys who participated 

in a case recorded under the pilot project think video recording, to a moderate 

or great extent, educates the public about courtroom proceedings, educates 

the public about the legal issues in court cases, and increases public access to 

the federal courts.

17. The best indicator of the public’s exposure to the video recordings comes from 

the number of times—21,530—viewers accessed a video recording at 

www.uscourts.gov during calendar year 2014. The 258 viewers who completed 

a “pop-up” survey after accessing a recording were primarily students, educators/librarians, members of the general public, and lawyers or other law firm 

employees. They accessed the videos primarily because of a general interest in 

viewing federal court proceedings or because they had an educational reason 

to do so. Few of those who completed the survey were members of the media.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

x

18. Administering the pilot project required staff resources on both the administrative side and the technical side. The administrative demands were apparently lower in courts that had more standardized notice and consent procedures, except where court procedures called on staff to make personal contact 

with nonresponding attorneys to determine whether they consented to or declined video recording. 

19. Demands on information technology (IT) staff for technical aspects of the 

project were quite significant in some courts, typically more significant than 

the administrative demands of the project. Demands varied in part by the type 

of equipment used, with greater demand when portable equipment was used 

and had to be set up for each proceeding. Demands on IT and other staff were 

also significant in courts where a staff person was present in the courtroom 

throughout the entire proceeding, operating the equipment and/or ensuring 

that the recording process went smoothly. This was more likely to occur in 

courtrooms where the judge preferred to show the public a single image, 

which required a camera operator, as opposed to courtrooms where fixed 

cameras recorded the judge, witness stand, attorney podium, and evidence table and presented a screen split into four images. It was also more likely to 

occur where a court placed emphasis on quality control during the proceeding 

rather than through post-proceeding review and editing.

20. The greatest operational demand on judges appears to have been the process 

of notifying parties and obtaining consents. Participation by some judges was 

modest or minimal because they did not have time to seek consents. Courts 

with court-wide and systematic approaches to notice and consent seemed to 

have largely removed this burden from their judges. 

21. The pilot project enabled 14 district courts to test the use of video recording 

courtroom proceedings. The courts’ varied experiences, as reflected in the 

data, suggest that decisions courts make about notice and consent procedures 

and video recording procedures can have a significant administrative and operational impact on judges and court staff.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

1

Introduction

This report presents findings from the Federal Judicial Center’s (Center) evaluation 

of the Digital Video Recording Pilot Project, more commonly known as the Cameras 

in the Courtroom Pilot Project (pilot project). We briefly describe the origins and 

requirements of the pilot project; report the number of judges who participated and 

the procedures the pilot courts developed to identify eligible proceedings; discuss the 

number and types of proceedings recorded and the reasons why some parties declined 

to be recorded; discuss the assessments of judges, lawyers, and court staff; and report 

information from a survey of viewers. Several attachments provide information about 

implementation guidance to the pilot courts; the costs of, and a description of, the 

video recording equipment; and the Center’s data-collection instruments.

Origin and Design of the Cameras Pilot Project

At the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Court Administration and Case Management Committee (CACM Committee) developed a pilot project that permitted use of cameras in federal district courtrooms during court proceedings in civil cases. The purpose of the pilot project was to test a particular approach to using cameras to record district court proceedings; it was undertaken as 

part of a review of federal court policy prohibiting the use of cameras during courtroom proceedings in the district courts.1 The CACM Committee designed a pilot project that was authorized initially to run for three years, but was eventually extended to 

a fourth year to permit more experience with cameras. The pilot project began on July 

18, 2011, and ended on July 17, 2015.2 From the outset, the CACM Committee planned 

to include an evaluation of the pilot project and asked the Federal Judicial Center, the 

federal judiciary’s research and education agency, to conduct the evaluation.

The CACM Committee designed the pilot project to be voluntary in all respects. 

Thus, in February 2011, the chair of the CACM Committee and the director of the 

Center sent an invitation to all 94 district courts inviting them to apply to be pilot 

courts. Fourteen district courts expressed a willingness to serve and became the pilot 

sites. Within each court, the judges who participated were also volunteers. Further, 

 

1. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Ch. 4, § 410.10, for the current policy.

2. Data collection ended on July 17, 2015, but the pilot courts are permitted to continue recording 

proceedings until the Judicial Conference decides, at its March 2016 meeting, whether to suspend the use 

of cameras or authorize them for all district courts. Source: Memorandum from Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, 

chair of the CACM Committee, to the chief judges of the 14 pilot districts, dated February 19, 2015.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

2

cameras recorded a courtroom proceeding only with consent of both the judge assigned to the case and all parties who were involved in the proceeding.

Beyond its voluntary nature, the pilot project had several additional requirements. First, use of cameras was permitted only in civil cases and only in cases presided over by active or senior district judges (i.e., not bankruptcy or magistrate 

judges). Also, at no time were cameras to record jurors. Further, although the CACM 

Committee issued general guidelines for the pilot project (see Appendix A), each court 

was permitted to develop its own criteria for selecting proceedings and its own procedures for notifying parties and for seeking consent for camera coverage.

The pilot courts operated the cameras themselves, a significant departure from 

the cameras in the courtroom model prevalent in state courts, where media outlets 

bring cameras into courtrooms to cover proceedings. The Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts provided equipment to set up a limited number of courtrooms in 

each district with recording systems and, in some locations, a portable camera system 

that could be moved from courtroom to courtroom (see Appendix B for a description 

of the technical aspects and costs of the pilot project). The costs to the Administrative 

Office totaled close to $990,000—nearly $460,000 for equipment, just over $434,000 

for labor, and close to $96,000 for video hosting services. Costs to the courts included 

primarily staff time to support the project. Several courts also purchased equipment 

but often did so as part of an ongoing effort to upgrade audiovisual systems in the 

courtrooms.

Each video recording system included four cameras—technically, digital video 

recorders—one that could be used to record the attorney’s podium and the others to 

record the judge’s bench, the witness stand, and the evidence display. At the close of 

a courtroom proceeding, the court was responsible for ensuring that the video recording was free of any inappropriate footage (e.g., inadvertent footage of a juror) 

and for determining whether the quality was sufficient for public viewing. The court 

then submitted the video recording to the Administrative Office for posting to the 

federal courts’ public website,3 typically within 24 hours.4

To collect data for the pilot project evaluation—for example, the number of proceedings in which the parties received notice of the opportunity to record, the number of parties who consented, and the reasons for declination—the Center developed 

forms for the courts to use in administering the pilot project. Whether the courts did 

so depended to a considerable extent on the procedures they used to notify parties 

and to receive consents (as we explain further, below). In addition to collecting information via forms, we designed questionnaires to obtain the assessment of judges in 

 

3. See www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/cameras-courts.

4. For more information about the video recording equipment and court procedures for recording 

proceedings, see infra, Court Staff Experience with Video Recording, page 45, and Appendix B.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

3

the pilot courts and of attorneys in proceedings that were video recorded. And we 

interviewed all but one judge who presided over a video recorded proceeding, as well 

as court staff who supported the pilot project.5

Limitations of the Pilot Project and Evaluation

As noted above, the pilot project was voluntary on all levels. Pilot courts volunteered 

to participate, as did the individual judges taking part in the project. Courtroom proceedings were recorded only if the court had consent from all parties. Parties could 

also make requests to exclude the testimony of certain witnesses or portions of a proceeding.

From a research standpoint, such a design limits the conclusions that can be 

drawn about the impact of video recording in the courts. First, the courts self-selected 

into the pilot project and are not necessarily representative of all 94 U.S. district 

courts; likewise, the views of the judges in non-pilot courts are not included in the 

study. Second, because recordings were made only with consent of the participants, 

we might expect that the views of participating judges and attorneys would, on average, be more favorable than the views of judges and attorneys who would not agree 

to video recording. Further, it is impossible to measure the actual effects of video recording, which would require comparison of proceedings that were video recorded 

with otherwise similar proceedings that were not video recorded. 

We can, and did, however, look at the perceived effects of video recording, as reported by judges in the pilot courts and attorneys who experienced recording under 

the pilot project. We are also able to provide a thorough description of how the pilot 

project was implemented; the levels of judge participation and number of consents to 

record; the types of proceedings and cases that were recorded; judge, attorney, and 

court staff reports of their experience with and views of video recording; and the reasons why those who accessed the recordings did so. Thus, while we cannot draw 

causal conclusions and must view the survey and interview data in light of the voluntary nature of the pilot, we do have a good deal of information to report. Further, 

most of the subjective reports about the pilot project come from participants who 

have actual experience with video recording.

 

5. We are very grateful to the 32 judges and 38 staff members we interviewed. Among the staff we 

interviewed were 13 people who served as liaisons between their courts and the Center’s research team 

and to whom we owe a special debt of gratitude. We list their names on the acknowledgments page. 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

4

Judge Participation in the Pilot Project

Ten of the 14 pilot courts implemented the project in 2011, six of them on the pilot 

project’s official start date of July 18, 2011. Three courts implemented the pilot project in 2012, and the remaining court did so in 2013.6 Table 1, below, lists the 14 volunteer courts along with their implementation dates, the number of judges who participated in the pilot project over the four-year project, and the number of judges the 

court thought might participate at the time the court submitted its application to be 

a pilot court.

As Table 1 shows, the number of participating judges—i.e., those who notified 

the parties in at least one proceeding of the opportunity to video record (column 3)—

varied considerably from court to court. In some courts—for example, the Southern 

District of Iowa, the District of Massachusetts, the District of Nebraska, and the Western District of Washington—all or nearly all of the judges volunteered to participate 

in the pilot project (column 5), and many, though not all who volunteered, did participate (column 3). In other courts, such as the Northern District of California, the 

Southern District of Florida, and the Northern District of Illinois, a subset of the 

judges volunteered to participate, and a smaller set of those volunteers participated. 

And in several districts—for example, the Northern District of Ohio—only a small 

number of the court’s judges volunteered to participate. 

In the end, in most, but not all, pilot courts only a small number of the judges 

who volunteered had video recordings posted to the federal courts’ website (column 

4). In the District of Massachusetts, for example, four of the 12 judges who initially 

indicated an interest in participating recorded and posted a proceeding, and in the 

Eastern District of Missouri one of the eight interested judges recorded and posted a 

proceeding. In these and many other districts, however, considerably more judges attempted to record proceedings—for example, nine of the 12 judges who volunteered 

in the District of Massachusetts and three of the eight judges who volunteered in the 

Eastern District of Missouri. Overall, 64 judges, or 63% of those who were initially 

interested in participating in the pilot project, actually participated—i.e., notified 

parties of an opportunity to record a proceeding. And 33 judges, or a third of those 

who were initially interested, had a proceeding recorded and posted.

 

6. By “implementation” we mean that the court had worked out the procedures to notify parties 

of the opportunity to record courtroom proceedings and to receive party consents and declinations; 

had adopted a local rule or general order authorizing video recording; and had sufficient equipment 

to record proceedings and post them at www.uscourts.gov.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

5

Table 1: Implementation of Cameras Pilot Project, by District

1

District

2

Date Pilot

Project Was 

Implementeda

3

Number of Active 

and Senior Judges 

Who Participated 

in the Pilot Projectb

4

Number of Judges 

Who Recorded at 

Least One

Proceedingc

5

Number of Judges 

the Court Thought 

Might Participate 

When Applying for 

the Pilot Projectd

AL-M 2.1.13 2 (of 5) 1 3 (of 5)

CA-N 10.3.11 6 (of 26) 2 13 (of 18)

FL-S 1.20.12 6 (of 25) 3 9 (of 22)

GU 7.18.11 1 (only judge 

on this court)

1 1

IL-N 7.18.11 9 (of 42) 2 18 (of 33)

IA-S 8.29.11 6 (of 7) 4 7 (of 7)

KS 11.7.11 4 (of 10) 4 5 (of 10)

MA 10.17.11 9 (of 19) 4 12 (of 14)

MO-E 8.20.12 3 (of 12) 1 8 (of 9)

NE 7.18.11 3 (of 5) 2 5 (of 5)

OH-N 7.18.11 4 (of 14) 2 3 (of 14)

OH-S 7.18.11 2 (of 10 in the 

Columbus division)

0 3 (of 15)

TN-W 7.18.11 2 (of 8) 2 4 (of 6)

WA-W 3.15.12e 7 (of 10 in the 

Seattle division)

5 10 (of 10)

Total NA 64 33 101

a. This is the date the court began the pilot project. If there was not a precise start date and the court adopted a 

local rule, the start date is the date of local rule adoption or July 18, 2011 (the official start of the pilot project), if 

the local rule was adopted before that date.

b. The number of participating judges is the number who notified the parties, in at least one proceeding, of the 

opportunity to video record the proceeding. Some judges may not have received consent in any proceeding. The 

data are from records kept by the pilot courts. The total number of judges for each court is the count of all Article 

III judges on the court over the four-year pilot project.

c. The data are from records kept by the pilot courts and a count of the recordings posted at www.uscourts.gov.

d. This information is from the courts’ applications to participate in the pilot project. The number in parentheses 

reflects the number of active and senior district judges on the court (or the participating division) at the time of the 

application.

e. The court received a request for video recording on this date, but full implementation of its pilot project awaited 

the arrival of recording equipment in October 2012.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

6

A point that is clear from the information presented in Table 1 but bears emphasizing is that more judges participated in the video recording project—i.e., notified 

parties of the opportunity to record—than had a proceeding in which both parties 

consented to recording. This point is buttressed by data from our survey of all judges 

in the 14 pilot courts, shown in Table 2, below. Of the 110 judges who answered the 

survey, 65 judges (or 59%) wanted to participate, but only 27 (or 25%) had received 

party consent and recorded a proceeding that was posted to the website. In contrast, 

29 judges (or 26%) said they did not want to, and did not, participate in the pilot 

project. The 15 “other” judges comprise those who, for example, were appointed to 

the court well after the pilot project began, who said no appropriate case had come 

along, or who said no one had asked to record a proceeding.

Table 2: Number of Judges Who Did and Did Not Participate in the Pilot Project

(N=109)

a

Type of Participation

Number of 

Judgesb

(A) Wanted to participate but had no proceedings recorded because 

parties did not consent

37

(B) Had at least one proceeding recorded and one or more posted to 

the website

27

(C) Had at least one proceeding recorded but none posted to website 1

(D) Did not wish to participate and did not participate 29

(E) Other 15c

a. The total number of respondents to the survey was 110 judges—61% of those who received the questionnaire 

(see page 24 for a discussion of the survey results). Here and in other tables reporting information from the judge 

survey, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses to a particular question or because portions of the 

questionnaire were presented only to judges who classified themselves as participants (rows A–C). Sixty-five judges 

were ultimately classified as participants, including seven judges who answered “Other” but could be recoded into 

the row A or B groups. The seven recoded judges did not answer survey questions that respondents to the row A–

C options were routed to. Thus some tables are based on 57 respondents—i.e., those who selected options A–C

when answering the survey.

b. The numbers in this table do not match comparable numbers in Table 1 because some judges in the pilot 

courts did not respond to the survey.

c. We could not recode more of the “other” judges into rows A–C because their responses did not provide 

enough information to know whether they intended to be participants in the pilot project.

The survey asked participating judges—and this includes those who wanted to video 

record a proceeding but had no consents—what prompted them to participate in the 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

7

pilot project, presenting them with several possible reasons. The most common reason for participation (see Table 3, below), selected by 39 judges (or 68%), was a sense 

of responsibility because their court had volunteered to be a pilot court. Twenty-four 

judges (or 42%) said they wanted to have a voice in policy decisions based on experience. Smaller numbers said they thought participation would be interesting (17

judges, or 30%), were curious about the technology (10 judges, or 17%), or were encouraged by someone else to participate (6 judges, or 11%). Other reasons given by 

judges included having had prior experience with cameras in state courts; having had 

a request to record in a particular case; and having a strong belief in making federal 

court proceedings accessible to the public.

Table 3: Reasons Judges Participated in the Cameras Pilot Project (N=57)*

Reason for Participation

Number of 

Judges

Felt a responsibility to participate because the court volunteered 

to be a pilot court

39

Wanted a voice in policy decisions based on experience 24

Thought it would be interesting 17

Curious about the technology 10

A colleague or member of chambers staff encouraged the judge 

to try video recording

6

Other 8

* Only judges who participated in the pilot project were routed to this question (see note a to Table 2). The 

numbers do not add to 57 because respondents could check more than one response.

Notice, Consent, and Declination Procedures

The judges who participated in the pilot project did so under conditions that differed 

from court to court. Two procedures were central to executing the pilot project: (1) a 

procedure for notifying parties of the opportunity to video record a courtroom proceeding and (2) a procedure for obtaining party consents and declinations. Understanding the different approaches taken by the courts is important for understanding 

their experience with the pilot project and, especially, for understanding the data 

available for our evaluation. 

As the pilot project was being launched, the CACM Committee sent implementation guidance to the pilot courts but gave them considerable discretion to design 

their own procedures for notifying parties of the opportunity to video record proceedings and for obtaining consent to record. Consequently, the courts’ procedures 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

8

varied greatly, from those that had no formal procedures and left matters in the hands 

of participating judges to a court that presumed all courtroom proceedings would be 

recorded unless the parties affirmatively declined. 

Below we describe the notice and consent procedures used in each pilot court. 

Our descriptions are based on interviews with judges who had recorded proceedings, 

staff who supported the pilot project, and court documents (e.g., local rules, websites, 

and data-collection forms submitted by the courts). Because use of the forms was not 

systematic in most courts, we almost surely do not know the full scope of judge efforts 

to notify parties of the video recording opportunity.7

Middle District of Alabama

The court set up a committee to implement the pilot project. Once the equipment 

was in place in late November 2012, the judge who chaired that committee sent a 

letter to every attorney with an active civil matter in the court, explaining that the 

court was part of the pilot project and asking the attorneys to identify proceedings in 

which they were involved and might consider recording under the pilot project. The

letter noted that full implementation of the pilot would begin on February 1, 2013. 

Although no recordings occurred as a result of that initial outreach, two judges docketed orders in a small number of cases telling the attorneys to indicate whether they 

consented to the recording of all proceedings in those cases. Responses were to be 

sent to the court staff member who was also the liaison to the Center. In certain cases, 

in off-the-record discussions with attorneys before or after a regularly scheduled

meeting, one of the two judges also mentioned the prospect of video recording. The 

court kept little formal documentation regarding notices and consents/declinations. 

The presiding judge and participating counsel were provided with a copy of the video 

recording within ten days of a recorded proceeding and had thirty days to review the 

recording and notify the court in writing of any desire to withdraw consent for posting the recording.

Northern District of California

The court implemented the pilot project on October 3, 2011. The court did not limit 

case eligibility for recording but expected to record primarily cases of public interest. 

Generally, the participating judges waited for a party or other entity—for example, 

the media—to file a request to video record a specific proceeding, although in at least 

 

7. In May 2012, the chair of the CACM Committee sent a memo to the pilot courts suggesting 

that courts adopt a systematic approach to notification and consent to facilitate collection of comprehensive and more uniform data across the courts. The Committee did not require such procedures, 

however, because of its commitment to a pilot project that was fully voluntary.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

9

one instance a presiding judge initiated the process. The court’s website provided information on how to request that a proceeding be video recorded and was considered 

one of the methods for noticing parties, the public, and others of the opportunity to 

video record courtroom proceedings. The court adopted a uniform process for acting 

on requests to record, giving the clerk’s office responsibility for notifying parties and 

managing consents and declinations. When a request was received, clerk’s office staff 

notified all parties of the request and received the written consents and declinations. 

If a declination was received, the consent process was over and no further effort was 

made to obtain responses. The court’s liaison sent the Center the completed notice 

and consent forms for proceedings in which there was a written request to video record a proceeding.

Southern District of Florida

The court implemented the pilot project on January 20, 2012. The court did not limit 

case eligibility, instead leaving it to each judge to determine which case types and proceedings might be appropriate for video recording. Participating judges typically 

spoke about the pilot project with attorneys on a case-by-case basis and received party 

responses orally. Two exceptions were a judge who, at the initial scheduling conference, gave written notice of the opportunity to record proceedings and a judge who, 

through the trial scheduling notice, notified all parties scheduled for trial that recording was possible. If the judges did not hear back from the parties, they assumed there 

was not consent to video record. The court’s liaison sent the written notices for specific proceedings and party consent forms to the Center.

District of Guam

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011. The one judge in the District of Guam selected cases and proceedings in which she thought there would be 

substantial public interest. In those cases, a Notification of Request for Video Recording was docketed, and parties were asked to file their responses on a form provided 

by the court, although in some cases the parties declined verbally, without filing the 

form. The court’s liaison kept a list of all notified cases and provided the corresponding documentation to the Center.

Northern District of Illinois

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011. The court did not limit 

case eligibility and left it to each judge to select proceedings appropriate to video record and to notify parties and receive consent forms. It appears that only a few judges 

developed standard procedures in their chambers for handling notifications and responses. One judge, for example, orally mentioned recording to attorneys in cases with 

an upcoming jury trial or substantial hearing and had her courtroom deputy follow up 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

10

with the attorneys by e-mail, providing them with consent/declination forms. Another 

judge entered a minute entry on the docket notifying attorneys in selected trials of the 

request to video record and asked them to indicate their consent/declination in their 

proposed pretrial orders. A third judge included a paragraph in her standard form for 

the parties’ report of their Rule 26(f) planning meeting in which they were to indicate 

any expected evidentiary hearings and to certify that they had consulted the court’s 

policy on cameras in the courtroom and would submit the Response to Recording 

Request when appropriate. This approach was used occasionally by a handful of other 

judges. Because no court-wide approach was adopted, it is possible that other judges 

may have informally discussed the prospect of recording with parties in a way not 

reflected in the docket and not resulting in recording.

Southern District of Iowa

The court implemented the pilot project on August 29, 2011. It adopted standardized 

procedures for notifying parties of proceedings eligible for recording and for obtaining consents and declinations. Parties received a notice when an initial scheduling 

order was docketed with a date set for trial; they then received additional notices as 

other proceedings were scheduled. Written consent or declination responses were required from parties seven days before the scheduled proceeding. If parties failed to 

respond within the time frame (a frequent occurrence), clerk’s office staff made contact to determine whether a proceeding might be recorded. In such instances, no written consent or declination was available. Staff, however, recorded notice and consent 

information on each case in a spreadsheet designed for internal use, which they provided the Center. Case-type eligibility was not limited, although judges refrained from

recording hearings involving prisoners and conducted by videoconference.

District of Kansas

The court implemented the pilot project on November 7, 2011. Approximately a year 

into the pilot project, the court changed its procedure from opt-in to opt-out—i.e., 

the court presumed that the parties in any scheduled courtroom proceeding consented to video recording unless a party affirmatively declined. A page on the court’s 

website described the pilot project, including the presumption that all courtroom 

proceedings would be video recorded. When the court sent a notice (via CM/ECF) 

setting a proceeding date, the court simultaneously notified the parties that the proceeding would be recorded. Within this framework, the court left it to each judge to 

decide how much to encourage parties to consent and to determine the timing of 

declinations. The court requested that declinations be submitted in writing in advance of the proceeding but in practice also accepted written declinations made by 

parties who came to a proceeding and had forgotten to submit declinations earlier. 

The court’s liaison sent the Center the written declinations on a periodic basis.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

11

District of Massachusetts

The court implemented the pilot project on October 17, 2011. The court did not limit 

case eligibility and left it to each judge to determine which proceedings were appropriate for video recording. The participating judges were assisted by the court’s study 

liaison, who helped identify proceedings and managed the notice and consent process. Formal notice of the request to record a proceeding was sent to parties via the 

court’s CM/ECF system, and written party responses were received by the liaison. If 

a declination was received, the consent process was over and no further effort was 

made to obtain responses. The liaison kept a spreadsheet with information on each 

proceeding, which she periodically sent to the Center.

Eastern District of Missouri

The court implemented the pilot project on August 20, 2012. The court did not limit 

case eligibility and left it to each judge to determine proceedings appropriate for recording. Staff in the clerk’s office—primarily the staff member who was also the liaison to the Center—helped identify suitable proceedings for some judges. If the judge 

agreed, a letter was sent to counsel from the clerk’s office asking them to indicate 

whether they consented. The judge also sometimes discussed the matter in a pretrial 

conference, and not all responses were formally recorded. At least one judge mentioned a presumption of recording in every civil case-management order for a period 

of time, telling parties the case was eligible for the pilot project and that they needed 

to send a notice of nonparticipation if they chose not to consent.

District of Nebraska

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011. The court adopted standardized procedures for notifying parties of eligibility for recording and for obtaining 

consents and declinations. Whenever a trial was scheduled in a civil case, the courtroom deputy for the judge would docket a Notification of Request for Video Recording, giving the parties a deadline for responding, normally two weeks before the 

scheduled proceeding. Judges also occasionally identified additional hearings for 

video recording, and parties in those proceedings received notification. The court set 

up its CM/ECF system to also notify the Center of each notification that was sent out. 

As the date of the hearing approached, the courtroom deputy for the presiding judge 

sent a reminder regarding consent to parties who had not yet responded. The Center 

was automatically notified of all docket activity involving party consents or declinations.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

12

Northern District of Ohio

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011. Individual judges determined which proceedings were appropriate for video recording, but in practice the 

judges focused on upcoming trials. The judges also determined the timing and procedure used to provide notice and gain consent. A court staff member systematically 

e-mailed notice and consent forms to parties on behalf of two participating judges; if 

there was no response, non-consent was assumed. This practice was in effect for almost half of the project’s duration, but it ended upon the staff member’s retirement, 

at which point notice and consent for the two judges became less formalized. 

Throughout the project, two other judges used informal procedures, discussing the 

project with parties and asking for consent (usually oral and undocumented) either 

at the final settlement conference or at the start of trial. Court liaisons sent the Center 

forms that were generated by the notice and consent procedures and provided information on some additional proceedings in a spreadsheet kept for internal use.

Southern District of Ohio

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011, adopting a standardized 

procedure for notifying parties of eligibility to record proceedings and automating 

much of the procedure for obtaining consent/declination. In cases assigned to three 

participating judges for which there was a trial request, the court sent written notice 

of the opportunity to video record; cases not on a trial track were ineligible for recording. Notices were automated through CM/ECF with a link to a general consent 

form for counsel to indicate whether they agreed to consider video recording future 

proceedings. Counsel were not required to act on the notice and rarely did so; failure 

to respond was treated as non-consent. Chambers staff were alerted to the few cases 

where consent to consider recording was obtained; they were then responsible to ask 

parties with upcoming proceedings whether they would consent to record the proceeding. The court’s liaison sent forms to the Center for cases in which there was an 

affirmative consent or declination. 

Western District of Tennessee

The court implemented the pilot project on July 18, 2011. The court did not limit 

case eligibility and left it to each judge to select proceedings appropriate for the pilot 

project. When a judge identified an appropriate proceeding, the court sent a formal 

notice to the parties via the CM/ECF system, along with the order scheduling the proceeding. The parties notified chambers directly whether they consented or declined. 

The court’s liaison provided the Center with a CM/ECF-generated list of the proceedings that received notice and the proceedings that were video recorded.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

13

Western District of Washington

The court received a request for video recording in March 2012, but full implementation of its pilot project awaited the arrival of recording equipment in October 2012. 

By then, the district had adopted a standardized procedure for notifying parties about 

the opportunity to record proceedings and was also able to automate procedures for 

obtaining consent/declination. Counsel were required to state in the court’s early 

joint status report whether they agreed to consider video recording of future proceedings. Where counsel agreed, the court sent a written request, each time there was a 

proceeding, to determine the parties’ willingness to video record. Failure by a party 

to respond to the request before, typically, five days in advance of the proceeding was 

deemed non-consent. Court staff provided the Center with a spreadsheet showing 

summary information on notice and consent for each case and proceeding. Except 

for prisoner cases and civil commitments, the court did not limit case-type eligibility.

As these descriptions make clear, the pilot courts varied considerably in their implementation of video recording and in the information they recorded about notices and 

consents. In the next section, we describe the courts’ experiences with the pilot project 

in terms of the number of proceedings the courts noticed, the number of consents 

received, and the number of recordings made in each district, based on the records 

kept by the courts.

The Pilot Project in Numbers

In this section we report quantitative information about the number and types of 

proceedings noticed and recorded, the sources of notices or requests to record, and 

parties’ reasons for not consenting to record. The information comes from forms 

generated or collected by the pilot courts, reviews of docket activity in courts that 

reflected pilot activity on the docket, survey responses from judges and attorneys, and 

interviews with court staff and judges who had recorded a proceeding.

Number of Video Recordings Posted

The first video recording of the pilot project was made on July 21, 2011, three days 

after the project officially began, when the Western District of Tennessee recorded a 

preliminary injunction hearing filed by a television news anchor alleging a website 

had misused her face in pictures it posted on the site. The Northern District of Ohio 

followed two weeks later when it recorded a trial, held between August 2 and 11, in a 

breach of contract case between a hospital and a supplier of anesthesia equipment. 

Subsequently, all but one district posted at least one proceeding to the federal courts’ 

website, for a total of 158 proceedings recorded and posted over the four-year pilot 

project, as shown in Table 4.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

14

Several districts posted notably more proceedings than others—Kansas, Iowa 

Southern, Massachusetts, and Tennessee Western—which invites the question,

“Why?” Is something common to these districts and not characteristic of others that 

might explain the higher number of recordings? We think there are two primary explanations. 

First, some—but not all—of the districts with higher numbers of consents and 

recordings have a process that either notifies all eligible proceedings of the opportunity to video record or presumes that all proceedings will be recorded unless the 

parties affirmatively opt out (Iowa Southern and the District of Kansas typify each of 

the two approaches). 

These approaches are not essential, however, as we see relatively high numbers of 

consents and recordings in some courts that do not use such methods.8 A second reason, and the one that explains the relatively high number of recordings in such courts, 

is the level of judicial interest in using video recording and, in most instances, the 

expansiveness of the judge’s view about the types of proceedings that were appropriate. In four of the pilot courts (Florida Southern, Massachusetts, Ohio Northern, and 

Tennessee Western), many, and in two of these courts nearly all, of the recordings 

were made before a single judge. And in three of these four courts, the judge video 

recorded a wide range of proceedings, including hearings on routine motions. For a 

fifth pilot court (Iowa Southern), which had the highest number of recorded proceedings, both explanations apply: the court automatically notified large numbers of 

cases of the opportunity to record, and a single judge accounted for a large number 

of the recorded proceedings.

 

8. The number of consents in one pilot district may be high relative to another pilot district, but 

all numbers are low relative to the total number of civil cases pending in the 14 pilot courts. Across the 

four years of the study, the average annual pending caseload ranged from a low of 174 in Guam to a 

high of 12,712 in Illinois Northern, with a mean across all courts of 4,448 pending cases (Source:

http://jnet.ao.dcn/resources/statistics/fed-court-statistics/fcms-june-2015-district-courts).
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

15

Table 4: Number of Video Recorded Courtroom Proceedings Posted for Public 

Viewing at www.uscourts.gov, by District, as of July 18, 2015

District

Number of Proceedings 

Posted at Website

AL-M 1

CA-N 3

FL-S 10

GU 3

IL-N 2

IA-S 34

KS 26

MA 26

MO-E 2

NE 6

OH-N 11

OH-S 0

TN-W 22

WA-W 12

Total 158

Our interviews with judges who had recorded at least one proceeding suggest that 

some judges in courts with low levels of recording were reluctant to promote video 

recording of proceedings. As one judge, who sat in a court where requests for consent 

were left to judges, explained, “I didn’t push [recording] at all. I didn’t want to send a 

message that they’d be ‘disappointing the judge’ if they didn’t consent.” Another judge, 

in describing her court’s practice of having the notification letter sent out from the 

clerk’s office, said, “As judges, we weren’t trying to put pressure on people.” 

Other judges pointed out that requesting video recording was not necessarily on 

their minds, because multiple other aspects of a scheduled proceeding competed for 

their attention. One judge said, “Sometimes informing the parties was just overlooked. Cases come off the calendar; hearings are rescheduled; things just happen. I 

probably didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to broach the project as much as I 

could have.” Another judge, from a court in which relatively few judges participated, 

said, “I think some of the other judges were not thrilled to have to undertake another 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

16

task. I believe many of them just did not think about the pilot project; it wasn’t routine.” A third judge said, “I have a lot on my plate, so haven’t pursued the parties. I 

suppose if we asked, we could get more (consents).”

Thus, part of the variation in numbers of recorded proceedings could result from 

different views about the role of the judge and the types of proceedings appropriate 

for recording, as well as different views about the priority placed on notifying parties 

and encouraging them to record.

Number of Proceedings Notified of a Request to Record and Ultimately Recorded

As part of the project data collection, we asked the pilot courts to keep records of 

proceedings notified of the opportunity to video record and whether the parties consented or declined the opportunity to video record the proceeding. As we described 

in the preceding section, however, the courts’ notice and consent procedures varied 

so widely that we have quite divergent data on notices and consents. We present the 

data in Table 5, below. 

Column 1 in Table 5 shows the number of proceedings (not cases) that were notified of the opportunity to video record. Column 2 shows the subset of notified proceedings in which all parties consented to record. The numbers presented in these two 

columns reflect the proceedings for which there is evidence of notification and consent in either court records or in forms that were developed for the project. Courts 

found it difficult to track instances in which a judge spoke informally with attorneys 

about recording a proceeding or received only an oral declination during a discussion. 

In courts where such overtures were frequent, the notification numbers of column 1 

could be a substantial undercount. 

Columns 3 through 5 in Table 5 show what happened to proceedings in which there 

was consent to record. Column 3 reports the number of consented proceedings actually 

held, which sets a threshold for how many proceedings could actually be video recorded. Column 4 reports the number of proceedings that ultimately were video recorded, and column 5 shows the number that were posted for the public to view.

Documented notice was given to parties in 1,512 proceedings. Parties in many proceedings declined video recording, doing so by affirmatively turning down the opportunity to video record or by not responding if responses were not required. Parties in 

228 proceedings, or 15% of those noticed, did, however, consent to video recording. Of 

the consented proceedings, 192 (84%) were actually held, and of those, 186 proceedings, or 97% of those that were held, were recorded. For reasons not in the record, six

were not. Most of the recorded proceedings were posted on the federal courts’ public 

website—158 altogether, or 85% of those that were recorded, but 28 of those recorded 

were not posted. Again, court records do not show the reasons, although judges and 

staff noted some reasons in questionnaires and interviews, as discussed on page 18.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

17

Table 5: Number of Courtroom Proceedings Noticed, Consented, Held, 

Recorded, and Posted, as of July 18, 2015

District

1

Number of 

Proceedings 

Notified of 

Opportunity 

To Record

2

Number of 

Proceedings 

with Consent 

To Record

3

Number of 

Consented 

Proceedings 

Where Proceeding Was Held

4

Number of 

Proceedings 

Video 

Recorded

5

Number of 

Proceedings 

Posted at 

www.uscourts.gov

AL-M 1a 1 1 1 1

CA-N 12 4 3 3 3

FL-S 52 18 10 10 10

GU 10 3 3 3 3

IA-S 418b 67 48 37 34

IL-N 22c 4 3 3 2

KS 52d 27 27 27 26

MA 240 42 41 47 26

MO-E 10 2 2 2 2

NE 285 6 6 6 6

OH-N 38 16 13 13 11

OH-S 313

0–5 estimated 

(precise figure

not known)

0–5 estimated 

(precise figure 

not known)

0 0

TN-W 32 24 23 22 22

WA-W 27e 14 12 12 12

Total 1,512 228 192 186 158

a. We learned after our analyses were completed that two additional cases in AL-M had been noticed and recorded

during the pilot. Neither was posted, however, likely because this district permitted attorneys to withdraw consent 

for posting within 30 days after a recorded proceeding.

b. This number is an undercount of proceedings that were provided notice of the opportunity to record. It does 

not include, for example, every case that terminated short of the date set for trial in the initial scheduling order and 

for which no party consent or declination was received. 

c. This number does not include 138 cases in which the Rule 26(f) planning meeting report filed by the parties at 

the direction of the judge acknowledged the pilot project, noted upcoming proceedings that could potentially be 

eligible for recording, and indicated that parties should file appropriate forms to request recording.

d. This number reflects the proceedings for which the court had forms submitted by the parties. It almost surely 

does not represent the number of proceedings that were scheduled for the courtrooms and that were consequently 

subject to the presumption that they would be video recorded.

e. This number reflects only proceedings scheduled under one of two circumstances: cases where parties had indicated 

through prescreening their willingness to consider video recording and the relatively small number of cases receiving 

notification outside of the court’s standardized procedures. It does not reflect the number of cases in which parties 

learned of the pilot project through the order on the joint status report, which then required them to state whether they 

would consider a future request to video record a scheduled proceeding. According to court records, parties in 1,161 

cases were apprised of the project by September 18, 2015, and 306 (26%) agreed to consider a future request. Of these 

306 cases, 218 (71%) closed without a proceeding eligible to be recorded. 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

18

Note the steep decline between the number of noticed proceedings and the number 

of proceedings with consent to record (columns 1 and 2). The decline is not wholly a 

reflection of parties’ or judges’ reluctance to record. As noted in the discussion of procedures for notification and consent, proceedings in which parties were notified of an opportunity to record were linked in two courts (Iowa Southern and Nebraska) to the 

scheduling of a trial that was often set a year or more in the future. Party responses were 

not due until close to the trial date, and most cases terminated short of trial, with therefore no decision made by parties to consent or not. A similar effect occurred on a lesser 

scale with other types of proceedings in these and several other courts. 

In such instances, we often cannot know whether parties would or would not have 

declined the recording of the proceeding, had it taken place. The normal progression 

of cases through the courts produces attrition that affects the opportunity for a recording to take place. Just over a third of all proceedings notified of the opportunity 

to record (34%), for example, were not actually held.9

Data from interviews, discussions with liaisons, and our survey of pilot court judges 

give us some information about recordings that were made but not posted. Interviews 

and discussion with court staff revealed that the quality of a recording was sometimes 

not good enough to post a recording online or that judges sometimes held back a recording if a party expressed post-recording reservations. In the judge survey, three 

judges told us they held back a recording for reasons of poor quality, and another judge 

indicated that a recording was not posted because it offered no content of public interest. No judge who responded to the survey selected three other possible reasons for not 

posting a recording: content not compliant with pilot guidelines, a party request not to 

post, or the recording was made for another purpose. 

Interviews with judges revealed some additional reasons for not posting a recorded 

proceeding. One judge, for example, indicated that he decided not to post a proceeding 

in which a witness had testified at length about why another individual was lying. The 

judge did not think the information given by the witness was false, but believed the 

testimony was overly personal and therefore not suitable for posting. He went on to 

say, “A judge needs to think about the benefits gained by posting an inflammatory or 

personal recording because it becomes part of the permanent record. This is an area 

where judges need more guidance.” Another judge described a situation in which an 

exhibits camera recorded confidential evidence that should not have been captured. 

Although the judge originally instructed IT staff to edit out the confidential information, that task proved to be too burdensome and time consuming, so the judge de-

 

9. The percentage of the study’s noticed proceedings that were actually held is derived from data 

we coded from PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or that were furnished by the pilot 

courts. The data do not appear in the tables of the report, but are available on request.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

19

cided that the recordings from the exhibits camera would not be uploaded. And another judge decided not to post a recorded proceeding because it was made in a hearing

held by videoconference, and the fact that everyone was not in the same location made 

it “awkward” in terms of recording.

We also know from interviews that at least two judges had proceedings recorded 

(with party consent) for a purpose other than posting online: one for his own use in 

reviewing complex patent evidence and the other for use in teaching law school classes. A third judge recorded (with a camcorder) a hearing held at an outdoor site visit, 

but did not post that recording, as she made the recording primarily to help capture 

what was said for her later review. In addition, several pilot courts at least occasionally 

used the video equipment for purposes other than recording a case proceeding, such 

as for investitures, naturalization or other ceremonies, moot court proceedings, and 

streaming video to an overflow courtroom (without recording).

Types of Proceedings Noticed and Recorded

Table 6, below, presents the wide range of proceeding types that the pilot courts video 

recorded. Trials are very likely the expected choice for video recording, and they were 

certainly the most frequently notified of the opportunity to record—973 notices (or 

64% of all notified proceedings)10—but the most common type of proceeding actually 

video recorded and posted was a hearing—110 altogether (or 70% of all posted recordings). Among the types of hearings recorded and posted, hearings on dispositive 

motions were the most numerous (24, or 22% of posted hearings), but evidentiary 

hearings appear prominently as well (19, or 17% of posted hearings). Jury trials were 

the least likely proceeding to be consented, recorded, and posted (31, or 4% of jury 

trials notified), but this is largely because trials in general, and jury trials in particular, 

were the least likely noticed proceeding type to be held (13% for jury trials, compared 

to non-trial proceedings, of which between 79% and 100% were held, depending on 

type).11

 

10. This large number is partly an artifact of the Iowa Southern and Nebraska practices of noticing 

all cases at the time a trial date was set.

11. See note 9, supra.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

20

Table 6: Number of Proceedings Noticed, Consented, Held, and Posted, by Type of 

Proceeding

Type of Proceeding

Number of 

Proceedings 

Notified of 

Opportunity 

To Record

Number of 

Proceedings

with Consent 

To Record

Number of 

Consented 

Proceedings 

Where Proceeding 

Was Held

Number of 

Recordings 

Posted to 

www.uscourts.gov

Conference 48 14 11 8

Hearing, dispositive 

motion 119 34 33 24

Hearing, evidentiary 

(including Markman & 

Daubert)

58 22 22 19

Hearing, settlement/fairness 9 2 2 1

Hearing, TRO/

preliminary injunction 19 8 7 7

Hearing, other 286 84 74 59

Trial, jury 827 48 33 31

Trial, non-jury 130 11 7 7

Trial, unspecified 16 5 3 2

Total 1,512 228 192 158

Types of Cases Noticed and Recorded

Table 7, below, reports the number of proceedings video recorded by type of case. 

Case types that received the largest number of notices of the opportunity to record were 

civil rights, contracts, and personal injury/product liability cases, along with cases classified under the “other statutes” category. Not surprisingly, these are among the most 

common case types filed in federal courts. Two other common types of cases, prisoner 

and Social Security cases, were noticed far less often, reflecting the policy or practice in 

many courts of excluding these case types from the pilot project.

Of the most frequently notified case types (i.e., at least 100 noticed cases), the case 

types most likely to consent were those classified as patent/copyright/trademark, 

other statutes, and labor (37%, 17%, and 15%, respectively). Patent/copyright/trademark cases were the most likely to be recorded and posted: 26% of those notified 

resulted in a recording posted online.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

21

Table 7: Number of Proceedings Noticed, Consented, Held, and Posted, by Type of 

Case

Type of Case (NOS Code)

Number of 

Proceedings 

Notified of

Opportunity 

To Record

Number of 

Proceedings 

with Consent 

To Record

Number of 

Consented 

Proceedings 

Where 

Proceeding 

Was Held

Number of 

Recordings 

Posted to 

www.uscourts.gov

Civil Rights 428 56 47 40

Contracts 327 39 35 27

Torts: Personal 

Injury/Product Liability 173 14 12 11

Labor 144 22 17 13

Patent/Copyright/

Trademark 107 40 31 28

Prisoner Petitions 46 12 11 8

Real Property 40 4 4 3

Torts: Personal Property 38 7 6 4

Federal Tax Suits 15 0 0 0

Forfeiture/Penalty 15 0 0 0

Bankruptcy 6 1 1 1

Social Security 4 3 2 1

Immigration 2 1 1 1

Other Statutes 167 29 25 21

Total 1,512 228 192 158

Sources of Requests or Suggestions to Record

From information provided by the courts, we know who initiated the notice to parties 

of the opportunity to have their proceeding video recorded. As Table 8, below, shows, 

and as we would expect from the procedures used by the courts, the most common 

source of the request to video record was the automatic notice sent by several pilot 

courts. Of the 1,512 proceedings that were notified of the opportunity to video record, 1,374 received notification because it was the court’s practice to send such notices. In 110 instances, the judge suggested that the proceeding be recorded. In many 

fewer proceedings, the source of the request to video record was the media, a party, 

or the public.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

22

Table 8: Source of the Request, or the Suggestion, to Video Record a Proceeding

Source of the Request or Suggestion

Number of Proceedings 

Subject to That Type of Source

Court notice 1,374

Judge 110

Media 18

Party 6

Pubic 3

Unknown 1

Total 1,512

Party Reasons for Non-Consent to Video Recording

From records kept by the courts, we know, to some extent, the reasons parties declined 

to video record a proceeding. We have this information only for parties who submitted 

forms on which they stated reasons. For some proceedings, no parties submitted forms, 

which some courts, depending on their procedures, interpreted as a declination. For 

other proceedings, parties submitted forms declining to record, but did not (or could 

not, if the court used a form that did not provide a place for the information) state a 

reason. Some courts affirmatively called or e-mailed parties that had not responded, 

but if one party to the case declined to record, attempts to reach all parties would usually be halted, since responses by additional parties would make no difference in the 

outcome. Accordingly, the information we present about the reasons given for declining the opportunity to video record is illustrative but not complete.

Table 9, below, describes the reasons submitted for parties’ decisions to decline to 

video record their proceedings. Parties most often declined for reasons of confidentiality—177 instances altogether, including confidentiality of proprietary or business 

information, personal or medical information, and information covered by a protective order. Closely related, parties in 39 instances were concerned about exposure of 

a non-public figure, and in 18 instances parties were concerned about publicity. In 45

instances, parties simply stated that they did not want their proceedings video recorded.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

23

Table 9: Reasons Parties Gave for Declining the Opportunity to Video Record a 

Proceeding

Reason for Declining to Video Record

Number of 

Proceedings for Which 

at Least One Party Gave 

this Reason*

Protect confidential proprietary or business information 51

Protect confidential medical, psychological, or other personal 

information 44

Protect confidential financial information 43

Protect other, unspecified confidential information 29

Protect information in a protective order or confidential 

settlement agreement 10

Party does not wish to be recorded or have proceeding recorded 45

Party wants to prevent exposure of a non-public figure 39

Party does not want publicity, further publicity, or adverse 

publicity 18

Party does not want case tried in the media 2

Recording will make participants anxious or will distract them 15

Video recording would be disruptive, would undermine 

courtroom dignity and decorum 3

A party has fears for personal safety 3

Logistical complications, insufficient time to arrange consent 3

Video recording will prejudice some or all participants 1

Video recording would violate DOJ or other government agency 

policy 1

Other 47

* Parties could give more than one reason for declining. We counted each reason separately, but counted a reason 

only once for each proceeding—i.e., if two parties gave the same reason for a given proceeding, we counted that 

reason once.

Few parties voiced concern about some of the traditional arguments for prohibiting cameras in courtrooms. Parties in 15 proceedings declined because of concerns 

that video recording would make participants anxious or distract them. In three proceedings, there were concerns that video recording would disrupt the decorum and 

dignity of the courtroom, and in two proceedings parties declined because they did 

not want their case tried to the media. The “other” category of declinations includes 

a great variety of reasons that do not fall into the categories above, including statements that the type of proceeding was inappropriate, the testimony would be graphic, 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

24

the issues had no value for the general public, a recording offered no benefit beyond 

what a transcript provides, and recording would not be in the party’s best interests. 

Again, keep in mind that the numbers are not a comprehensive count of the reasons 

for declining to video record, though we have no reason to doubt that their relative 

size is indicative of the frequency of parties’ reasons. 

Pilot Court Judges’ Views of Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings

At the close of the pilot project, we sent an online questionnaire to all judges in the pilot 

courts, whether they had participated in video recording or not. Of the 180 judges who 

received the questionnaire, 61% (110) responded (see Appendix Cfor the questionnaire). 

The respondents included both participants and non-participants in the pilot project—

29 judges and 65 judges, respectively.12 We also interviewed 33 judges—i.e., every judge 

who had presided over a video recorded proceeding, including judges who had only one 

such proceeding (see Appendix C for the interview protocol).

Pilot Court Judges’ Perceptions of Effects of Video Recording on Participants and the Public

Over the years during which the use of cameras in courtrooms has been debated, 

judges, attorneys, researchers, and others have suggested a wide range of possible positive and negative effects from the use of cameras in courtrooms. Although the video 

recording cameras operated by the courts in the pilot project may differ significantly 

from the presence of media cameras in the courtroom, the effects we examined mirror 

those examined by previous research (including ours13), in large part for continuity 

in the type of data collected.

In Table 10, below, we report the pilot court judges’ views of the impact of video 

recording on participants in courtroom proceedings. The numbers come from our 

online questionnaire and include both judges who did and did not participate in the 

pilot project. Recall that we are reporting the judges’ perceptions about the effects of 

video recording and not actual measured effects. Also recall that the views of judges 

in the volunteer pilot courts may not reflect the views of district judges generally. We 

did not survey witnesses or jurors because most of them have little or no courtroom 

experience on which to assess whether they are, for example, nervous because of the 

 

12. Note that not all judges who participated in the pilot project responded to the survey, so the 

numbers of judges who recorded proceedings does not match the number of participants who completed the questionnaire. Note also that 16 survey respondents did not provide a response that permitted classification as “participant” or “non-participant.”

13. Molly Treadway Johnson & Carol Krafka, Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil 

Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Appeals,

Report of the Federal Judicial Center to the Committee on Court Administration and Case 

Management of the Judicial Conference (Federal Judicial Center 1993).
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

25

presence of video recording or because being in a courtroom proceeding itself makes 

them nervous. Thus we rely on more experienced participants—judges and attorneys—for their perceptions of the effects on witnesses and jurors.

The online questionnaire asked judges to assess the degree to which video recording 

has a variety of effects, using a response scale that ranged from “no extent” to “a great 

extent” or, in the alternative, marking “no opinion.” The question about effects, by design, produced a large volume of information. To facilitate analysis and discussion, we 

condensed the categories into fewer than five, recognizing there are multiple ways this 

could be done. 

Different ways of grouping the categories on the response scale can emphasize 

different points. One option would be to group the “small,” “moderate,” and “great” 

effect responses into a single category. This approach reveals the percentage of respondents who perceive any effect at all, regardless of the magnitude of the effect. Another 

option would be to let the “great extent” category stand on its own, while grouping the 

three lower effect categories into a single group. This choice highlights the percentage 

of respondents who see the greatest impact compared to those who see lesser impacts 

(again, regardless of magnitude). How to handle “no opinion” responses is a separate 

question. The percentages that describe judges’ perceptions about effects will be different, depending on whether “no opinion” responses are considered as data—i.e., percentages will be larger for all measures of perceived effects when “no opinion” responses 

are removed. 

In the discussion below, we group the “no extent” and “small extent” responses 

and the “moderate extent” and “great extent” measures. The percentages we show in 

Table 10 are computed with “no opinion” responses retained, but we also provide a 

summary of the findings in text, with “no opinion” removed.14 All the data are presented in the table, which will permit readers to group the data differently if they want 

to make different comparisons. We cannot determine from the survey what lies behind a judge’s choice of the “no opinion” response. Judges may select the option because they have not formed a view on the extent to which a particular effect exists, or 

they may not feel they have enough experience to offer an informed view on the effect. 

For most of the effects of video recording listed in Table 10, the pilot judges’ responses fall disproportionately in columns 1 and 2—i.e., the presence of video recording affects participants to no extent or to a small extent. The responses apply to 

claims for camera coverage that are balanced between purported positive and negative effects (e.g., “motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared” versus 

“causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their presentation”). If we use as our cut-

 

14. Tables showing alternative groupings of the judge survey data are shown in Appendix D.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

26

off the “majority” of judges (i.e., 55 or more of the 110 total respondents to the questionnaire, some of whom provided no opinion), we find that the majority of judges 

think that nearly every effect occurs to little or no extent, whether the impact is on 

witnesses, jurors, attorneys, or judges.

Table 10: Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video 

Recording Has the Listed Effects (N=110)

1

To No 

Extent

2

To a 

Small 

Extent

3

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

4

To a 

Great 

Extent

5

No 

Opinion

6

Total

Motivates witnesses to be 

truthful 55 (51%) 17 (16%) 11 (10%) 0 (0%) 24 (22%) 107

Distracts witnesses 29 (27%) 27 (25%) 17 (16%) 19 (18%) 14 (13%) 106

Makes witnesses more 

nervous than they otherwise 

would be

26 (25%) 32 (31%) 12 (12%) 22 (21%) 11 (11%) 103

Increases juror attentiveness 52 (49%) 20 (19%) 11 (10%) 4 (4%) 18 (17%) 105

Signals to jurors that a 

witness or argument is 

particularly important

54 (50%) 16 (15%) 10 (9%) 8 (7%) 19 (18%) 107

Increases jurors’ sense of 

responsibility for their 

verdict

49 (47%) 22 (21%) 10 (9%) 4 (4%) 20 (19%) 105

Prompts people who see 

coverage to try to influence 

juror-friends

44 (41%) 13 (12%) 14 (13%) 6 (6%) 29 (27%) 106

Causes attorneys to urge 

their clients to consent to 

recording in order to please 

the judge

60 (57%) 16 (15%) 8 (8%) 2 (2%) 20 (19%) 106

Motivates attorneys to come 

to court better prepared 25 (24%) 33 (31%) 30 (28%) 9 (8%) 9 (8%) 106

Causes attorneys to be more 

theatrical in their 

presentation

28 (26%) 20 (19%) 20 (19%) 28 (26%) 10 (9%) 106

Prompts attorneys to be 

more courteous 29 (28%) 33 (31%) 25 (24%) 7 (7%) 11 (10%) 105

 continued on next page
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

27

Table 10 (continued)

1

To No 

Extent

2

To a 

Small 

Extent

3

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

4

To a 

Great 

Extent

5

No 

Opinion

6

Total

Increases judge 

attentiveness 52 (50%) 25 (24%) 12 (11%) 6 (6%) 9 (9%) 104

Causes judges to avoid 

unpopular decisions or 

positions

75 (71%) 11 (10%) 4 (4%) 2 (2%) 14 (13%) 106

Causes judges to be more 

theatrical in conducting the 

proceeding

53 (50%) 29 (27%) 5 (5%) 3 (3%) 16 (15%) 106

Prompts judges to be more 

courteous 41 (39%) 34 (32%) 16 (15%) 4 (4%) 11 (10%) 106

Disrupts courtroom 

proceedings 47 (45%) 25 (24%) 11 (11%) 11 (11%) 10 (10%) 104

Educates the public about 

courtroom procedure 6 (6%) 25 (24%) 37 (36%) 26 (25%) 9 (9%) 103

Educates the public about 

the legal issues in court 

cases

9 (8%) 33 (31%) 33 (31%) 22 (21%) 9 (8%) 106

Increases public access to 

the federal courts 11 (10%) 21 (20%) 29 (27%) 33 (31%) 12 (11%) 106

Decreases public confidence 

in the federal courts 72 (68%) 11 (10%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 17 (16%) 106

Increases public confidence 

in the federal courts 25 (24%) 19 (18%) 20 (19%) 23 (22%) 19 (18%) 106

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 judges. Here and in other tables reporting information from all respondents to the survey, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses to a question.

While the pilot judges think video recording mainly affects participants to no or 

a small extent, they are especially likely to think so regarding effects on judges and 

jurors. Regarding judges, close to three-quarters or more of the respondents think 

video recording has little or no effect in the following ways: causes judges to avoid 

unpopular decisions or positions (86 judges, or 81%); causes judges to be more theatrical (82, or 77%); increases judges’ attentiveness (77, or 74%); or prompts judges 

to be more courteous (75, or 71%). Regarding jurors, two-thirds of the judges think 

video recording has no effect or a small effect in increasing jurors’ attentiveness (72, 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

28

or 69%); increasing jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict (71, or 68%); or 

signaling to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important (70, or 65%). 

In considering judges’ opinions regarding the effects of video recording on judges, 

it is worth noting that several pilot court judges chose not to have themselves shown 

during a recorded proceeding. Similarly, with respect to jurors, some judges did not 

mention to jurors that a trial in which they were serving was being video recorded. In 

these situations, the perceived likelihood of video recording affecting those participants would presumably be diminished.

Singling out the perceived effects video recording may have on witnesses, twothirds of the judges think it has no effect or a small effect in motivating witnesses to 

be truthful (72 judges, or 67%), and half think it has no effect or a small effect in 

distracting them (56, or 53%) or making them nervous (58, or 56%). With regard to 

attorneys, nearly three-quarters of the judges think video recording of court proceedings has no effect or a small effect in causing them to urge their clients to consent to 

please the judge (76, or 72%), while somewhat more than half the judges think it has 

no effect or a small effect on motivating them to come to court better prepared (58, 

or 55%) or prompting them to be more courteous (62, or 59%). More than twothirds of the pilot judges also think video recording has no effect or a small effect in 

disrupting courtroom proceedings (72, or 69%).

Regarding the effect of video recording on the public, most pilot judges think it 

has no effect or a small effect on decreasing public confidence in the federal courts 

(83 judges, or 78%), but their views are evenly balanced on whether it increases public 

confidence in the federal courts (44, or 42%, saying no effect or a small effect and 43, 

or 41%, saying a moderate or great effect). Somewhat more than half the judges think 

video recording has a moderate or great effect on increasing public access to the federal courts (62, or 58%) and educating the public about courtroom procedure (63, or 

61%). Half (55, or 52%) think it educates the public about legal issues in court cases. 

These effects on the public are the only effects where a majority of the pilot judges 

think the effect occurs to a moderate or great extent. To find any sizable number of 

judges who think an effect occurs to a moderate or great extent, we have to extend 

our definition of “sizable” to include a third or more of the responding judges. Using 

that cut-off, the following additional effects of video recording are reported as moderate or great: causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their presentation (48 judges, 

or 45%); motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared (39, or 37%); and distracts witnesses (36, or 34%).

A sizable minority of pilot judges—though still a minority—reported having no 

opinion on some of the listed effects of video recording. Twenty or more judges did not 

offer a view on the following effects: prompts people who see coverage to try to influence friends serving as jurors (29 judges, or 27%); motivates witnesses to be truthful 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

29

(24, or 22%); increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict (20, or 19%); and 

causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to please the judge (20, or 19%).

If we remove judges who indicated they had no opinion from each analysis of a 

perceived potential effect, the percentages in each of the remaining categories (to no 

extent, to a small extent, to a moderate extent, and to a great extent) are necessarily 

higher. Using that analysis, the percentage of pilot judges who thought the presence 

of video recording moderately or greatly causes attorneys to be more theatrical in 

their presentation rises to 50%. The percentages who thought recording moderately 

or greatly distracts witnesses or makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise 

would be rises to 39% and 37%, respectively. One-third or fewer of judges who provided an opinion believed any other potentially negative effects occurred to a moderate or great extent. In terms of positive potential effects, two-thirds of judges who 

expressed an opinion thought video recording moderately or greatly increases public 

access to the federal courts and educates the public about courtroom procedure (66% 

and 67%, respectively).15

Following these questions about effects, two open-ended questions gave pilot 

judges an opportunity to comment on any other benefits or harms produced by video 

recording of court proceedings.16 The benefits mentioned most frequently by the 35

judges who responded (about a third of whom had recording experience in the pilot) 

were increasing public access to, confidence in, and understanding of the federal 

courts. Example comments include:

. . . Anything that improves public access to and awareness of what we do in 

court is good in so many ways. It affirms our special tradition of open and public 

proceedings, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the rule of law and impartial 

justice, the separation of powers, the role of the Constitution, and more. 

[from a judge who wanted to participate but did not have the opportunity]

I have advocated cameras in the courtroom for years, as I believe it is consistent with our mission to educate the public about what we do, and because 

I believe that complete transparency can only enhance overall confidence in 

the courts. 

[from a judge who recorded more than one proceeding]

Other potential benefits cited included the following: improving attorney performance through use of the video recordings in training; assisting the presiding judge 

or a reviewing court by having a video record of the proceeding; prompting attorneys 

 

15. Appendix D, Tables 5.a and 5.b, provides an additional analysis that looks at the differences 

between participating and non-participating judges’ views of video recordings’ effects.

16. All judge and attorney responses to open-ended questions on the questionnaires can be found 

in Appendix F.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

30

to be more courteous and better prepared; and making media reports of a court proceeding more accurate. Three judges, in response to the question about benefits, said 

they did not see any benefits of video recording or that potential harms outweighed 

any benefit.

With respect to potential harms from video recording, among the 31 pilot judges 

who commented (12 of whom had recording experience in the pilot), the most commonly cited potential harms had to do with influencing the behavior of or putting stress 

on attorneys, witnesses, and jurors. Illustrative comments include:

I continue to think that, on the whole, the risk of increased lawyer, and sometimes judge, theatrics, as well as increased anxiety and pressure on witnesses, 

jurors, staff, and judges far outweighs any benefit flowing from video recording.

[from a judge who wanted to participate but did not have the opportunity]

The only real harm is the decorum of the court and the stress on the participants. I think trials are already stressful enough for the lawyers that the 

added pressures of having to think about how what they say and do looks 

like on TV is potentially an unnecessary burden for them to bear. The parties 

are rightfully more concerned about their case and what’s at stake than about 

educating the public. 

[from a judge who did not want to participate]

Other potential harms noted include the following: jurors potentially watching 

proceedings or having others comment about proceedings to a juror; the risk of 

equipment problems; and distracting the participants, each of which was mentioned 

by one or two respondents. Ten judges who responded to this question, nine of whom 

had recording experience under the program, indicated that they did not believe 

video recording causes harms or that any potential harms can be controlled by the 

judge, for example:

My experience tells me that no meaningful harm is presented by the presence 

of cameras in the courtroom. There are sufficient protective steps available 

to the trial judge to handle most if not all potential harm.

[from a judge who participated but did not have a recorded proceeding]

In our interviews with judges who had recorded at least one proceeding during 

the pilot, we also asked them the following question: “Based on your observations, do 

you believe the fact that a proceeding is being video recorded affects any of the participants—yourself, attorneys, witnesses, jurors—in a significant way, either positively or negatively?” Of the 29 judges who responded to this question, 23 reported 

that they did not think there were any effects. Six judges said they had noticed effects, 

including the following: better preparation by attorneys (2 judges); attorneys being 

slightly more vociferous or theatrical (2 judges); attorney presentations being more 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

31

formalized (1 judge); attorneys and the judge being more attentive (1 judge); attorneys acting better towards each other (1 judge); and one attorney acting more nervous 

(1 judge), although that judge was not certain if the increased nervousness was attributable to the recording.

None of the judges responding to this interview question mentioned any effects 

on jurors or witnesses. As one judge said, “The jurors didn’t seem particularly interested [in the fact the proceeding was being recorded]. They didn’t seem to notice.” 

Pilot Court Judges’ Views on the Operational and Administrative Effects of Video 

Recording 

A number of negative operational and administrative effects of video recording had 

also been suggested prior to the pilot project. Table 11, below, reports the extent to 

which these possible effects were realized, as assessed by the 25 questionnaire respondents who had presided over a video recorded proceeding. Again, judges assessed 

these effects on a scale that ranged from “no extent” to “a great extent.” And, as with 

the questions about video recordings’ effects, we condense the information in the table for the discussion below. For most effects shown in Table 11, we report the responses in two groups, the first one combining the “no extent” and “little extent” 

responses and the second one the “moderate extent” and “great extent” responses. As 

we discussed on page 25, the categories could be grouped differently, which would 

provide other comparisons.

As is readily apparent from the table, few of the judges who presided over a video 

recorded proceeding experienced the hypothesized operational or administrative effects to a moderate or great extent. One judge of the 25 respondents said that ruling 

on applications for and objections to video recording took too much time “to a great 

extent.” Twelve judges, however, said that operating the video recording equipment 

took too much judge or court staff time with some frequency—to a small extent in 

the view of nine judges and to a moderate or great extent in the view of three judges. 

We will see this assessment echoed below in our discussion of the experience of pilot 

court staff.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

32

Table 11: Extent to Which Judges Who Presided Over a Courtroom Proceeding 

That Was Video Recorded Felt Their Operational and Administrative Concerns 

Were Realized (N=25*)

To No 

Extent

To a 

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

To a 

Great 

Extent

No 

Opinion Total

Ruling on applications for 

and objections to video 

recording took too much 

time

22 2 0 1 0 25

Operating the video equipment took too much of 

judge or court staff time

13 9 2 1 0 25

The presence of cameras 

disrupted courtroom 

proceedings

23 2 0 0 0 25

Someone or something that 

was not appropriate to 

record (e.g., a juror) was 

recorded and disseminated

21 2 0 0 1 24

The judge said or did 

something embarrassing 

that was recorded and 

disseminated

22 1 0 0 1 24

A recording was altered in a 

way that was unfavorable 

to the judge or one of the 

proceeding participants

23 1 0 0 0 24

The judge’s safety was 

compromised by having 

recordings of proceedings 

disseminated

24 0 0 0 0 24

* Only judges who indicated that they had presided over a video recorded proceeding were directed to this question.

For all other operational and administrative effects—disruption of courtroom 

proceedings, recording and dissemination of inappropriate activity, recording and 

dissemination of something embarrassing said or done by the judge, alteration of a 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

33

recording in a way unfavorable to the judge or other participants, and dissemination 

of recordings that would threaten the judge’s safety—no judge who experienced video 

recording reported that any had occurred to a moderate or great extent. One or two 

judges found that some of these effects—disruption of courtroom proceedings (2 

judges), recording and dissemination of inappropriate activity (2 judges), recording 

and dissemination of something embarrassing said or done by the judge (1 judge), 

and alteration of a recording in a way unfavorable to the judge or other participants 

(1 judge)—occurred to a small extent. By far the greatest number of judges with experience, however, found that most of these operational and administrative effects 

had not occurred.

When asked in a follow-up question about any other operational or administrative concerns, two respondents mentioned the need to train court staff to handle the 

video recording, one mentioned technical glitches with the recordings, and one reported problems related to uploading videos to the Administrative Office for posting 

on the public website. In response to a separate question, three judges said they had 

found it necessary to edit out a portion of a proceeding before posting it. Each judge 

gave a different reason: deletion of exhibits that had not been properly redacted; deletion of footage of a juror who was briefly and inadvertently recorded; and limited 

editing of a recording to remove background noise caused by the recording equipment and to remove pre- and post-hearing activity that was not part of the proceeding.

Pilot Court Judges’ Overall Views on Video Recording Proceedings

In Table 12, below, we report the pilot court judges’ overall view of video recording 

courtroom proceedings and making the recordings publicly available. Considering all 

of these judges together, at the conclusion of the pilot project more judges somewhat 

or greatly favor video recording than somewhat or greatly oppose it—53 judges versus

40, or 49% versus 37% of all respondents. 

These overall numbers, however, obscure substantial differences in the views of 

judges who did and did not participate in the pilot project (the second and third 

rows, respectively). A large majority of judges who participated somewhat or greatly 

favor video recording (46 judges, or 72%, compared to 2 judges, or 7%, of those 

who did not participate). Conversely, a large majority of those who did not participate somewhat or greatly oppose video recording (23 judges, or 79%, compared to 

10 judges, or 16%, of those who participated). (The percent who expressed no opinion is similar in the two groups—13% of participants and 14% of non-participants, 

respectively.) 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

34

Table 12: Pilot Court Judges’ Opinions About Video Recording Courtroom 

Proceedings and Making the Recordings Publicly Available*

Greatly 

in Favor

Somewhat 

in Favor

Somewhat 

Opposed

Greatly 

Opposed

No 

Opinion Total

All judges, 2015 

survey

36 

(33%)

17 

(16%)

26 

(24%)

14 

(13%)

15 

(14%) 108

Judges who 

participated in the 

pilot project**

33 

(52%)

13 

(20%)

9 

(14%)

1 

(2%)

8 

(13%) 64

Judges who did not 

participate in the pilot 

project

2 

(7%)

0 

(0%)

12 

(41%)

11 

(38%)

4 

(14%) 29

All judges, 2011 

pre-pilot survey

20 

(17%)

29 

(25%)

31 

(27%) 

21 

(18%)

14 

(12%) 115

* Judges who participated are those who wished to participate but had no consents, those who had at least one 

consent but posted no recordings, and those who had consents and posted recordings. Judges who did not participate are those who did not send notices to parties or seek consents. Those who indicated some “other” role vis-àvis the pilot project are not included in the second and third rows of the table. (See note a to Table 2.)

** This row does not include 65 judges because one participating judge did not answer this question.

As we have before, we must add a caution here about the need to consider this 

information in context. First, all of the participating courts and participating judges 

were volunteers. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that a substantial portion of 

the judges favor video recording proceedings. Nor is it surprising to find that there 

are judges who oppose video recording and who chose not to participate. Second, we 

cannot assume that the views of the judges responding to our survey are representative of the views of judges throughout the federal courts.

The last row in Table 12 reports the overall views on video recording obtained 

from a pre-pilot survey we sent to all pilot court judges in 2011 just as the pilot project 

was beginning (response rate for the 2011 survey was 67%). Judges responding at that 

time to an identical question about their views were almost evenly split between those 

who somewhat or greatly favored video recording and those who somewhat or greatly 

opposed it—49 versus 52 judges, or 43% and 45% of all respondents. Comparing the 

views of the pilot court judges over time shows a slight increase in the number of 

judges who favor video recording, from 43% four years ago to 49% today, and a slight 

decrease in the number of judges who oppose video recording, from 45% to 37%. 

The number of judges who expressed no opinion is similar in 2011 and 2015—12% 

and 14%, respectively.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

35

These modest changes in numbers are not sufficient to support a finding that 

judges’ views may have changed over time or that they may have changed as a result 

of exposure to the pilot project. If there has been a change, it could simply be the 

result of a change in the courts’ composition, as some judges have left the bench and 

new judges have been appointed.17 Our data do show, however, that six of 74 judges 

who responded to both the 2011 and 2015 surveys switched from initial opposition 

to video recording to favoring it, while one judge did the reverse.

Judges were given the opportunity to provide comments after this question, and 

18 of them did so. The most frequent comment topic, raised by three judges, had to 

do with the restrictive conditions of the pilot, particularly the requirement of party 

consent, and whether the costs outweighed the benefits given those restrictions, for 

example:

Philosophically, I support cameras in the courtroom as it provides the modern opportunity for the public to see what really happens in court. However, 

given the quality of the product, the infrequency of parties consenting, and 

the general public lack of interest in most run of the mill civil cases in federal 

court . . . , is it worth the costs in time and equipment for the infrequent 

times it would be very useful to the public, given all the other responsibilities 

of a court?

Two judges commented that video recording increases the transparency and accessibility of the courts, two suggested that recording can negatively impact attorney 

behavior, and two commented that criminal proceedings should also be recorded and 

broadcast.

Pilot Court Judges’ Views on Whether They Would Participate in Video Recording in 

the Future

The findings reported in Table 13, below, show that if the Judicial Conference were 

to permit the use of video recording in district courts in the future, close to two-thirds 

of the judges (68 judges, or 63%) in the pilot courts would permit video recording of 

their courtroom proceedings under the conditions of the pilot project and 22% more 

(24 judges) might permit it—or 85% of the pilot court judges altogether. A small number (16 judges, or 15%) would not permit it. Although half the judges (15) who did not 

participate in the pilot project state that they would not do so in the future either, the 

other half (14) say they would or might permit video recording in their courtrooms. 

And all judges who were participants in the pilot project say they would or might permit 

 

17. Although the change from 2011 to 2015 is modest, we examined two variables that might be 

related to the change in views—age of the judge and years of experience as a judge—and found no 

statistically significant relationship.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

36

video recording in their courtrooms in the future, with the greatest number—57 of the 

64 judges (or 89%)—affirmatively saying they would.

Table 13: Number of Judges Who Would Permit Video Recording if the Judicial 

Conference Were to Authorize Video Recording of Civil Proceedings Under the 

Conditions of the Pilot Project*

Would 

Permit

Would Not 

Permit

Might 

Permit Total

All judges 68 

(63%)

16 

(15%)

24 

(22%) 108

Judges who participated in the pilot 

project**

57 

(89%)

0 

(0%)

7 

(11%) 64

Judges who did not participate in the 

pilot project

4 

(14%)

15 

(52%)

10 

(34%) 29

* Judges who participated are those who wished to participate but had no consents, those who had at least one 

consent but posted no recordings, and those who had consents and posted recordings. Judges who did not participate are those who did not send notices to parties or seek consents. Those who indicated some “other” role 

vis-à-vis the pilot project are not included in the last two rows of the table. (See note a to Table 2.)

** This row does not include 65 judges because one participating judge did not answer this question.

In our interviews with judges who had recorded at least one proceeding, we asked 

if there were any aspects of the pilot project they would change if authority to video 

record courtroom proceedings were continued or expanded. The most frequently 

mentioned change, suggested by eight judges, was to use an “implied consent” procedure, such as that used in the District of Kansas during the pilot project, under 

which a noticed proceeding would presumptively be recorded unless the attorneys 

affirmatively opted out. Four additional judges suggested doing away with the consent requirement and leaving it to the presiding judge whether to record (with part 

of that consideration including whether parties objected); one noted that, under the 

consent requirement of the pilot, “you had to have a perfect storm to get anything 

recorded.” On the other hand, five judges affirmatively mentioned that they would 

preserve the consent requirement, with one explaining that “obtaining the parties’ 

consent [is] paramount. That was a non-negotiable factor.”

The second most frequently mentioned change, supported by seven judges, was 

to expand recording to certain criminal proceedings. Specific types of proceedings 

mentioned in this context were sentencing hearings, changes of plea, and suppression 

hearings. Other changes suggested by more than one judge included making recordings available in a more timely manner (4 judges); allowing the media to do the recording (2 judges); and making recording equipment available in more courtrooms 

(2 judges).
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

37

Attorneys’ Views of Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings

In addition to pilot judges’ views about video recording courtroom proceedings in 

federal district courts, we sought the views of attorneys who participated in the proceedings video recorded during the pilot project. At the close of the project we sent 

an online questionnaire to the 373 attorneys who, according to our records, had an 

active courtroom role in the 158 proceedings posted to www.uscourts.gov (see Appendix C for the questionnaire). Forty-nine percent (or 181 attorneys) completed the 

questionnaire.18

Attorneys’ Perceptions of Effects of Video Recording on Participants and the Public

We asked the attorneys for their views of the effects of video recording on participants 

in the courtroom, presenting the attorneys with the same list of effects we provided 

to judges. Table 14, below, shows the results.19 As was the case when reviewing the 

judge responses, keep in mind that the attorneys are reporting their perceptions—

these findings are not the result of actual measures of effects. As with the judge responses, for the discussion below we group the attorney responses into a “no extent” 

and “small extent” group and a “moderate extent” and “great extent” group (see the 

discussion at page 25). The table, however, displays all the data so readers can group 

the categories as wished to make other comparisons.

Like the judges, attorneys think that most of the hypothesized effects of video recording occur to no extent or to a small extent (see columns 1 and 2), with responses 

falling primarily in the “no extent” category. The one exception to this general finding 

is the attorney response to the effects on the public, which are the only effects that a 

majority of attorneys (i.e., 90 attorneys or more) said occur to a moderate or great extent. These effects, however, are positive—for example, increase public access to the 

federal courts (125 attorneys, or 69%) and educate the public about courtroom procedure (111 attorneys, or 63%). The next highest number of attorneys to see effects occurring to a moderate or great extent are the 54 attorneys (30%) who think video recording motivates attorneys to be better prepared. These percentages are similar even 

when attorneys who expressed no opinion are removed from the analysis, because almost all attorneys expressed an opinion on these potential effects. For all other effects, 

20% or fewer of the attorneys think they occur to a moderate or great extent. 

 

18. Twenty additional attorneys returned the questionnaire but had not participated in the recorded proceeding and thus did not complete the full questionnaire. The response rate for this survey 

was unusually high for a survey of attorneys. We attribute this to the fact that the chief judge in most 

of the pilot courts agreed to have the cover letter for the survey sent out over their name and signature. We are very grateful to them for their help.

19. Appendix E provides detailed tables for the attorney responses, with four alternative groupings 

of the attorney data.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

38

Although attorneys feel that most of the 21 effects listed in Table 14 occur to no 

extent or a small extent, they are especially likely (more than 70% of attorneys) to say 

video recording has the following effects to no extent or a small extent: causes judges 

to avoid unpopular decisions or positions (132 attorneys, or 74%); prompts attorneys 

to be more courteous (137, or 76%); prompts judges to be more courteous (139, or 

77%); causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding (141, or 

78%); decreases public confidence in the federal courts (145, or 81%); causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their presentation (151, or 83%); and disrupts courtroom proceedings (162, or 92%).

Table 14: Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded 

Proceedings Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Listed Effects (N=181)

1

To No 

Extent

2

To a 

Small 

Extent

3

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

4

To a 

Great 

Extent

5

No 

Opinion

6

Total

Motivates witnesses to be 

truthful

71 

(40%)

18

(10%)

19

(11%)

7

(4%)

63

(35%) 178

Distracts witnesses 79 

(45%)

40

(23%)

7

(4%)

4

(2%)

47

(27%) 177

Makes witnesses more nervous 

than they otherwise would be

70

(39%)

45

(25%)

9

(5%)

7

(4%)

49

(27%) 180

Increases juror attentiveness 48

(27%)

23

(13%)

12

(7%)

5

(3%)

90

(51%) 178

Signals to jurors that a witness 

or argument is particularly 

important

62

(35%)

16

(9%)

16

(9%)

1

(1%)

84

(47%) 179

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict52

(29%)

24

(14%)

12

(7%)

3

(2%)

85

(48%) 176

Prompts people who see 

coverage to try to influence 

juror-friends

60

(33%)

11

(6%)

5

(3%)

1

(1%)

102

(57%) 179

Causes attorneys to urge their 

clients to consent to recording 

in order to please the judge

94

(52%)

30

(17%)

19

(11%)

12

(7%)

24

(13%) 179

continued on next page
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

39

Table 14 (continued)

1

To No 

Extent

2

To a 

Small 

Extent

3

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

4

To a 

Great 

Extent

5

No 

Opinion

6

Total

Motivates attorneys to come to 

court better prepared

67

(37%)

56

(31%)

45

(25%)

9

(5%)

4

(2%) 181

Causes attorneys to be more 

theatrical in their presentation

103

(57%)

48

(26%)

14

(8%)

3

(2%)

13

(7%) 181

Prompts attorneys to be more 

courteous

82

(45%)

55

(30%)

31

(17%)

6

(3%)

7

(4%) 181

Increases judge attentiveness 79

(44%)

35

(20%)

21

(12%)

2

(1%)

41

(23%) 178

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions124

(69%)

8

(4%)

8

(4%)

0

(0%)

39

(22%) 179

Causes judges to be more 

theatrical in conducting the 

proceeding

119

(66%)

22

(12%)

7

(4%)

3

(2%)

29

(16%) 180

Prompts judges to be more 

courteous

83

(46%)

56

(31%)

15

(8%)

3

(2%)

23

(13%) 180

Disrupts courtroom 

proceedings

147

(83%)

15

(8%)

12

(7%)

2

(1%)

1

(1%) 177

Educates the public about 

courtroom procedure

13

(7%)

32

(18%)

43

(24%)

68

(38%)

21

(12%) 177

Educates the public about the 

legal issues in court cases

16

(9%)

37

(21%)

46

(26%)

59

(33%)

20

(11%) 178

Increases public access to the 

federal courts

10

(6%)

34

(19%)

50

(28%)

75

(42%)

11

(6%) 180

Decreases public confidence in 

the federal courts

139

(78%)

6

(3%)

3

(2%)

2

(1%)

28

(16%) 178

Increases public confidence in 

the federal courts

23

(13%)

38

(21%)

38

(21%)

47

(26%)

34

(19%) 180

Compared to the number of attorneys who made assessments regarding video recordings’ effects on witnesses, attorneys, judges, and the public, fewer attorneys assessed the impact on jurors. On all four effects listed in the table regarding jurors, 

nearly half or more of the attorneys said they had no opinion regarding the extent to 

which video recording has an effect. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that 

17% of the proceedings recorded under the pilot project were jury trials (33 of them), 

so many of the responding attorneys would not have participated in a recorded case 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

40

with a jury. Among those who did have an opinion regarding potential effects on jurors, less than 20% of attorneys thought the two positive and two negative effects 

occurred to a moderate or great extent.

The judges’ and attorneys’ views about video recording’s effects are similar in many 

ways, most of all in the general finding that they both see the effects, on the whole, as 

limited. Among the few noteworthy differences are their perceptions on whether video 

recording causes theatrical behavior by judges and attorneys. The judges are more likely 

than the attorneys to say video recording causes theatrical behavior in attorneys to a 

moderate or great extent (45% of the judges compared to 9% of the attorneys). Neither 

is very likely to say video recording causes theatrical behavior on the part of judges to a 

moderate or great extent (8% of judges and 6% of attorneys). More attorneys than 

judges, however, say video recording, to a moderate or great extent, causes attorneys to 

urge their clients to consent to recording to please the judge (17% of attorneys compared to 9% of judges)—though neither is especially high.

After answering these questions about effects, attorneys had an opportunity to 

comment on any additional harms or benefits they thought video recording provided; 

65 attorneys answered this open-ended question. Overall, 23 comments cited benefits, eight noted harms, one noted both a harm and a benefit, 19 were neutral (e.g., 

mentioning that the cameras were not noticeable), and 13 simply explained something about the attorney’s previous questionnaire responses (e.g., that an attorney 

had not answered the questions about effects on jurors because they had not participated in a proceeding with a jury). Other categories of responses were mentioned by 

only one or two attorneys.

One of the most frequent comments, although not really in the nature of a benefit 

or harm, had to do with video recording being very unobtrusive and not noticeable 

during the proceeding. This was noted by 16 attorneys who answered the question. 

Illustrative comments include:

“The video recording equipment was surprisingly unobtrusive. I barely 

knew it was there, which is a good thing.”

“At first, I thought cameras/recording would be distracting, but I found 

the cameras to be unobtrusive.”

“The cameras were all but invisible to me.”

“The cameras were hidden/minimized to the extent they were not even 

thought of.”

“Once the proceedings began, the camera was not noticeable.”

“I really never even noticed that this was being recorded, aside from the 

Court’s informing us.”

The attorneys’ comments reflect those made by judges and staff in our interviews. 

Many described the near invisibility of the cameras, particularly in courts that were 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

41

able to simply add the recording capability to their existing audiovisual systems. One 

judge noted that, because he did not manage the notice and consent process, he did 

not even know when the cameras were on. This invisibility was very important to 

some judges; one who was generally in favor of video recording, for example, said he 

would oppose it if cameras were visible, adding that he thought their visibility could 

impact proceedings. Some of the portable systems were more visible; as one staff 

member in a court with portable cameras said, “The cameras are very visible, as is the 

person running them.” A staff member in another court with a portable system offered an interesting viewpoint about visibility, noting that even though their portable 

cameras were small and out of the way, “they were visible; we don’t want anyone to 

think we’re not open about what we’re doing.”

A second frequently mentioned benefit was allowing the public to see what went 

on in the courts, which was mentioned by 16 respondents. Seven attorneys noted that 

they thought the recordings had served as or could be a useful educational tool for 

themselves and other lawyers. As one lawyer said, “Personally, I thought the cameras 

were very helpful and allowed me to go back and see how I presented the case and 

what I could do to become a better attorney.”

It is worth noting that a number of judges, in survey comments and interviews, mentioned the educational and training value of the video recordings, in addition to the 33

lawyers who said they would use the video recorded proceeding for training. One judge, 

for example, described his practice of using the video recordings to educate his law clerks: 

“I sometimes review recorded proceedings with my law clerks and I ask them, ‘How 

could that question have been asked better? What objection should have been raised right 

here?’” Another judge referred to recording as “a remarkable teaching tool.”

As for harms, four attorneys said they thought recording was or could be embarrassing to some of the participants, particularly in a proceeding with sensitive information. Three noted that the recording was or could be disruptive or distracting, and 

two mentioned increased stress on participants.

Overall, the survey responses suggest that attorneys who had exposure to video 

recording in federal courtroom proceedings think most of the potential effects of 

video recording occur to no extent or a small extent—except several positive effects 

on public perceptions and knowledge of federal courts. The attorneys’ written comments generally support those findings.

Attorneys’ Views on the Voluntariness of Consent

Because the cameras project required party consent, we wanted to know why the attorneys who agreed to video recording a courtroom proceeding did so. Of the 181 

respondents who completed the questionnaire, 155—or 86%—said they readily 

agreed to video record their proceeding. Another four attorneys—or 2%—-said they 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

42

were reluctant at first but agreed to video recording after discussion with the judge 

(22 selected “other”). (No table is shown for these findings.) 

Table 15, below, provides the reasons the attorneys consented. By far the greatest 

number—155, or 86%—said they had no inherent objection to video recording of 

proceedings. Another sizable group of attorneys—59, or 33%—said they thought 

video recordings would help educate the public about the courts. Additional notable 

groups said they did not want to disappoint the judge (39 attorneys, or 22%),

20 or 

they wanted to use the video recording for training or case preparation (33 attorneys, 

or 18%). A small number of attorneys said either they or their client wanted the exposure that would come from having the proceedings video recorded (12 attorneys 

in each group, or 7%). Twenty attorneys, or their clients, had another reason for consenting to video recording, including preserving the proceedings in an important case 

for others to see in the future; taking an opportunity to try something new; and, in 

the case of clients who were public officials, their agency wanting the proceedings to 

be as public as possible.

Table 15: Reasons Attorneys Consented to Video Recording a Courtroom 

Proceeding (N=181)*

Reason for Consent to Video Recording a Courtroom Proceeding Number of Attorneys

No inherent objection to video recording of proceedings 155

Thought it would help with public education about the 

courts

59

Didn’t want to disappoint the judge 39

Wanted to use the recording for training or case preparation 33

Client wanted the exposure that would come from having 

the proceeding video recorded 12

Attorney or firm wanted exposure that would come from 

having the proceeding video recorded 12

Other 20

* Responses total to more than 181 because respondents could check more than one reason.

 

20. This response—did not want to disappoint the judge—was selected as the sole reason for consenting by eight attorneys who indicated, in response to a question about pressure to consent, that they 

or their clients had felt pressure to consent (see discussion in next paragraph). Five of these attorneys 

were in courts with judge-initiated notification, while three were in courts with automatic notification.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

43

In a separate question, we asked attorneys whether they or their client had actually 

felt pressured to consent to video record their proceeding. Eight percent—or 14 attorneys—said they or their client had felt pressured. A review of these attorneys’ written comments suggest that the fact of being asked to consent, in itself—and, in a few 

instances, a judge’s enthusiasm for the pilot project—was felt by attorneys to carry a 

risk that non-consent would prompt disapproval on the part of the judge or be interpreted adversely by an opponent. For three judges, we found more than one instance 

of an attorney who appeared before them saying they felt pressured to consent to 

recording. Two of the judges were from courts that relied on judge selection of proceedings rather than automatic noticing. One of them accounted for five attorney 

reports of feeling pressured. In two other situations, attorney comments revealed that 

the pressure they or their clients felt to consent did not come from the judge, or at 

least not exclusively. In one situation, the clients felt they should consent because they 

were public officials; in the other, the attorneys had become aware of a media request 

for information relating to their consent/declination decision and assumed the media 

would report on them negatively if they did not consent.

Attorneys’ Overall Views on Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings

As in the survey of judges, we asked attorneys whether they favor or oppose the use 

of video recording in courtroom proceedings under the conditions of the pilot project, where all parties must consent and recordings are publicly available. We present 

the findings in Table 16, below, distinguishing attorneys who had prior experience 

with cameras in the courtroom and attorneys whose experience was limited to participation in the federal court pilot project. Attorneys with experience are those who 

answered “yes,” and attorneys with no experience are those who answered “no” to 

the question “Prior to your experience in federal court, did you participate in any 

other courtroom proceedings in either state, federal, or other courts that were recorded by cameras?”

As before, we have grouped responses into a “very much favor” and “somewhat 

favor” set and a “very much oppose” and “somewhat oppose” set, with all data presented in the table to permit other comparisons. By far the greatest number of attorneys somewhat or very much favor video recording of courtroom proceedings—75% 

of all attorneys, 81% of attorneys with prior experience with cameras in the courtroom, and, only slightly less, 71% of attorneys without prior experience. Small percentages somewhat or very much oppose video recording—12% of all attorneys, 13% 

of attorneys with prior experience with cameras in the courtroom, and 11% of attorneys with no prior experience.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

44

Table 16: Attorneys’ Opinions About Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings and 

Making the Recordings Publicly Available (N=181)

Very 

Much in 

Favor

Somewhat 

in Favor

Somewhat 

Opposed

Very 

Much 

Opposed

No 

Opinion Total

All attorneys 71 

(39%)

64 

(35%)

17

(9%)

4

(2%)

25 

(14%) 181

Attorneys with experience with cameras 

in the courtroom 

prior to the pilot 

court proceeding*

30 

(48%)

21

(33%)

6

(10%)

2

(3%)

4

(6%) 63

Attorneys with no 

courtroom cameras 

experience other than 

the pilot court 

proceeding

41 

(35%)

43

(36%)

11

(9%)

2

(2%)

21 

(18%) 118

* Attorneys with experience are those who answered “yes” and attorneys with no experience are those who answered “no” to the question “Prior to your experience in federal court, did you participate in any other courtroom 

proceedings in either state, federal, or other courts that were recorded by cameras?”

An important point to keep in mind is that all attorneys who answered the questionnaire had at least one experience with video recording of courtroom proceedings—

their participation in the pilot project ensured a threshold level of experience and put 

them in the recipient group for our questionnaire. Additionally, with the possible exception of a few who felt pressured, attorneys voluntarily consented to have a recording made of their civil case proceeding. These conditions may explain the high percentage of this group of attorneys who favor video recording of courtroom proceedings.

Attorneys’ Views on Whether They Would Participate in Video Recording in the Future

As shown in Table 17, below, a large majority of attorneys who participated in the 

pilot project said they would continue to participate in video recording under the 

conditions of the pilot project if the Judicial Conference authorizes it for future proceedings—76% of all attorneys, 78% of attorneys with prior experience, and 75% of 

attorneys without prior experience. A very small percentage of attorneys would not 

participate, including both attorneys with prior experience (2%) and attorneys without prior experience (3%). 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

45

Table 17: Number of Attorneys Who Would Participate in Video Recording If the 

Judicial Conference Were to Authorize Video Recording of Civil Proceedings 

Under the Conditions of the Pilot Project (N=181)

Would 

Participate

Would Not 

Participate

Might 

Participate Total

All attorneys 138 (76%) 5 (3%) 38 (21%) 181

Attorneys with experience 

with cameras in the courtroom 

prior to the pilot court 

proceeding*

49 (78%) 1 (2%) 13 (21%) 63

Attorneys with no courtroom 

cameras experience other than 

the pilot court proceeding

89 (75%) 4 (3%) 25 (21%) 118

* Attorneys with experience are those who answered “yes” and attorneys with no experience are those who answered “no” to the question “Prior to your experience in federal court, did you participate in any other courtroom 

proceedings in either state, federal, or other courts that were recorded by cameras?”

We caution, as we did before, that all attorneys responding to this question about 

future participation in video recording of proceedings had already given consent to 

have a specific past proceeding recorded and made publicly available. They have, 

therefore, at least a minimum level of actual experience with video recorded courtroom proceedings. Any comparison of attorneys’ and judges’ stated willingness to 

participate in a future project like the one under review must therefore recognize the 

differences between the two populations. If video recording is authorized for future 

proceedings, 97% of attorneys responding to the survey say they would or might participate, whereas 85% of judges in the pilot courts say the same. All of the attorneys, 

but only some of the judges, experienced a video recording; among judges, those with 

no experience are the least likely to say they would or might participate if the Judicial 

Conference authorizes future video recording (Table 13). Moreover, attorneys and 

judges may have different reasons for choosing to participate. Attorneys who agreed

to video recording did so largely because they had no inherent objection to it (Table 

15). Judges, on the other hand, most often said they participated in the pilot project 

because they felt a responsibility to participate given that their court had volunteered 

to be a pilot court (Table 3). 

Court Staff Experience with Video Recording

Staff in the pilot courts were involved with the project in a number of ways, depending on the court. Tasks required of staff included the following: helping the court 

initially in drafting a local rule and procedures for implementing the pilot project; 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

46

docketing or sending parties notifications of requests to video record; recording responses and following up with those who did not respond; installing (in some courts), 

setting up, and operating the video recording equipment; preparing the video files for 

uploading to the “Cameras in Courts” webpage at the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts; and serving as liaison to Center staff conducting the evaluation, which 

included answering questions about the court’s implementation of the project and 

providing documentation of activity related to video recording (e.g., notifications and 

consent forms).21 Sometimes these tasks were spread among a number of different 

people, and sometimes one or two staff members handled most of the responsibilities. 

In most courts, chambers staff and clerk’s office staff played a role.

At the conclusion of the pilot project, we interviewed staff in each court who had 

been involved in administering the pilot project in one way or another, for a total of 

38 interviewees.22 Those we interviewed included most of the liaisons to our study, as 

well as IT staff who had installed and operated the video recording equipment.23 We 

asked them what their specific responsibilities were, how much of their time was devoted to the pilot project, whether they thought the time commitment was reasonable, and whether they had encountered any problems related to the pilot project. 

Judges we interviewed also frequently commented on the time commitment and responsibilities of staff, and those comments are noted in this section as well.

Staff Tasks Related to Notifying Parties and Tracking Responses

On the administrative side, the amount of staff time spent seemed to vary somewhat 

depending on two factors: how standardized the court’s notification procedures were 

and whether a non-response to a notification was taken as a declination. Some courts 

put in a good deal of time at the beginning of the project conducting meetings to determine procedures for automatic notification, but once those were in place, the time 

commitment for sending notifications was minimal. For courts that designated certain 

types of proceedings to be notified, a courtroom deputy generally flagged the case and 

sent out the notice at the time a proceeding was scheduled, taking only minutes per 

proceeding. If, however, a court’s procedure included following up with parties to get 

responses not received by a given deadline, the demand on staff time increased substantially, in proportion to the volume of outreach needed to obtain a decision.

 

21. Each pilot court had a liaison at the Center to turn to if they had questions about data collection and other research aspects of the pilot project.

22. The interview protocol for court staff is in Appendix C.

23. To determine whom to interview, we relied on the courts to identify staff persons who had 

been involved in significant aspects of the pilot project. The liaisons to the study were included.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

47

In courts with non-standardized notification procedures—i.e., where judges selected specific proceedings for notification—staff reported spending more time on administrative matters. Once a proceeding was selected for recording, a staff member—

usually a courtroom deputy or chief deputy—added the notice to a case-management 

order, prepared and sent a notice, or made a docket entry to notify parties of the request 

to video record; the staff person then followed up with those who did not respond. 

Most staff members in those courts estimated spending roughly 10–20 minutes to do 

these tasks for each proceeding, with the highest estimate being 1–3 hours.

For the most part, staff members who carried out these administrative tasks reported that the time required was reasonable. For example, a staff member in a court 

with an automated notification system referred to the staff time spent as a “minimal 

administrative burden.” A different point of view was offered, however, by staff from a 

court that noticed hundreds of proceedings and required an explicit decision from parties on whether to record. There, we were told, administration involved “a lot of work, 

and [staff] weren’t sure of the value in the end.” The staff member making this comment added that administering the pilot project would have been easier if it had been 

set up as an “opt-out” process by parties, rather than an “opt-in” process. This court 

notwithstanding, staff in most courts reported that the administrative side of the project was less demanding than the technical side, which we discuss in the next section.

It is worth noting that some of the administrative tasks undertaken by the courts 

were related to the evaluation of the pilot project. We developed forms, for example, 

for parties to use when declining the opportunity to video record. Collection of these 

forms could be more or less burdensome for staff, depending on how extensively they 

pursued the non-consent forms—some stopped the effort after receiving one declination, others sought more—and the nature of internal records they kept of notices, 

consents, and declinations.

Staff Tasks Related to Video Recording and to Video Recording Technology

Information technology (IT) staff in each pilot court played a major role in ensuring 

the smooth operation of the pilot project. Their responsibilities, which varied somewhat across courts, included the following: installing recording equipment; training 

court staff in the operation of the equipment; setting up and troubleshooting equipment prior to any recorded proceeding; operating the cameras and recording equipment during a proceeding (although this was assigned to courtroom deputies or other

staff in some courts); editing the recordings as necessary; and uploading recordings 

to the Administrative Office for posting on the “Cameras in Courts” webpage.

The recording equipment varied among pilot courts, and the type of tasks required of IT staff consequently varied as well. Some courts were able to use existing 

cameras and recording equipment, some had to modify existing equipment, and others used portable equipment that could be moved to different courtrooms. For those 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

48

who installed new equipment, initial installation time generally took two to four 

hours per device, and most staff did not consider that time excessive. 

IT staff in the pilot courts spent additional time preparing for each proceeding 

that was to be recorded, especially in courts that used portable equipment. The reported time needed to set up or test out equipment for a specific hearing ranged from 

45 minutes to more than a day. In addition, several IT staff members we interviewed 

noted the need to retrain courtroom deputies or other staff members who operated 

the cameras when each proceeding occurred. As one interviewee said, “the low number of recordings meant that the process of setting up, recording, etc. never became 

fully routinized; we had to review the steps each time.”

Although some courts were set up in a way that allowed the courtroom deputy or 

case manager to operate the recording equipment from the courtroom audiovisual 

(AV) panel during a proceeding, many pilot courts had an IT staff person in the courtroom throughout a recorded proceeding, monitoring the recording and operating the 

equipment. Having someone actively operate the cameras was especially necessary in 

situations where the judge wanted a single-screen view (i.e., showing only one participant at a time, such as the attorney or witness), which required activating the camera 

focused on the speaker, rather than a split screen showing four fixed camera angles at 

once (generally focused on the judge, the attorney, the witness box, and the evidence). 

Operation of the cameras was seen as the most burdensome aspect of the pilot in 

terms of staff time. As one clerk of court indicated, “That was not cheap; it’s something that’s not budgeted. It was too much of a demand because we don’t have staff 

that would normally do that, and I pulled them from other tasks just to sit there.” An 

IT manager in another court said the court would need to have a full-time person for 

courtroom recording if the number of consents went up. In contrast, the cost in staff 

time was far less—primarily just turning the cameras on and off (and remembering 

to do so when there was a break in proceedings)—in the courts that used a split screen 

image and were able to build camera management into the AV system. In these courts, 

IT staff time was typically needed after the proceeding to review recordings for quality 

and to delete inappropriate footage, as discussed in the next paragraph. In the future, 

several staff noted, improvements in voice-activated cameras and other technology 

could reduce or eliminate the need for court staff to operate cameras and review and 

edit video recordings.

Once a recording was completed, it was generally the responsibility of IT staff to 

edit the recording, if appropriate, before sending it to the Administrative Office. Most 

staff members we interviewed did not report this as a substantial time commitment; 

normally they simply cut the beginning and end of the recording, which generally 

covered several minutes of non-proceeding time, or they removed, for example, portions where the cameras had inadvertently been left on during a break. In most courts,

staff did not review the entire recording for editing, but had instead made notes 
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

49

throughout the proceeding of portions that might need to be edited; they then removed those sections. 

Another technical duty that took a fair amount of staff time was uploading the 

videos to the Administrative Office, since the video files were very large. This task 

could take hours for a very long proceeding, and even though a staff person did not 

have to monitor that process constantly, the computer on which the uploading was 

done did need to be checked periodically (or “babysat,” as some put it) to make sure 

the files were transmitting properly.

In one district (Guam), the time difference between the court and the Administrative Office in Washington, D.C., meant that the Administrative Office could not 

process the video recordings for uploading to the public website in time for local media interested in the proceedings. To solve this problem, the district put the recordings on DVD and offered them to the media and others at a price ($30) based on the 

federal judiciary’s miscellaneous fee schedule.

Use of the Video Recordings

When the pilot project began, the Administrative Office contracted with a video hosting and content delivery provider. The company also tracked the number of times 

viewers accessed the video recordings. While it would have been ideal to collect additional data—for example, how long a viewer watched a video—this proved to be elusive for several reasons. During the course of the pilot, an increasing number of users 

accessed pilot videos over mobile devices and tablets, as opposed to PCs. This shift in 

viewership habits brought into question the ability and reliability of collecting accurate analytics from different sources.

In an effort to address this challenge, the vendor used three different tracking systems seriatim over the four-year pilot project, introducing improvements and nonuniformity in tracking accuracy with each new system. The system in place during 

calendar year 2014, which we believe collected the most reliable data, found that the 

707 video files24 posted by the pilot courts from the beginning of the pilot through 

the end of calendar year 2014 were accessed 21,530 times. It is difficult to know, of 

course, whether this is a significant number or not, since there is no benchmark to 

look to for guidance. When the pilot project concluded on July 17, 2015, a total of 

757 videos were posted, covering 158 individual proceedings.25

 

24. The 158 proceedings recorded during the pilot project required 757 separate video files because 

long hearings and trials required more than one video file.

25. Access can be as brief as clicking a video recording open and as lengthy as watching the entire 

recording. The tracking system did not measure how long any given viewer spent with a video recording or whether the same or different viewers accessed them.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

50

In a separate attempt to learn how the video recordings were used, we attached a 

pop-up questionnaire to the videos themselves in late 2013. Since then, a random selection of viewers who have accessed a pilot video recording have been presented with 

a short “pop-up” questionnaire on their screen. The viewer can dispose of the questionnaire with a quick click or can respond to it. Of the thousands of viewers who accessed pilot video recordings, 258 of the unknown number who have been presented 

with the pop-up questionnaire answered it as of the close of data collection on July 17, 

2015. Although this is a small percentage of all viewers, we are pleased to have at least 

some information about who the viewers were and why they accessed the recordings.

In Table 18, below, we see the reasons viewers visited the cameras website.26 The 

principal reason, marked by 113 (or 44%) of the viewers, was a general interest in 

observing federal court proceedings. Nearly as many viewers (103, or 40%) said they 

accessed the cameras site because they were interested in viewing material relevant to 

education-related objectives. Less frequently, viewers were interested in observing a 

specific case (45 viewers, or 17%) or in observing specific persons (23 viewers, or 9%). 

The viewers who had come to the cameras website for some other reason did so for a 

wide variety of reasons: to search for employment (several); to search for information 

that would be helpful in setting up video recording in the courts in India; to prepare, 

as a party, for a federal trial (several); to assess prospects for filming proceedings for 

a documentary; to examine the issue of cameras in courtrooms (several); and “because I like watching trials.”

Table 18: Reasons Viewers Gave for Visiting the Cameras Website (N=258)

Reason for Visiting Cameras Website

Number of 

Viewers*

General interest in observing federal court proceedings 113 (44%)

Interested in viewing material that is relevant to 

education-related objectives 103 (40%)

Interested in observing a specific case 45 (17%)

Interested in observing specific persons (e.g., judge, 

attorney, witness) 23 (9%)

Other reason 43 (17%)

* The number totals to more than 258 because viewers could mark more than one reason.

 

26. The online page for the federal courts’ pilot project, which was at www.uscourts.gov, was titled 

“Cameras in Courts.”
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

51

Many of the viewers who accessed the cameras website identified their occupation 

or position as related to education or libraries (see Table 19, below). The greatest 

number of viewers (85 viewers, or 33%) said they were students; an additional 41 

viewers (or 16%) said they were educators, librarians, or trainers. The general public 

made up another large group (69 viewers, or 27%), as did lawyers and other employees of law firms (47 viewers, or 18%). 

Table 19: Occupation/Position of Website Visitors (N=258)

Occupation/Position of Website Visitor Number of Viewers*

Student 85 (33%)

Educator, librarian, or trainer 41 (16%)

Member of the general U.S.-based public 69 (27%)

Non-governmental lawyer or employee of a law firm 47 (18%)

Government employee (including judges and lawyers) 23 (9%)

Member of the media or a communications organization 15 (6%)

Member of the international community 7 (3%)

Other 13 (5%)

* The number totals to more than 258 because viewers could mark more than one occupation/position.

Government employees, including perhaps judges and employees of the pilot 

courts, were a smaller portion of the viewers (23, or 9%), as were members of the 

media (15, or 6%) and members of the international community (7, or 3%). Those 

who identified their occupation or position as something other than those listed said 

they were, among a wide range of occupations, a stenographer, a court interpreter, a 

filmmaker, a pensioner, a Boston resident who believes people have the right to see 

the “Boston bombing” trial, and “a mother looking for justice for her son.”

Those who identified themselves as educators, librarians, and trainers worked primarily in law schools, as shown in Table 20, below; 24, or 60% of the education and 

library affiliated viewers worked in that setting. Many fewer worked at the college (6 

viewers, or 15%) or high school (4 viewers, or 10%) level. The viewers who identified 

their educational setting as “other” said they were, for example, an instructor in a 

court reporting school and a special education teacher.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

52

Table 20: Type of Education Setting of Respondents Who Were Educators, 

Librarians, and Trainers (N=40)

Type of Education Setting of Educators, Librarians, and Trainers

Number of 

Viewers

Law school or graduate school 24 (60%)

College 6 (15%)

High school 4 (10%)

Other 6 (15%)

The students who accessed the cameras website were mostly college students—45

of the 85 students, or 53%—as shown below in Table 21. Law school or graduate 

school students made up the next largest group—32 students, or 38%. Very few (7, 

or 8%) of the student viewers who accessed the cameras pilot site were high school 

students. The one viewer who marked “other” said he or she was an “independent 

study” student.

Table 21: Level in School of Respondents Who Were Students (N=85)

Level in School of Respondents Who Were Students

Number of 

Viewers

College 45 (53%)

Law school or graduate school 32 (38%)

High school 7 (8%)

Other (“independent study”) 1 (1%)

Of the 23 website visitors who were employed in government, the greatest portion 

(14 viewers, or 61%) were employed by the federal government, split evenly between 

the federal courts and a non-court entity of the federal government (see Table 22, 

below). The nine remaining government-employed visitors to the website worked for 

state or local courts or in other state or local government settings.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

53

Table 22: Place of Employment of Respondents Who Were Employed in 

Government (N=23)

Place of Employment

Number of 

Viewers

Federal court 7 (30%)

Federal government, non-court setting 7 (30%)

State or local court 5 (22%)

State or local government, non-court setting 4 (17%)

If the viewer data permit a general conclusion—and keep in mind that the respondents are not, in any way we can hypothesize or confirm, a random sample of 

viewers—it is that the primary reason for visiting the cameras website was related to 

education or work. Of the 258 website visitors who completed the pop-up survey, 196

identified themselves as students, educators, librarians, trainers, lawyers or other law 

firm employees, or government employees.

Conclusion

The pilot project was designed to test a particular method for making a visual recording of courtroom proceedings and posting the recording for public viewing—i.e., 

court-operated video recording cameras. Further, recording was limited to civil proceedings where the judge and all other participants agreed that the proceeding could 

be recorded. 

The number of recorded proceedings is small relative to the number of proceedings held in federal courtrooms—158 recorded proceedings in 14 volunteer district 

courts over the four-year pilot project. This level of recording, however, and the attendant procedures for notifying parties, getting consents or declinations, and operating the equipment, has provided a fair amount of information about providing visual recordings of courtroom procedures through court-operated cameras. 

The pilot courts were given substantial leeway over how to implement the pilot 

project, and they adopted widely varying procedures, from courts that left complete 

discretion to individual judges for notifying parties and obtaining consents to courts 

that adopted more uniform procedures across judges for notification and consents. In 

each pilot court, a subset of judges participated. Because of the consent requirement, a 

smaller subset of these judges actually recorded proceedings. Altogether, 64 active and 

senior judges participated (i.e., notified parties of the opportunity to record) and 33

judges had proceedings that were recorded.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

54

In some circumstances the notice and consent process could be time-consuming 

for judges and staff, but in other circumstances it made little demand on their time. 

The process was more time-consuming where judges selected cases or proceedings 

and talked with counsel about video recording, as compared to procedures that either 

automatically notified all eligible proceedings of the opportunity to record or presumed proceedings would be recorded unless the parties affirmatively opted out. The 

process was also more time-consuming in courts where staff made more effort to get

consent and declination forms from the parties as compared to courts that considered 

non-response or a single declination sufficient to resolve the question of consent. 

Judges’ views vary on the consent requirement, with some judges feeling it is essential 

and others recommending that the requirement be eliminated if the use of video recording is approved for all courts. 

Parties declined to video record for a large variety of reasons, but by far the greatest number wanted to preserve confidentiality—for example, over business information or personal information—or wanted to avoid publicity. Seldom did parties 

decline because of concerns that judges or attorneys would “grandstand,” that the 

cameras would be disruptive, or that the parties would become anxious or distracted 

because of the cameras.

Operation of the video recording equipment was time-consuming, particularly 

for IT staff. This was especially the case when a judge preferred that the video recording available to the public focus on a single speaker at a time, which required a camera

operator, as compared to judges who were satisfied with a recording with four images 

in the frame, which was produced by four fixed cameras, a set up that, at its simplest, 

could be operated with the flip of a switch on the courtroom’s AV panel. Operation

of equipment could also be time-consuming when staff had to edit the video recording, which required more time from those who did not monitor the equipment while 

the proceeding was underway and thus had to review the entire video recording later,

as compared to those who monitored the recording while it was underway (e.g., camera operators). Either way—whether staff committed time in the courtroom or later 

in editing recordings—court-operated video recording makes demands on staff time. 

Video recording made another type of demand when it occurred less frequently. 

Some staff noted the steep learning curve each time they recorded a proceeding, the 

result of infrequent opportunities to use the equipment. 

A wide range of proceeding types and a wide range of case types were video recorded. The recordings include trials; motions hearings, including routine and dispositive motions; scheduling conferences; and evidentiary hearings. Some of the most 

commonly filed case types in the federal courts—civil rights, personal injury, and 

contracts cases—are the most frequent case types found in the recordings, but other 

less-commonly filed case types, such as patent/copyright/trademark and immigration 

cases, are also represented.
Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

55

Judges and attorneys, for the most part, view video recording as having limited 

effects on jurors, witnesses, attorneys, and judges, whether the effect is negative or 

positive. The largest percentage of judges and attorneys who reported effects said they 

think video recording can have a substantial positive effect on the public, including 

public access to and education about the courts. Around a third of pilot judges, however, think three hypothesized effects occur to a moderate or great extent: distracts 

witnesses, motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared, and prompts attorneys to be more courteous. Judges’ views are evenly split on the extent to which video 

recording causes attorneys to be more theatrical and increases public confidence in 

the federal courts. At most, about a third of the attorneys see any effects, other than 

effects on the public, as occurring to a moderate or great degree (e.g., motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared). (As explained more fully at page 25 above, 

responses to the “effects” questions may be grouped in several ways. This discussion 

is based on grouping responses into two sets: “no effect” with “little effect” and “moderate effect” with “great effect.”

Over 70% of judges and attorneys who participated in video recording of a proceeding greatly or somewhat favor video recording of courtroom proceedings. Of 

judges who did not participate, 79% greatly or somewhat oppose video recording. It 

is important to note that participants in the pilot project took part voluntarily. From 

the pre-pilot survey we sent in 2011, we know that judges who participated were on 

average more favorable toward cameras than judges who did not participate. Participants’ views do not necessarily represent the views of judges and attorneys nationwide.

The best indicator of public use of the video recordings suggests that viewers accessed a recording 21,530 times in calendar year 2014. A “pop-up” survey of viewers, 

which was answered by 258 respondents between late 2013 and the end of the pilot 

project on July 17, 2015, shows that the majority of those respondents accessed the recordings for educational or work-related reasons. The viewers were primarily educators, students, librarians, lawyers and other law firm employees, and the public.

The pilot project enabled 14 district courts to test the use of video recording 

courtroom proceedings. The courts’ varied experiences, as reflected in the data, suggest that decisions courts make about notice and consent procedures and video recording procedures can have a significant administrative and operational impact on 

judges and court staff.

Appendix A

Guidance from the CACM Committee

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

United States District Courts

Digital Video Recording (“Cameras”) Pilot Project

Implementation Guidance

Court Administration and Case Management Committee

August 22, 2011

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 1

Digital Video Recording (“Cameras”) Pilot Project

Implementation Guidance

Pilot districts that have started to develop procedures for video recording of courtroom proceedings have raised some questions about procedural matters in discussions with Federal Judicial Center (FJC) research staff. Having been alerted to the 

questions, most of which relate to selecting proceedings to record and to receiving 

necessary consents, the Court Administration and Case Management Committee 

(Committee) has prepared this document to provide the courts with implementation guidance that offers specific, concrete suggestions about procedures the districts might adopt to identify proceedings and obtain consents. Of course, under 

the Guidelines, decisions about whether and what to record are always at the discretion of the presiding judge.

Our guidance is presented in four parts.

Part 1: Implementation Questions and Answers.

Part 1 of this document presents a set of questions the pilot districts have 

asked about how to implement the pilot project. The document offers some 

possible answers to the questions, which the pilot districts and judge may use 

or adapt as it suits their circumstances and preferences. Because courts and 

judges vary in their practices, we expect that the answers to these questions 

will vary as well when ultimately adopted by each district.

Part 2: Example General Orders.

The implementation questions and answers are intended to help courts work 

through key procedural questions, but pilot courts have also asked their FJC 

liaisons for practical assistance with the request and consent process. The second part of this document responds by providing Example General Orders 

that show in concrete terms how the pilot project might be implemented in a 

district court. The orders are examples only, provided solely to help pilot 

courts envision how procedures might work.

The first example of a general order gives the district judge primary responsibility for notifying parties of the opportunity to record and for handling the 

consent process. The second example locates these responsibilities in the 

clerk’s office. In both approaches, others (e.g., a party, the media) may also indicate their interest in having a particular proceeding recorded.

Part 3: Data Collection Forms.

At the request of the Judicial Conference, the FJC will collect data and report 

to this Committee on the courts’ experience with the pilot project. The third 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 2

part of this document shows the forms the FJC will use to track request and 

consent activity. The Committee asks the courts to use these forms, which the 

FJC will provide in a fillable format:

• REASONS FOR JUDGE’S SELECTION OF CASE OR PROCEEDING FOR VIDEO 

RECORDING (Form A);

• REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING (Form B);

• REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO PERMIT VIDEO RECORDING OF 

PROCEEDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE OR FOR WHICH A 

REQUEST FOR RECORDING WAS MADE (Form C);

• NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING (Form D);

• PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING (Form E);

• REQUEST TO EXEMPT WITNESS FROM VIDEO RECORDING (Form F); and

• REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ALL 

OR PORTIONS OF A VIDEO RECORDING THAT WAS MADE (Form G).

We reference the various data collection forms where they are relevant in the 

discussion of implementation matters at Part 1.

Part 4: Draft Language for Circumstances Arising from Being a Pilot Court.

The final part of this document provides material that courts may find useful 

in responding to circumstances that arise from being involved in the pilot project. The media have contacted several pilot districts asking for information, 

and Part 4 provides tools for making such information available on-line. Included in Part 4 are a “Notice to the Public” and some suggested language that 

may serve as a model for posting “Frequently Asked Questions” on your 

court’s website. Listed also is a link to a Cameras in Courts landing page that 

the Office of Public Affairs of the Administrative Office is drafting for the 

uscourts.gov web site. In addition to information explaining the pilot project, 

Part 4 provides draft jury instructions for use in jury trials that are recorded 

and draft instructions to make those who are present during a recorded proceeding aware of certain matters.

We ask the pilot districts to keep in mind several key features of earlier guidance 

provided by the Committee (Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project in the District Courts, sent May 9, 2011; hereafter Program Guidelines): recordings may be 

made in civil cases only and only when the parties consent; proceedings may not 

be recorded without approval of the presiding judge; the cameras must be oper-
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 3

ated by the court, not the media; a local rule must be adopted to authorize recording in the courtrooms1

; and only district judges may participate in the pilot project. Further, only courtroom proceedings may be recorded, not proceedings held 

in chambers or other locations. 

In addition to this document, the Office of Public Affairs at the AO will shortly be 

sending a memo to IT staff in the pilot courts regarding the technical and web site 

aspects of the pilot project.

If at any time a pilot district has questions about the Committee’s Program Guidelines or Implementation Guidance, please do not hesitate to call the chair of the 

Committee, Judge Julie Robinson; the Court Administration Policy Staff at the 

Administrative Office; or the district’s FJC liaison for the pilot project. Throughout the pilot project both the FJC and AO will routinely be in contact with the pilot districts, the FJC through the designated liaisons and the AO through Cary 

Casola and the Office of Public Affairs.

 1. The Committee’s Program Guidelines require that each pilot district authorize the pilot project through a local rule amendment (see the guidelines sent May 9, 2011). Some pilot courts are 

authorizing the pilot project by general order while amendment of the local rule is in process, which 

permits participation in the pilot project from the July 18, 2011, start date. If you wish to proceed 

initially under a general order, you may. Note, too, that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2071(e) provides courts some 

discretion in adopting rules on an emergency basis without need for prior public notice and comment, as long as the rules process (which may take some time) is begun “promptly” after.

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 5

Part 1

Implementation Questions and Answers

The guidance offered in Part 1 applies to all district judges, both 

senior and active, who participate in the pilot project, including 

those who enter the project supporting video recording of court 

proceedings and those who enter it skeptical about video recording.

Phrases such as “presiding judge” and “assigned judge” refer to 

district judges who are participating in the pilot project.

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 7

Identifying Courtroom Proceedings That Might Be Video Recorded

1. Who may initiate a request or suggestion to record courtroom proceedings—

the assigned judge, a party to the case, the clerk’s office on behalf of the court, 

the media?

Any of the entities named above may initiate a request or suggestion to record. 

The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “The presiding judge will select 

cases for participation in the pilot, although parties to a case or the media may 

request video recording of the proceedings” (p. 2). The pilot districts need not 

wait for a request to record from the parties or an outside entity and are, in 

fact, encouraged to initiate requests to parties to record proceedings.

Part 2 of this document provides Example General Orders for two approaches 

for requesting that a proceeding be recorded—a request initiated by the presiding judge and a request initiated by the clerk’s office. If the presiding judge 

is the one who initiates the question of recording, he or she should consider 

asking the parties to record most courtroom proceedings held in civil cases—

at minimum, all trials and evidentiary hearings. If a court plans to have the 

clerk’s office notify parties of the opportunity to record, the court should consider giving the clerk’s office authority to send a notice for most civil proceedings—again, at minimum, for all trials and evidentiary hearings. A good test of 

recording courtroom proceedings requires not only a large number of recordings but also recordings across a range of case types and matters.

When the Committee reports on the pilot project, it will include in the report 

information about the selection of proceedings to record. Part 3 of this package includes two data collection forms relevant to this inquiry (Form A, “REASONS FOR JUDGE’S SELECTION OF CASE OR PROCEEDING FOR VIDEO RECORDING”, and C, “REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO PERMIT VIDEO RECORDING OF PROCEEDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE OR FOR WHICH A 

REQUEST FOR RECORDING WAS MADE”).

2. When the assigned judge or clerk’s office initiates, should they request that the 

proceeding be recorded or merely suggest that it be recorded?

This question asks how active the pilot districts should be in encouraging participation in the pilot project. We expect that the more active the courts are 

the more proceedings will be recorded. We also recognize that some districts 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 8

or some individual judges will not, however, be wholly at ease with a proactive 

approach, and thus we describe several options for identifying suitable proceedings and getting party consent. The language in Form D, “NOTIFICATION 

OF REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING”, tells the parties that the judge requests 

their consent to record. Alternative language is offered for courts or judges 

who are not comfortable with this wording and might instead prefer to simply 

bring the opportunity to record to the parties’ attention. Similarly, if a judge 

raises the question of video recording in a conference with the parties, the 

judge can use language that is more, or less, directive, depending on the 

judge’s preferences. The first example below is the most directive, the third is 

the least.

• This district is participating in a pilot project that permits video 

recording of courtroom proceedings. The recordings will be 

publicly available on the district’s website. I plan to record all 

courtroom proceedings in the civil cases assigned to me, unless 

I hear otherwise from the parties. Please complete this form 

[i.e., Form E, the consent form, discussed at Point 4, Page 12] 

and return it to me. 

• This district is participating in a pilot project that permits video 

recording of courtroom proceedings. The recordings will be 

publicly available on the district’s website. I ask that you consider giving consent to record the upcoming proceeding in

your case. Please complete this form [i.e., Form E, the consent 

form, discussed at Point 4, Page 12] and return it to me.

• This district is participating in a pilot project that permits video 

recording of courtroom proceedings. The recordings will be 

publicly available on the district’s website. If you wish, your upcoming proceeding can be recorded. Please complete this form 

[i.e., Form E, the consent form, discussed at Point 4, Page 12] 

and return it to me.

The Committee firmly does not encourage pilot districts or judges to be or appear to be coercive, but a respectful request to record, whether in conversation 

between judge and parties or by written notice from chambers or clerk’s office, 

would likely create greater awareness of the opportunity to record, more experience with recording for both parties and judges, and more data for the FJC’s 

assessment of the pilot project. 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 9

3. How will others be made aware that they may ask to have a proceeding recorded?

Although the Committee anticipates that the assigned judge and/or clerk’s office will initiate the request to record courtroom proceedings, the pilot districts should provide a method for others, such as parties or media, to express 

an interest in recording a particular proceeding. To inform these entities of the 

opportunity to record proceedings, the pilot districts might want to provide 

public information about the pilot project and the opportunity to request that 

proceedings be recorded. Information should be provided, at minimum, on 

the district’s website. Other avenues courts might consider using are legal publications, forums with the bar, and notice from the court’s information officer 

to members of the media. 

Part 3 of this package includes a form, “REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” (Form 

B), which should be posted at the court’s website. Parties and entities outside 

the court should use this form to request a recording. Part 4 of this package includes a draft document titled “Notice to the Public: Cameras Pilot Project”

that may be adapted by the court and posted at its website to inform the media 

and others about the pilot project. Part 4 likewise includes a “Frequently 

Asked Questions” document that, among other things, tells parties and the 

media how to request that a proceeding be recorded. 

4. For which proceedings may the request to record be made?

When establishing the pilot project, the Judicial Conference placed few restrictions on the types of civil cases or the types of proceedings that may be 

recorded. The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “Participating judges 

should consider recording different types of proceedings (e.g., trial and nontrial proceedings; a variety of case types; proceedings of varying sizes such as 

hearings, large cases, and multidistrict litigation; and proceedings with varying 

levels of expressed public interest)” (p. 2). The only type of proceeding we ask 

the pilot districts not to record is civil commitments.

The proceedings that seem most likely to be recorded are trials and evidentiary 

hearings. Pilot judges and districts should not, however, limit recording to trials 

only or even to proceedings that are considered “significant”. The best test of the 

pilot is to record all types of proceedings, including those that are routine. To 

obtain a wide variety of recorded events, we ask the pilot districts to consider 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 10

raising the question of recording with the parties each time a courtroom proceeding is scheduled.2 (If a party firmly refuses, the judge may wish to refrain 

from asking further so as not to appear to be pressuring the parties to consent.) 

5. When a party or other entity requests that a proceeding be recorded and the 

judge declines to record the proceeding, does the judge have an obligation to 

report his/her declination?

Yes, the pilot project asks judges to report their reasons for deciding not to 

record a proceeding. This information will be directly responsive to judiciary 

policy makers’ interest in how often and under what circumstances judges decide that a proceeding should not be recorded. A form for reporting such an

occurrence, “REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO PERMIT VIDEO 

RECORDING OF PROCEEDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE OR FOR WHICH A REQUEST FOR RECORDING WAS MADE” (Form 

C), is provided in Part 3 of this package.

Obtaining Consent to Record

1. May parties give blanket consent for recording all proceedings held in a case, 

or must consent be obtained for each proceeding?

The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “Consent to the recording of one 

proceeding in a case will not be construed as consent to any other proceeding 

in a case” (p. 2). Consent must be obtained for each proceeding. Although this 

requirement may be administratively more demanding, it provides greater 

protection for the parties and better data for the study. Some proceedings, 

such as trials, span multiple days; for such proceedings, consent may be obtained only once. If a party who has consented changes its mind during a proceeding, the judge can hear arguments and discontinue recording if appropriate. (See also the discussion at Point 4, Page 12.)

2. What process should be used for obtaining consent?

The process for obtaining consent will very likely look different from court to 

court because of the courts’ differences in managing cases. Although the Committee’s Program Guidelines provide some suggestions about how to obtain 

consent, the Guidelines leave development of these procedures for the most 

part to the discretion of the court: “The court may (1) establish a procedure 

 2. The Committee recognizes that this practice may result in more consents than the court has 

the capacity to satisfy. We ask courts not to refrain from requesting consent, but rather to track the 

number of consenting cases which cannot be recorded due to limitations on available equipment.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 11

for obtaining party consent to the recording of a proceeding selected for the 

pilot, including a time frame by which consent must be given; and (2) in its 

discretion, hold a hearing to address objections by parties, witnesses, or others 

to the proceeding or posting of a recording for public access. Such hearings 

should not be recorded” (p. 2). 

The Committee is aware of two general approaches that might be taken to obtaining consent. The details of each would depend on the judge and/or court. 

The first approach is to place the consent process in the hands of the presiding 

judge; the second is to delegate it to the clerk’s office. Part 2 provides two Example General Orders illustrating the two approaches.

If the presiding judge is the one who suggests to parties that a proceeding be 

recorded, the judge will need to develop a process for raising the question, securing a completed consent/declination form from parties, and placing the 

form in the hands of the court’s liaison to the FJC. Pilot judges may want to 

raise the question each time a courtroom proceeding is scheduled, by sending 

a “NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” (Form D) or through an inperson or telephonic discussion with the parties. The advantage of having the 

judge raise the issue of recording is that, if necessary, the judge can discuss, 

and perhaps ease, any concerns the parties may have about recording their 

proceeding. Example General Order #1 in Part 2 illustrates this approach.

A court could take a different approach and ask its clerk’s office to handle the 

request and consent process. The clerk’s office could send the parties a request 

to record each time a notice setting a courtroom date is issued—again, using 

Form D. The parties could then return a consent/declination form to the clerk’s 

office. This practice could have several benefits: (1) to standardize the process of 

notification and consent and thus obtain better pilot project data; (2) to ensure 

that notice is given for every eligible proceeding; and (3) to remove any possibility that a party’s non-consent could influence the judge’s view of that party or its 

case. Example General Order #2 in Part 2 illustrates this approach.

In addition to using one of the two approaches above, courts may certainly allow parties, media, and other outside entities to initiate a request for recording, but such requests should not supplant the court’s general obligation to initiate the process, either by having the judge make the request or by having the 

clerk’s office do so.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 12

Whatever process a judge or court adopts, the process should be set out in 

writing so litigants and others know how the judge or court proceeds. And pilot judges should keep in mind the guidance initially set out by the Committee 

in its May guidelines: Any hearing held to determine whether to record a proceeding should not itself be video recorded; the hearing should, however, be 

held on the record.

3. Who should give consent? Must non-party witnesses give consent? If they do 

not, may a proceeding be recorded?

The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “Parties must provide consent to 

the recording of each proceeding in a case” (p. 2). This means that each party 

to a case must give consent for a proceeding to be recorded. If the parties give 

their consent, neither the attorneys for the parties nor witnesses who appear 

on behalf of the parties may prevent recording of the proceeding—i.e., the pilot courts need not ask non-party witnesses whether they consent. It is the parties’ obligation to discuss the matter with their witnesses and to give or withhold consent based on the parties’ best judgment. Parties can indicate on 

Form E or Form F that consent is extended for some, but not all, witnesses; recording equipment should then be turned off when those witnesses testify. 

(Forms E and F are discussed below at Point 4.)

If parties appear reluctant to give consent out of concern for their witnesses, 

judges should talk with the parties about these concerns. Judges should assure 

the parties that party consent is sufficient to permit recording and that the 

judge has authority to turn off the cameras when a reluctant non-party witness 

testifies.3 If parties are aware of this option, it is likely that some proceedings 

may be recorded that otherwise would not be. (The Example General Orders 

reinforce this approach; see Clause 4.) 

In instances where some witnesses are recorded and others are not, the jury 

should not be aware of which ones are recorded and which ones are not.

4. How should parties submit their consent or declination to the court?

When parties or, if represented, their attorneys receive notification of the opportunity to record a proceeding, they should also receive a form for giving or 

 3. If a non-party witness’s camera is turned off, the witness’s voice may nonetheless be picked 

up by the microphone. The court should determine whether that witness wants to avoid only being 

seen or also being heard and then turn off the relevant equipment.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 13

declining consent. Notification is discussed at Point 2, above. The form for 

consenting or declining, “PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO 

RECORDING” (Form E), is provided at Part 3. This form is one of the key 

data collection forms for the study of the pilot project. Attorneys (or pro se litigants) should use it to tell the court whether the parties consent or, if they do 

not, why they decline. This form also permits parties to indicate whether particular non-party witnesses should not be recorded. 

On occasion the court may encounter a case where the parties have consented 

to record a proceeding but at the last minute a non-party witness is reluctant 

to be recorded. To assist the study of the pilot, the Committee would like to 

know how often a witness asks not to be recorded. See Part 3 for the form titled “REQUEST TO EXEMPT WITNESS FROM VIDEO RECORDING”

(Form F). This form may also be used when a consenting party changes its 

mind after a proceeding has begun (see Point 1, Page 10).

5. If all parties who are present for a proceeding give consent, may recording go 

forward if a party who does not want to be recorded is not present?

If a party will not give consent for any proceedings in the case to be recorded, 

then no proceedings should be recorded. But if a party who does not want to 

be recorded is willing to let recording go forward for proceedings where that 

party is absent, then consent by the parties who will be present at the proceeding is sufficient to permit recording of that proceeding. 

6. Should the consent/declination forms be docketed?

Party consents should be recorded on the docket, but declinations should not 

be recorded on the docket. In any instance, the consent/declination form itself 

should not become part of the public record.

Other Matters

1. Should the court notify those present at a recorded proceeding that the event 

is being recorded?

The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “The court should remind all persons present in the courtroom that a recording is taking place, so as to limit 

noise, side conversation, and other disturbances” (p. 4). Part 4 provides text 

the pilot courts can adapt for use in their courtrooms.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 14

2. May a judge decide not to release a recording that has already been made, even 

when the parties have consented to recording the proceeding?

The Committee’s Program Guidelines state, “In the event that the presiding 

judge decides not to make the recording publicly available, the judge must 

document, using the forms provided by the FJC, the reasons for the decision 

and send that information to the FJC” (p. 6). See Part 3 for the form, “REASONS 

FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ALL OR PORTIONS OF A VIDEO 

RECORDING THAT WAS MADE” (Form G).

There may be a number of reasons not to release all or part of a recording. A 

hearing may involve, for example, photos of autopsies, surgeries, or nudity. A 

judge may decide not to release a recording with such evidence. Alternatively, 

when a judge (or a party) deems certain evidence not suitable for public distribution, he or she can simply turn off the evidence camera during that portion 

of the hearing. The consent/declination form (Form E) gives parties an opportunity to designate beforehand the portions of a proceeding they do not want 

to record.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 15

Part 2

Example General Orders

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 17

EXAMPLE GENERAL ORDER #1: 

THE JUDGE INITIATES THE REQUEST AND CONSENT PROCESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

___________ DISTRICT OF _____________

GENERAL ORDER RE: VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS 

UNDER THE CAMERAS PILOT PROJECT

This General Order supplements the Judicial Conference Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project in 

the District Courts (“the Guidelines”; available at [insert link]). All recordings of 

court proceedings must comply with both this General Order and the Guidelines; 

where they are believed to conflict, the Guidelines will prevail.

1. Participating judges. Video recording will occur only in proceedings presided over by District Judges who have chosen to participate in the Pilot 

Project. All further references to “Judge” or “presiding Judge” in this Order include only participating District Judges. A list of participating Judges 

can be found on the court’s website at: [insert link].

2. Proceedings eligible for recording. A Judge who is presiding over a civil 

case proceeding that is held in open court, other than those excluded under the Guidelines, will determine whether to request that the proceeding 

be recorded. In general, trials and evidentiary hearings will be recorded 

unless a party does not give consent [Alt. language: In general, trials and 

evidentiary hearings will be considered eligible for recording.] [Courts 

should add here any other proceedings considered to be “default” proceedings eligible for recording in their court.] 

3. Notification of parties. Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, at least __ 

days prior to each civil case proceeding that the Judge has identified as eligible for recording, the Judge will send each party, or the party’s attorney if 

represented by counsel, a notice (“NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING”) that he or she is requesting that the proceeding be recorded under the pilot project. Alternatively, the Judge may provide such notice at a 

conference with counsel or with parties proceeding without counsel.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 18

4. Consent of parties. Along with notification, each party will receive a form 

(“PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING”) on which to indicate whether that party consents to the recording of all, part, or none of 

the proceeding. Parties may indicate as well that they wish to have no recording of specified witnesses. Counsel for each party, or the party itself if 

proceeding pro se, will return the form on behalf of all persons who will 

appear for that party at the proceeding to be recorded. For data collection 

purposes, parties who do not consent to recording will be asked to describe 

their reasons. Unless otherwise ordered by the Judge, the form should be 

returned to the Judge’s chambers at least ___ days prior to the proceeding. 

5. Hearing on consent. If some or all parties do not consent to recording a 

proceeding that the Judge has identified as eligible for recording, the Judge 

may, in his or her discretion, hold a hearing to discuss the parties’ concerns and determine if there are conditions under which the party(ies) 

would agree to recording some or all of the proceeding. The hearing will be 

held on the record.

6. Requests for recording from parties or outside entities. Parties, members 

of the media, or other outside entities may submit a request that a proceeding be recorded. A request should be submitted to the presiding Judge 

at least ___ days before the date of the proceeding. For proceedings that 

arise with little notice, the request should be made as soon as practicable. 

The request should be made using the “REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING OF 

COURT PROCEEDING” form (available at [insert link]). The presiding Judge 

will determine whether to deny the request or to seek consent from the 

parties under the procedures outlined above. The person or entity making 

the request will be advised of the outcome of the request at least ___ days 

prior to the proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding Judge.

7. Data collection. The completed “PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” forms and “REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDING” forms will be made available to researchers at the Federal Judicial 

Center who are conducting an evaluation of the Cameras Pilot Project on 

behalf of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and 

Case Management. 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 19

EXAMPLE GENERAL ORDER #2: 

THE CLERK’S OFFICE INITIATES THE REQUEST AND 

CONSENT PROCESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

___________ DISTRICT OF _____________

GENERAL ORDER RE: VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS 

UNDER THE CAMERAS PILOT PROJECT

This General Order supplements the Judicial Conference Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project in 

the District Courts (“the Guidelines”; available at [insert link]). All recordings of 

court proceedings must comply with both this General Order and the Guidelines; 

where they are believed to conflict, the Guidelines will prevail.

1. Participating judges. Video recording will occur only in proceedings presided over by District Judges who have chosen to participate in the Pilot 

Project. All further references to “Judge” or “presiding Judge” in this Order include only participating District Judges. A list of participating Judges 

can be found on the court’s website at: [insert link].

2. Proceedings eligible for recording. Every civil case proceeding presided 

over by a Judge participating in the Cameras Pilot Project and held in open 

court, other than those excluded under the Guidelines, is eligible for recording.

3. Notification of parties. At least ___ days prior to each civil case proceeding 

that is eligible for recording, the Clerk’s Office will send each party, or the 

party’s attorney if represented by counsel, a notice that the proceeding is 

eligible for recording under the pilot project. Where a proceeding arises 

with insufficient time to provide such notice, the Clerk’s Office will notify 

parties of eligibility as soon as is practicable.

4. Consent of parties. Along with notification, each party will receive a form 

(“PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING”) on which to indicate 

whether that party consents to the recording of all, part, or none of the 
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 20

proceeding. Parties may indicate as well that they wish to have no recording of specified witnesses. Counsel for each party, or the party itself if proceeding pro se, will return the form on behalf of all persons who will appear for that party at the proceeding to be recorded. For data collection 

purposes, parties who do not consent to recording will be asked to describe 

their reasons. The form should be returned to the Clerk’s Office at least 

___ days prior to the proceeding, except as otherwise ordered by the court. 

The presiding Judge will be advised as to whether all parties consented to 

recording; however, if not all parties consented, the Judge will not be made 

aware of which party(ies) did not consent or of their reasons for not giving 

consent. 

5. Hearing on consent. A presiding Judge who is notified that some or all 

parties have not consented to recording a proceeding may, in his or her 

discretion, hold a hearing to discuss the parties’ concerns and determine if 

there are conditions under which the party(ies) would agree to recording.

6. Judge discretion. Regardless of party consent, the presiding Judge has full 

discretion to determine that a case proceeding, either in full or in part, 

should not be recorded.

7. Requests for recording from outside entities. Parties, members of the media, or other outside entities need not submit a request for a proceeding to 

be recorded because the Clerk’s Office will seek consent for recording 

every eligible proceeding. Individuals interested in knowing which proceedings will be recorded should consult [Name and contact information 

of the liaison or other designated court staff member] or check the court’s 

website at [insert link].

8. Data collection. The completed “PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” forms will be made available to researchers at the Federal Judicial Center who are conducting an evaluation of the Cameras Pilot Project 

on behalf of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration 

and Case Management. 

[Note: See the next page for several alternative clauses.]
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 21

The alternative clauses below are variations in procedure that can be substituted for 

corresponding clauses in Example General Order #2 (The Clerk’s Office Initiates 

the Request and Consent Process). Alternative clauses 1, 2, and 6 would be used 

together.

Alternative for Clause 1: For use if the court leaves the selection of proceedings to 

the judge but wants notification to go out from the Clerk’s Office.

Proceedings eligible for recording. Every civil case proceeding presided over by 

a Judge participating in the Cameras Pilot Project and held in open court, 

other than those excluded under the Guidelines, is eligible for recording. The 

presiding Judge will determine whether to request that the proceeding be recorded.

Alternative for Clause 2: For use if the court leaves the selection of the proceedings to the judge.

Notification of parties. At least ___ days prior to each civil case proceeding 

that is eligible for recording, the Clerk’s Office will send each party, or the 

party’s attorney if represented by counsel, a notice that the presiding Judge 

has selected the proceeding for recording under the pilot project and seeks 

consent of the parties. 

Alternative Final Sentence in Clause 3: For use if the court does not wish to shield 

the judge from knowledge about who did and did not consent.

The “PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” form will then be 

transmitted to the presiding Judge to notify the Judge whether the parties have 

given consent to record. 

Alternative for Clause 6: For use if the court leaves the selection of the proceedings to the judge.

Requests for recording from parties or outside entities. If the presiding Judge 

has not selected an eligible proceeding for recording, a party, members of the 

media, or other outside entities may submit a request that a proceeding be recorded, using the “REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDING” form 

(available at [insert link]). The presiding Judge will determine whether to deny 

the request or to seek consent from the parties under the procedures outlined 

above. Such requests should be submitted at least ___ days before the date of 

the proceeding. For proceedings that arise with little notice, the request should 

be made as soon as practicable. The person or entity making the request will 

be advised of the outcome of the request at least ___ days prior to the proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. 

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 23

Part 3

Data Collection Forms

The forms that follow can be printed and used for proceedings that 

arise at the beginning of the Pilot Project. FJC staff anticipates making fillable PDF documents or on-line databases available for some 

of these forms for pilot court use.

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 25

Form A

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM PILOT PROJECT

REASONS FOR JUDGE’S SELECTION OF PROCEEDING 

FOR VIDEO RECORDING

Case Name: __________________________________________________

Docket Number: _______________________________________

Presiding Judge: _______________________________________

Please describe the proceeding to be recorded: 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Date of scheduled proceeding: ___/___/___

Did you select the proceeding described above for recording because it is of a type 

that your court has identified as presumptively eligible for recording?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No à Please describe, in as much detail as possible, why you [the presiding judge] have identified this case or proceeding as one that 

would be appropriate for inclusion in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Name of Person Completing this Form: ________________________________

Title: ____________________________________________________________

On behalf of (if applicable): __________________________________________

Date: ___/___/___

Please give the completed form to ____________, the Cameras Pilot Project liaison 

in your district.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 26

Form B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE _____________ DISTRICT OF __________________________

REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING

The undersigned request(s) that the court allow video recording of the proceeding 

described below, under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project in the District 

Courts (available at [insert link]).

Case Name: ___________________________________________________

Docket Number: ______________________________

Presiding Judge: ______________________________

Proceeding (describe): _______________________________________________

Date of scheduled proceeding (if known): ___/___/___

Date of Request: ___/___/___

Reason(s) for Request:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

___________________________

Signature

___________________________

Name (please print)

___________________________

Organization(s) represented

All requests should be submitted to: [Clerk of Court/designated media liaison/judges’

chambers], [ADDRESS], [FAX NUMBER].
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 27

Form C

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM PILOT PROJECT

REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO PERMIT VIDEO RECORDING

OF PROCEEDING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE OR FOR 

WHICH A REQUEST FOR RECORDING WAS MADE 

Case Name: ________________________________________________________

Docket Number: ______________________________

Presiding Judge: _______________________________

Please describe the proceeding(s) that would be eligible for recording or for which 

recording was requested: 

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Date of scheduled proceeding: ___/___/___

Name of Person or Organization Making Request (if applicable): 

____________________________________________________

Please describe, in as much detail as possible, why you [the presiding judge] decided 

not to permit recording of the case or proceeding listed above:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Name of Person Completing this Form: _________________________________

Title: _____________________________________________________________

On behalf of (if applicable):___________________________________________

Date: ___/___/___

Please give the completed form to ____________, the Cameras Pilot Project liaison 

in your district.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 28

Form D

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE ____________ DISTRICT OF __________________________

[NAME], Plaintiff ) Case No:

v. )

[NAME], Defendant )

NOTIFICATION OF REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING

The parties in this case are hereby notified that the following proceeding is eligible 

for video recording under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Pilot Project on Cameras (see [insert link]), and 

the Judge requests the parties’ consent to recording. [Alt. language for when the notification comes from the Clerk’s Office: The parties in this case are hereby notified 

that the following proceeding is eligible for video recording under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Pilot Project 

on Cameras (see [insert link]), and the court requests the parties’ consent to recording.] [Alt. language for when an outside entity has requested the recording: The parties 

in this case are hereby notified that a request has been made to video record the 

following proceeding in this case under the Judicial Conference Committee on 

Court Administration and Case Management Pilot Project on Cameras (see [insert 

link].] 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

(Describe proceeding.)

Date of scheduled proceeding: ___/___/___

Parties should complete the attached form, PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST 

FOR VIDEO RECORDING, and return it to the court by [DATE].

___/___/___ ____________________________________

[DATE] [JUDGE OR CLERK OF COURT]
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 29

Form E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE ____________ DISTRICT OF __________________________

[NAME], Plaintiff ) Case No:

v. )

[NAME], Defendant )

PARTY RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING

The presiding Judge has requested that the following proceeding be video recorded, 

under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project in the District Courts (available 

at [insert link]). [Alt. Language 1, for when notice is sent by Clerk’s Office: The following proceeding in this case is eligible for video recording under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for 

the Cameras Pilot Project in the District Courts (available at [insert link); Alt Language 2, for when an outside entity has requested recording: A request has been made 

for the following proceeding to be video recorded, under the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the 

Cameras Pilot Project in the District Courts (available at [insert link]).]

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

(Describe proceeding.)

Date of scheduled proceeding: ___/___/___

Check the appropriate box(es) below and on the next page to indicate whether you 

consent to the recording of some or all of this proceeding: 

[ ] I consent to the recording of this entire proceeding.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 30

[ ] I consent to the recording of some, but not all, of this proceeding.

è Explain the specific parts of the proceeding for which you do not consent to recording, and your reasons: 

Part of Proceeding Reason Not to Video Record

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

[ ] I consent to the recording of this proceeding. The following witnesses 

have expressed a preference not to be recorded, for the reasons indicated.

è Name the specific witnesses for whom you do not consent to recording, 

and explain your reasons: 

Witness Name Reason Not to Video Record

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

[ ] I do not consent to the recording of any of this proceeding.

è Explain your reasons for not consenting: 

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

I submit and sign this form on behalf of the party I represent and the witnesses I 

may call.

___________________________

Signature

___________________________

Name (please print)

___________________________

Position (e.g., attorney of record)

___/___/___

Date
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 31

Form F

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE __________ DISTRICT OF __________________________

[NAME], Plaintiff ) Case No:

v. )

[NAME], Defendant )

REQUEST TO EXEMPT WITNESS(ES) FROM VIDEO RECORDING

The proceeding described below has been approved by the parties and the presiding 

Judge for video recording under the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot Project and 

the Court’s General Order Implementing the Pilot Project. 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

(Describe proceeding.)

Date of scheduled proceeding: ___/___/___

I hereby request that the testimony of the following witness(es) not be recorded 

during this proceeding:

Witness Name Reason Not to Video Record

___________________________ ______________________________

___________________________ ______________________________

___________________________ ______________________________

I submit and sign this form on behalf of the party I represent and the witnesses I 

may call.

_____________________________

Signature

_____________________________

Name (please print)

_____________________________

Position (e.g., attorney of record)

___/___/___

Date
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 32

Form G

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM PILOT PROJECT

REASONS FOR JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

ALL OR PORTIONS OF A VIDEO RECORDING THAT WAS MADE

Case Name: ________________________________________________________

Docket Number: ________________________

Presiding Judge: ________________________

Please describe the proceeding that was recorded: 

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Date of proceeding: ___/___/___

Please describe, in as much detail as possible, why you [the presiding judge] decided not to make publicly available all or portions of the video recordings of the 

proceeding described above:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Name of Person Completing this Form: _________________________________

Title: _____________________________________________________________

On behalf of (if applicable): ___________________________________________

Date: ___/___/___

Please give the completed form to ____________, the Cameras Pilot Project liaison 

in your district.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 33

Part 4

Sample Language for Circumstances Arising from 

Being a “Cameras” Pilot Court

Sample FAQs

Cameras in Courts on uscourts.gov

Sample Courtroom Statement

Sample Instructions to Jurors re Cameras

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 35

Sample FAQs

The questions and answers below may be adapted by pilot districts 

for use as a Frequently Asked Questions document to be made available at the district’s web site and other appropriate locations.

* * * * *

The ______ District is a pilot court in the federal judiciary’s Cameras in the 

Courtroom Pilot Project. Information about the Pilot Project is provided here for 

the benefit of parties in a civil case, witnesses, the media, and the general public. 

Additional information can be found in the Judicial Conference Committee on 

Court Administration and Case Management Guidelines for the Cameras Pilot 

Project in the District Courts (“Guidelines”; found at [insert link]) and the 

Court’s General Order regarding the Project (found at [insert link]).

1. What does the Pilot Project involve?

Fourteen federal district courts, including this District Court, are taking part 

in the federal judiciary’s Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. This project 

allows judges to video record proceedings in civil cases and to make the recordings available to viewers on line. Judges will record only civil proceedings 

and only if parties give consent. The court will operate the recording equipment.

2. When does the Pilot Project begin?

Pilot courts were authorized to make recordings as of July 18, 2011. This District will have equipment and procedures in place to begin recording on 

_____. [Alt. language: This District began its program on ____.] Eligible civil 

proceedings for which the parties have consented to recording may be video

recorded from that day forward. The Pilot Project ends after three years.
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 36

3. What proceedings may and may not be recorded? 

Civil case proceedings held in open court and presided over by a district judge 

who has elected to participate in the Pilot Project are eligible for recording, 

subject to any limitations set forth in the Guidelines, the Court’s General Order re: the Cameras Pilot Project, and decisions of the presiding judge. Before 

a recording of a proceeding can take place, the parties involved in the case 

must have given consent. Even with party consent, the presiding judge has discretion over whether a proceeding, or any part of a proceeding, will be recorded. 

The Pilot Project does not allow video recording of civil commitment or criminal matters. 

4. May jurors be recorded?

Jurors, prospective jurors, and alternate jurors cannot be recorded in the 

courtroom or any other part of the courthouse.

5. What happens if a non-party witness does not wish to be video recorded? 

If a witness prefers not to be recorded, the party can bring this fact to the attention of the judge. A party that is inclined to consent to recording has an obligation to discuss recording with non-party witnesses.

6. Which of the court’s judges are participating?

The Guidelines limit the pilot project to district judges. The participating 

judges from this court are: [list].

7. How can the public find out which proceedings the court expects to record?

[If applicable: Go to [insert link] to find upcoming proceedings that will be 

recorded. [Alt. Language: Contact [Name/Clerk’s Office] for information 

about upcoming proceedings that will be recorded.]

8. How can the public request that the court record a proceeding?

If you wish to request that a proceeding be recorded, you can use the “REQUEST 

FOR VIDEO RECORDING” form, found at [insert link]. [Alt. language for courts in 

which the judge requests recording: The presiding judge will ask parties in appropriate civil proceedings whether they consent to video recording the proceeding. If you wish to request that a certain proceeding be recorded, you can 

use the “REQUEST FOR VIDEO RECORDING” form, found at [insert link].] [If applicable, given deadlines for submitting the request form: Participating judges’ calendars can be found at [insert link].]
Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 37

9. Will proceedings be simulcast?

Under the Guidelines, the presiding judge has discretion to determine that 

some or all of a recorded proceeding will not be made publicly available. To 

ensure that discretion, proceedings will not be simulcast. 

10. How—and when—can the public view a recording?

Recordings will be stored on a national server maintained by the federal judiciary and can be accessed through this link: [insert link]. [If applicable: The 

court will also make recordings available on its public website, at [insert link]]. 

Recordings will be posted as soon as practicable.

11. Who has oversight and evaluation responsibility for this Pilot Project?

The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management has oversight responsibility for the pilot project. At the request of the 

Judicial Conference and the Committee, the Federal Judicial Center, the judiciary’s research and education agency, is conducting an evaluation of the pilot 

courts’ experience under the project.

12. Who do I contact with questions about how the Pilot Project operates in this 

district?

If questions about the Pilot Project in this Court are not answered in this FAQ 

or other publicly-available documents, please contact [Name/ number/email 

of court contact person].

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 39

Cameras in Courts on uscourts.gov

http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/cameras.aspx

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 41

Sample Courtroom Statement

The statement below may be adapted by pilot districts for use at the 

start of a proceeding that will be video recorded.

* * * * *

This proceeding will be video recorded, and the video may be posted on the web 

site for the federal court system [and this court’s web site]. The parties to the case 

have agreed to allow cameras operated by court personnel to record the proceedings. Please limit noise, side conversations, and other disturbances.

Appendix A

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

CACM “Cameras” Implementation Guidance, August 22, 2011 43

Sample Instructions to Jurors re Cameras

The instructions below may be adapted by pilot districts for instructing jurors at the start of a proceeding that will be video recorded.

* * * * *

The proceedings in which you may be participating as a juror will be video recorded and the video may be posted on the web site for the federal court system 

[and this court’s web site.] The parties to the case have agreed to allow cameras 

operated by court personnel to record the proceedings. You should not draw any 

inferences or conclusions from the fact that this particular proceeding is being 

video recorded.

You as jurors, however, will not be included in the video recordings at any time 

and the cameras are arranged so jurors will not be captured on video. In addition, 

the court will not allow any cameras to be used during the jury selection process.

The court is permitting the recording of these proceedings pursuant to a pilot program for civil cases in federal courts adopted by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States. This court is one of fourteen volunteer pilot program courts. The 

recordings are made under the control of the court and, as the presiding judge, I 

have the discretion to allow or permit the posting of all or some of the proceedings 

on court websites within twenty-four hours of the recording. No live broadcasting 

of the proceedings is permitted under the pilot program. 

As jurors, you must not watch any of the videos of the proceedings until your service has been completed. Failure to follow this instruction may result in sanctions 

from this court. 

Appendix B

Video Recording Technology for the “Cameras” Pilot Project

July 2011–July 2015

Administrative Office Expenditures

Number of Views of Recordings Posted at www.uscourts.gov

Description of Equipment Used in Each Pilot Court

Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 1

U.S. District Courts

Video Recording Technology for “Cameras” Pilot Project

July 2011–July 2015

Administrative Office Expenditures

Below is a brief account of Administrative Office equipment and personnel costs 

for the pilot project. This account was prepared by pilot project staff at the Administrative Office.

Total Costs: $989,526.44

o Equipment Costs (JITF) $458.586.80

§ 5 Portable Video Production Systems, $287,541.00

§ 38 Digital Video Recorders/Encoders & Tech Support, 

$158,904.00

§ 2 Videoconferencing System Upgrades, $9,964.00

§ 14 Video Editing Software Licenses, $2,177.80

o Labor Costs (PACER) 2011 to 2015, $435,236.52

§ OPA contractor staff provided technical support for equipment 

operations, video editing, training, web publishing, database 

management, and web analytics.

o Video Hosting (JITF) 2011 to 2015, $95,703.12

§ Recordings were published on www.uscourts.gov, and hosted 

by a third party video hosting service.
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 2

Number of Views of Video Recordings Posted at www.uscourts.gov 

Below is a count of the number of times a video recording was viewed. The information was provided by the Administrative Office.

When the pilot project began, the Administrative Office contracted with a video 

hosting and content delivery provider. The company also tracked the number of 

times viewers accessed the video recordings. While it would have been ideal to collect additional data, this proved to be elusive for several reasons. 

During the course of the pilot, an increasing number of users accessed pilot videos 

over mobile devices and tablets, as opposed to PCs. This shift in viewership habits 

brought into question the ability and reliability to accurately collect analytics from 

different sources. 

In an effort to address this challenge, the vendor used three different tracking systems seriatim over the four-year pilot project, introducing improvements and inconsistency in tracking accuracy with each new system. The system in place during 

calendar 2014, which we believe collected the most reliable data, found that the 

videos posted by the pilot courts were accessed 21,530 times between January 1 

and December 31, 2014. It is difficult to know, of course, whether this is a significant number or not, since there is no benchmark to look to for guidance. 
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 3

Descriptions of Video Recording Equipment Installed and Used in the 

Pilot Districts

Below are descriptions of the equipment used and video recording procedures followed by each pilot court. Project staff from the Federal Judicial Center prepared 

the descriptions, using information obtained through interviews with the courts. 

Court staff reviewed the descriptions.

Middle District of Alabama

The district had three video cameras and recording equipment provided by the 

Administrative Office, and the equipment was portable from one courtroom to 

another. When a proceeding was to be recorded, it took IT staff roughly two hours 

to set up the equipment. IT staff operated the equipment during proceedings.

Northern District of California

The court has a system it bought and wired into a single courtroom in a new 

courthouse. The system has three stationary cameras, which are focused on the 

judge’s bench, the witness stand, and the attorney lectern. These three views, along 

with information about the case, make up the four quadrants seen on screen by a 

viewer. The cameras record onto a laptop, which can be easily uploaded to the Administrative Office. The court also has a portable system for use in its old courthouse. This system also has three cameras, focused on the judge’s bench, witness 

stand, and attorney lectern, and can be set up in any courtroom. IT staff remain in 

the courtroom for the duration of a proceeding to monitor the video recording; 

they later upload the recordings to the Administrative Office.

Southern District of Florida

At the beginning of the project, the Administrative Office provided the Southern 

District of Florida with three encoder boxes. The court used existing video conferencing equipment and an encoder it already possessed to record proceedings in 

three courthouses. A law clerk would typically start and stop a recording from 

within the courtroom, although cameras could also be turned on and off remotely. Feed from up to three cameras were processed through a multiplexer to 

provide recordings showing multiple views (e.g., the bench, the witness stand, the 

podium). 
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 4

District of Guam

The court used its existing video conferencing system for recording cases under 

the pilot. The equipment consists of three cameras built into wells in the courtroom walls. The Niagara Viewcast encoder provided by the Administrative Office 

was used for recording the hearings and was connected directly to the video conferencing system. An IT staff member used a touch screen at the courtroom deputy’s bench to control the cameras during a recorded proceeding. The cameras 

could be trained on the judge, witness, or podium/counsel tables. During the 

course of the pilot, the court purchased an additional Niagara Viewcast encoder/recorder for use as a spare and also for use in the court’s magistrate courtroom.

Northern District of Illinois

The Administrative Office provided the court with a portable video recording unit 

that included three cameras and a director’s station. The director’s station was operated during a recorded proceeding by a systems department staff person, who 

could sit at the station and initiate the recording, control the cameras independently by setting predetermined camera shots and angles (presets), connect evidence presentation outputs to the director’s station, and stop the recording when 

the proceeding was concluded or on break. The equipment was stored in four 

portable cases that could be moved to different courtrooms depending on which 

judge was recording a proceeding. Setting up the equipment and testing for a particular recording took approximately three hours. 

Southern District of Iowa

At the beginning of the project, the Administrative Office provided the Southern 

District of Iowa with two encoder boxes, which the court used with existing polycom video conferencing equipment to record proceedings. This made video recording possible in every courtroom, although it required the court to share (and 

transport) two systems among three courthouses until a third encoder was later 

acquired. Court staff operated the recording equipment from within the courtroom. Staff could use one camera to focus on the bench and/or witness box and 

another camera to focus on the tables for counsel and client or the podium.

District of Kansas

The Administrative Office provided the DVR recording equipment for two courtrooms, and the court bought a third system so it could equip a courtroom in each 

of its three courthouses. The court provided the cameras and the installation and 
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 5

wiring of each courtroom. The court’s IT staff integrated the control of the video 

equipment into the court’s existing AMX based audio visual system to allow the 

courtroom deputies to operate the equipment. Later the court acquired and built 

in a fourth system. The cameras focused on the judge’s bench, the witness stand, 

and the attorney’s podium. The fourth video feed in each courtroom comes directly from the media input used by the attorney and can accept footage from the 

document camera, connected media device, tablet, or laptop. The courtroom deputies can toggle back and forth between these cameras to provide a single view on 

screen. The default view is a quad split screen incorporating all four views in one 

image, which is used to reduce management time of the courtroom deputies. IT 

staff provide post recording editing when necessary and upload the video files to 

the AO. The court tested a portable system but found that set-up was time-consuming when compared to the integrated system.

District of Massachusetts

When the pilot project began, the court had one courtroom wired with capability 

to video record, and it set up the pilot project in that courtroom with cameras 

from the Administrative Office. Because judges preferred to stay in their own 

courtroom, the court also purchased a single camera portable system that could 

record and stream and could be used if the multi-camera system was in use. Currently, the court has three courtrooms where proceedings can be video recorded 

and is about halfway through a project to upgrade all district judge courtrooms 

with wired-in video recording capability. The judges prefer a single screen image, 

and therefore an IT staff member is present throughout a proceeding to operate 

the cameras. IT staff also edit and upload the recordings afterward.

Eastern District of Missouri

The district had two courtrooms set up for recording, both of which already had 

cameras integrated into them. Each courtroom had three cameras, in addition to a 

feed for evidence or a document camera. The Administrative Office provided an 

encoder, which gave the court the ability to record four streams at once (judge, attorney, witness, and evidence/document camera). The cameras were turned on 

and off by IT staff before and after the proceedings and during breaks. While the 

proceeding was occurring, they recorded continuously. If the judge did not want 

portions of the proceeding broadcast, he or she would make a note during the 

proceeding, and afterward IT staff would edit out that part of the proceeding before uploading to the AO.
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 6

District of Nebraska

The district had two courtrooms set up for recording, one in Omaha and one in 

Lincoln. Each of the courtrooms had three cameras and one recorder. The equipment was provided by the Administrative Office. When a proceeding was scheduled to be recorded, IT staff would test the equipment beforehand and set up camera angles. The cameras focused on the judge, the witness stand, and counsel tables/podium. The courtroom deputy operated the equipment during a proceeding.

Northern District of Ohio

The Administrative Office provided the court with three encoder boxes that the 

court used with existing video conferencing equipment to record trials in two 

courthouses. Non-IT court staff operated equipment from within the courtroom, 

choosing one of four monitors to provide a view of the judge, witness, attorney 

podium, or evidence display. Operators were responsible for uploading recordings 

to the AO at the end of each trial day. 

Southern District of Ohio

The Administrative Office provided the court with two encoder boxes intended 

for use with existing video conferencing equipment. Two out of three courtrooms 

of the three participating judges were covered by the equipment. If the third judge 

had received consent to record a proceeding, he would have moved to an 

equipped courtroom. The court expected a courtroom deputy to operate the 

equipment from within the courtroom, but the court made no recordings because 

it had no consented cases. 

Western District of Tennessee

The court was upgrading its courtroom audio visual systems at the time the pilot 

project began and subsequently has completed installation in all the district judge 

courtrooms. Although initially given a single portable system by the Administrative Office, the court has relied on its own equipment and returned the Administrative Office equipment. The cameras—one each for the judge, witness stand, attorney podium, and evidence cart—are high definition and wired to a central 

mixer with pan and tilt. This feeds a digital recorder which archives the recording 

to a server. The court has a single recorder in each of its two courthouses and 

therefore can record in only one courtroom at a time. Because the judge who is 

the primary user of video recording prefers a single image on screen and it is too 

time-consuming for courtroom staff to manage the cameras, IT staff are present 
Appendix B

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix B – 7

throughout a proceeding to do so. Upon completion of a proceeding, IT staff edit 

the recording, if necessary, guided by notes kept while in the courtroom, and upload it to the Administrative Office.

Western District of Washington

The Western District of Washington used AO-provided video recording equipment. Recordings were made using up to three high-definition (HD) Panasonic

cameras and a Panasonic camera control unit that was moved between courtrooms on a cart as needed. Four inputs on the control unit permitted court staff to 

switch between coverage of the bench and witness box, the podium, tables for 

counsel and client, and to also capture an output image from the evidence display. 

The typical setup for recording involved just two cameras, covering two camera 

angles. Court staff operated the recording equipment from within the courtroom. 

Appendix C

Federal Judicial Center Questionnaires and Interview Protocols

Questionnaires

Judges Pre-Pilot

Judges Post-Pilot

Attorneys Post-Pilot

Post-Pilot Interview Protocols

Judges Who Recorded a Proceeding (and Completed the Questionnaire)

Judges Who Recorded a Proceeding (and Did Not Complete the 

Questionnaire)

Court Staff

Online Viewer Survey

Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 1

EARLY IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY OF ALL DISTRICT JUDGES IN

“CAMERAS” PILOT COURTS

As you are aware, the Judicial Conference has authorized the Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management (“the Committee”) to conduct a pilot project to evaluate “the effect of cameras in district court courtrooms, video recordings of proceedings therein, and publication of such video recordings.” The Committee asked the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to evaluate the pilot project.

As part of this evaluation, the FJC is surveying all district judges in the pilot 

courts, both active and senior judges and both participating and non-participating 

judges. The questionnaire asks about judges’ expectations and concerns about 

video recording in district courtrooms.

Please assume for the purposes of this survey that video recording will conform to 

guidelines that have been established for the pilot program 

(http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/News/2011/docs/CamerasGuidelines.pdf). Key 

among the guideline provisions are the following:

• video recording will be limited to civil proceedings in which all parties 

consent;

• the presiding judge will decide whether, and what portions of, a proceeding will be recorded;

• court personnel will operate the recording equipment;

• jurors will not be recorded; and 

• cameras will be small and unobtrusive, but participants will know when a 

proceeding is being recorded.

Responses to this survey will be reported in the aggregate only, and no individual 

judges will be identified.

Please complete the survey by September 12. If you have technical problems completing the survey, please contact Meghan Dunn (mdunn@fjc.gov; 805-226-7497). 

If you have any questions about the substance of the survey, please contact Molly 

Johnson (mjohnson@fjc.gov; 315-824-4945), Carol Krafka (ckrafka@fjc.gov; 202-

502-4068), or Donna Stienstra (dstienst@fjc.gov; 202-502-4081).
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 2

Part I: Expectations About Video Recording of Civil Proceedings

The following questions relate to the potential effects of or concerns regarding 

video recording of civil proceedings, compared to what you would expect in the 

absence of video recording. For each potential effect, please mark the circle in the 

column that best reflects your view.

1) Compared to the absence of video recording, to what extent, if at all, do you expect the presence of video recording during civil proceedings to:

To no 

extent

To a 

small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

great 

extent

No 

opinion

Motivate witnesses to be 

truthful? m m m m m

Violate witnesses’ privacy? m m m m m

Make witnesses less willing 

to appear in court? m m m m m

Distract witnesses? m m m m m

Make witnesses more 

nervous than they otherwise would be?

m m m m m

Increase juror attentiveness? m m m m m

Signal to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important?

m m m m m

Increase jurors’ sense of 

responsibility for their verdict?

m m m m m

Prompt people who see the 

coverage to try to influence juror-friends?

m m m m m

Cause attorneys to urge 

their clients to consent to 

recording in order to 

please the judge?

m m m m m

Motivate attorneys to

come to court better prepared?

m m m m m
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 3

To no 

extent

To a 

small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

great 

extent

No 

opinion

Cause attorneys to be 

more theatrical in their 

presentation?

m m m m m

Prompt attorneys to be 

more courteous? m m m m m

Increase judge attentiveness? m m m m m

Cause judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions?

m m m m m

Cause judges to be more 

theatrical in conducting 

the proceeding?

m m m m m

Prompt judges to be more 

courteous? m m m m m

Disrupt courtroom proceedings? m m m m m

Educate the public about 

courtroom procedure? m m m m m

Educate the public about 

the legal issues in court 

cases?

m m m m m

Decrease public confidence in the courts? m m m m m

Increase public confidence 

in the courts? m m m m m

2) If you have other expectations, either positive or negative, about the effects of 

video recording in civil proceedings, please describe them here:
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 4

3) Below is a list of concerns some judges have expressed about video recording of 

proceedings in their courtrooms. Keeping in mind the conditions under which recordings can occur under the pilot project, for each concern, please indicate the extent to which you agree with it by marking the circle in the appropriate column.

To no 

extent

To a 

small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

great 

extent

No 

opinion

Ruling on applications for 

and objections to video recording will (would) take 

too much of my time.

m m m m m

Operating the video equipment will (would) take too 

much of my time or court 

staff’s time.

m m m m m

Someone or something that 

is not appropriate to record 

(e.g., a juror) will (would) be 

recorded and disseminated.

m m m m m

I or my staff will not (would 

not) operate the recording 

equipment properly for 

some or all of a proceeding.

m m m m m

I will (would) do or say 

something embarrassing that 

is recorded and disseminated.

m m m m m

A recording will (would) be 

altered in a way that is unfavorable to me or one of the 

participants.

m m m m m

My safety will (would) be 

compromised by having recordings of my proceedings 

disseminated.

m m m m m

4) If you have other concerns about video recording of civil proceedings, please 

describe them here:
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 5

Part II: Your Overall Views About Video Recording of District Court Proceedings

5) Which of the following statements best reflects your overall opinion about video 

recording civil proceedings and making the recordings publicly available? Please 

check one.

m I am greatly in favor.

m I am somewhat in favor.

m I have no opinion.

m I am somewhat opposed.

m I am greatly opposed.

6) Please explain your response:

7) Which of the following statements best describes your plans regarding participation in the Judicial Conference-approved pilot project allowing video recording 

of civil proceedings? Please check one.

m I plan to participate in the pilot project from the beginning.

m I do not plan to participate in the pilot project at the outset, but have 

not ruled out participation later on.

m I do not plan to participate in the pilot project at any point.

Part III: Judge Information

8) Have you had any prior experience with video recordings of court proceedings, 

either as a litigator, a state court judge, or as a participant in the earlier federal pilot program involving electronic media coverage of civil proceedings? Please check 

all that apply.

q No

q Yes, as a litigator

q Yes, as a state court judge

q Yes, as a district judge or magistrate judge participant in the federal pilot program on “cameras” in the early 1990’s.

9) Please describe your experiences with video recording and your impressions of its 

effects.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 6

10) When were you appointed to the federal bench? Please select the appropriate 

answer from the drop-down menu below.

11) Which of the following is your home district? Please select the appropriate answer from the drop-down menu below.

m Alabama - Middle

m California - Northern

m Florida - Southern

m Guam

m Illinois - Northern

m Iowa - Southern

m Kansas

m Massachusetts

m Missouri - Eastern

m Nebraska

m Ohio - Northern

m Ohio - Southern

m Tennessee - Western

m Washington – Western

12) If you have any additional comments about video recording of civil proceedings in general, or the pilot program in particular, please provide them here.

Thank you for completing the survey. Please click the Submit Survey button below 

to submit your responses. Or, if you prefer, use the Previous Page and Next Page 

buttons to review your responses and then return to the last page to submit your 

responses. A successful submission will result in immediate confirmation.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 7

CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM FOLLOW-UP

POST-PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDGES

On July 18, 2015, the “Cameras in the Courtroom” pilot project formally ended, 

although participating courts may continue to video record until the Judicial Conference considers policy recommendations, possibly as early as the Conference’s 

March 2016 session. The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management asked the Federal Judicial Center to evaluate the pilot 

project, and as part of the evaluation, we surveyed judges in the pilot courts when 

the project was first being implemented. Now we’re conducting a follow-up survey, asking for your help with the evaluation by completing this questionnaire, 

which asks for your thoughts about video recording of civil proceedings.

The following guidelines applied to the pilot project: 

• video recording was limited to civil proceedings in which all parties consented and the presiding judge agreed to record; 

• court personnel operated the recording equipment; 

• jurors were not to be recorded; and 

• cameras were small and unobtrusive.

You should need no more than ten minutes to complete the survey. A response by 

August 26, 2015 will be greatly appreciated. The Federal Judicial Center will report 

responses only in the aggregate, and no individual judges will be identified. If you 

have technical problems with the survey, please contact Meghan Dunn 

(mdunn@fjc.gov; 805-226-7497). For questions about the survey content, please 

email FJC_Directors_Office@fjc.gov or phone Carol Krafka (202-502-4068).
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 8

Judgments Regarding the Potential Effects of Video Recording Civil Proceedings 

The following questions relate to possible effects of, or concerns regarding, video 

recording civil proceedings. For each possible effect or concern, please mark the 

circle in the column that best reflects your view.

1. Compared to courtroom proceedings where cameras are absent, to what extent, if at all, do you think the presence of video recording during civil proceedings:

To no 

extent

To a small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a great 

extent

No

opinion

Motivates witnesses 

to be truthful? m m m m m

Distracts witnesses? m m m m m

Makes witnesses 

more nervous than 

they otherwise 

would be?

m m m m m

Increases juror attentiveness? m m m m m

Signals to jurors 

that a witness or argument is particularly important?

m m m m m

Increases jurors’

sense of responsibility for their verdict?

m m m m m

Prompts people 

who see the coverage to try to influence juror-friends?

m m m m m
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 9

Causes attorneys to 

urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to 

please the judge?

m m m m m

Motivates attorneys 

to come to court 

better prepared?

m m m m m

Causes attorneys to 

be more theatrical 

in their presentation?

m m m m m

Prompts attorneys 

to be more courteous?

m m m m m

Increases judge attentiveness? m m m m m

Causes judges to 

avoid unpopular 

decisions or positions?

m m m m m

Causes judges to be 

more theatrical in 

conducting the 

proceeding?

m m m m m

Prompts judges to 

be more courteous? m m m m m

Disrupts courtroom proceedings? m m m m m

Educates the public 

about courtroom 

procedure?

m m m m m

Educates the public 

about the legal issues in court cases?

m m m m m

Increases public access to the federal 

courts?

m m m m m
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 10

Decreases public 

confidence in the 

federal courts?

m m m m m

Increases public 

confidence in the 

federal courts?

m m m m m

2. If you have additional thoughts about benefits that result from video recording 

civil proceedings, please describe them here: 

3. If you have additional thoughts about harms that result from video recording 

civil proceedings, please describe them here: 

Judge Participation in the Pilot Project

4. Which of the following statements best describes your participation in the pilot project? Please select one.

m I did not wish to participate in the pilot project and did not do so. à Skip 

to Question #11

m I wanted to participate, but had no proceedings recorded because parties 

did not consent.

m I had at least one proceeding recorded. No recordings in my cases were, 

however, posted on the public website.

m I had at least one proceeding recorded. One or more recordings in my 

cases were posted on the public website.

m Other. Please describe: __________________ --> Skip to Question #11
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 11

Reasons for Participation

[answered only by judges who marked the 2nd through 4th options at Question 4 ]

5. Which of the following statements describes your reasons for choosing to participate? Please select all that apply. 

q I felt a responsibility to participate because my court volunteered to be 

a pilot court.

q A colleague or my staff encouraged me to give recording a try.

q I wanted a voice in policy decisions that was based on experience.

q I was curious about the technology.

q I thought it would be interesting.

q Other. Please describe: ____________________

Judgments Regarding Operational and Administrative Measures

[answered only by judges who marked the 3rd or 4th options at Question 4 ]

6. Below is a short list of operational and administrative concerns that some 

judges had expressed about video recording before the pilot project began. We 

are interested in your thoughts about the extent to which each concern was realized. When responding, please put aside minor, and expected, complications 

that arise when new equipment and procedures are introduced. Please indicate 

the extent to which you would say each concern was realized by marking a circle in the appropriate column.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 12

To no 

extent

To a small 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a great 

extent

No 

opinion

Ruling on applications for and objections to video recording took too 

much of my time.

m m m m m

Operating the video 

equipment took too 

much of my time or 

court staff time.

m m m m m

The presence of 

cameras disrupted 

my courtroom proceedings.

m m m m m

Someone or something that was not 

appropriate to record (e.g., a juror) 

was recorded and 

disseminated.

m m m m m

I said or did something embarrassing 

that was recorded 

and disseminated.

m m m m m

A recording was altered in a way that 

was unfavorable to 

me or one of the 

proceeding participants.

m m m m m

My safety was compromised by having 

recordings of my 

proceedings disseminated.

m m m m m

If you have other operational or administrative concerns about video recording, 

please describe them here: 
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 13

Information on Post-Recording Matters 

[answered only by judges who marked the 3rd or 4th options at Question 4 ]

The questions on this page and the next ask for information on what occurred after the recording of a proceeding.

7. Were all of the proceedings you video recorded in your courtroom posted online? (not answered by those who marked option #3 at Question 4)

m Yes

m No

8. How many of your proceedings were recorded but not posted on-line?

m One recording

m Two recordings

m Three or more recordings

9. Please indicate why recordings were not posted. Select all that apply.

q A recording was not suitable for posting because it was incomplete.

q A recording was not suitable for posting because of poor quality.

q A recording was not suitable for posting because it was noncompliant with 

pilot project guidelines.

q A participant in a proceeding asked me not to post a recording.

q A recording was made for a purpose other than posting it on-line. à What 

was the purpose?

q Other à Please explain.

10. Did you ever feel it necessary to edit out any part of a proceeding before allowing it to be posted?

m Yes à Please describe the situation.

m No
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 14

Overall Views of Video Recording Civil Proceedings [answered by all judges]

11. Which of the following statements best reflects your overall opinion about 

video recording civil proceedings and making the recordings publicly available? Please select one.

m I am greatly in favor.

m I am somewhat in favor.

m I have no opinion.

m I am somewhat opposed.

m I am greatly opposed.

If you wish to provide comment, you may do so below.

12. If the Judicial Conference were to authorize future video recording of civil 

proceedings under the conditions of the pilot project, would you permit recording in your courtroom? Assume the proceedings are appropriate to record and parties have consented.

m Yes

m No

m Maybe

Please explain, if you wish.

13. If you have any additional comments about video recording of civil proceedings in general, or the pilot program in particular, please provide them here:

Thank you for responding to the survey. You may use the Back or Next buttons to 

review or edit your responses, or simply click the “SUBMIT SURVEY” button below to submit your responses now. 
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 15

VIDEO RECORDING PILOT PROJECT

POST-PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ATTORNEYS

Last month the “Cameras in the Courtroom” pilot project in federal district courts 

formally ended, as planned. The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s policy 

making body, will use the findings from the pilot project to help determine 

whether to change the current policy that prohibits use of cameras in federal 

courtrooms. 

The pilot project used video cameras operated by the court, applied to civil cases 

only, and required that all parties, witnesses, and the judge agree to the recording 

of a proceeding. The Judicial Conference asked the Federal Judicial Center to evaluate the pilot project and, as part of the evaluation, we are surveying all lawyers 

who participated in proceedings that were video recorded during the pilot project. 

The questionnaire that follows asks for your thoughts about video recording of 

civil proceedings in federal district courtrooms. 

Please be assured that your responses will be confidential and reported only in the 

aggregate; no individual respondents will be identified. You should need no more 

than ten minutes to complete the questionnaire.

Our records indicate that you appeared in the following video recorded federal 

district court proceeding.

Case Name __________ 

Case Number __________ 

Date of Recorded __________

Name of Presiding Judge __________
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 16

1. Please check one of the responses below to indicate your role in that proceeding.

m I spoke in court on behalf of my client (e.g., presented evidence, made an 

argument to the court).

m I attended the proceeding but did not speak on behalf of my client.

m I don’t recall the proceeding.

m I did not attend the proceeding.

[Only attorneys who marked the first option in the preceding question were directed to the rest of the questionnaire. Those who marked the remaining options 

received the following message:]

Thank you for your consideration. Because you cannot comment from direct experience with video recording in the federal court pilot project, we do not need 

any more of your time. Please click the SUBMIT SURVEY button to remove your 

name from our list (and any future reminders). Thank you.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 17

Judgments Regarding Potential Effects of Video Recording Civil Proceedings 

The following questions relate to possible effects of, or concerns regarding, video 

recording of civil proceedings. For each possible effect or concern, please mark the 

circle in the column that best reflects your view.

2. Compared to courtroom proceedings where cameras are absent, to what extent, 

if at all, do you think the presence of video recording during civil proceedings:

To no 

extent

To a small 

extent

To a moderate extentTo a great 

extent No opinion

Motivates witnesses 

to be truthful? m m m m m

Distracts witnesses? m m m m m

Makes witnesses 

more nervous than 

they otherwise 

would be?

m m m m m

Increases juror attentiveness? m m m m m

Signals to jurors 

that a witness or argument is particularly important?

m m m m m

Increases jurors’

sense of responsibility for their verdict?

m m m m m

Prompts people 

who see the coverage to try to influence juror-friends?

m m m m m

Causes attorneys to 

urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to 

please the judge?

m m m m m

Motivates attorneys 

to come to court 

better prepared?

m m m m m
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 18

Causes attorneys to 

be more theatrical 

in their presentation?

m m m m m

Prompts attorneys 

to be more courteous?

m m m m m

Increases judge attentiveness? m m m m m

Causes judges to 

avoid unpopular decisions or positions?

m m m m m

Causes judges to be 

more theatrical in 

conducting the proceeding?

m m m m m

Prompts judges to 

be more courteous? m m m m m

Disrupts courtroom 

proceedings? m m m m m

Educates the public 

about courtroom 

procedure?

m m m m m

Educates the public 

about the legal issues in court cases?

m m m m m

Increases public access to the federal 

courts?

m m m m m

Decreases public 

confidence in the 

federal courts?

m m m m m

Increases public 

confidence in the 

federal courts?

m m m m m

3. If you have any comments on other benefits or harms from video recording, 

please use the space below.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 19

Consent Process for Video Recording Proceedings in District Court

The pilot project permitted video recording only with consent of all parties and 

witnesses. The questions below ask about your and your client’s decision to consent to video recording. 

4. Which of the following statements best characterizes the reaction of you and 

your client to the request to video record the proceeding? Please select one.

m My client(s) and I readily agreed to the video recording at the initial request.

m My client(s) and I were reluctant at first, but agreed to video recording after 

further discussion with the judge.

m OtheràPlease specify.

5. Did you or your client(s) feel pressured to consent to video recording of this 

proceeding?

m Yes à Please explain.

m No

6. Why did you consent to video recording of this proceeding? Please select all 

that apply. 

q I have no inherent objection to video recording of proceedings.

q My client wanted the exposure that would come from having the proceeding video recorded.

q I -- or my firm -- wanted the exposure that would come from having the 

proceeding video recorded.

q I thought it could help with public education about the courts.

q I wanted to use the recording for training or case preparation.

q I didn’t want to disappoint the judge.

q Other à Please explain.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 20

Your Experience With and Views About Video Recording

7. Prior to your video recording experience in federal court, did you participate 

in any other courtroom proceedings in either state, federal, or other courts 

that were recorded by cameras? Please check one. 

m Yes

m Noà Skip to Question #9.

8. Approximately how many video recorded proceedings had you participated in 

prior to this one? Please check one.

m One

m 2 to 5

m 6 to 10

m More than 10

9. Have you used video recordings from federal district court proceedings, either 

from your case or others, for your own purposes? Please check one.

m No, I have not used (or have not yet used) any video recordings for any 

purpose. à Skip to Question #11

m Yes, I have used one or more of the federal court video recordings.

10. For what purposes have you used the video recordings? Please check all that 

apply.

q I used my own proceeding to promote my litigation practice.

q I used my own proceeding to review my courtroom performance.

q I used video recordings to review another attorney’s courtroom performance.

q I used video recordings to review litigation strategies to enhance my preparation or performance.

q I used video recordings to educate other attorney(s) about courtroom procedure or presentation style.

q Other à Please specify.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 21

11. To what extent do you favor or oppose video recording of federal district court 

civil cases? Please select one.

m I am very much in favor.

m I am somewhat in favor.

m I am somewhat opposed.

m I am very much opposed.

m I do not have an opinion.

If you wish to comment, please do so below.

12. If the Judicial Conference were to authorize future video recording of civil 

proceedings under the conditions of the pilot project -- civil cases only; consent of all parties, witnesses, and the judge; cameras operated by the court 

-- would you likely participate in video recording of your cases?

m Yes

m No

m Maybe

Please explain, if you wish.

General Comments

13. If you have any additional comments about video recording of civil proceedings in general, or the pilot program in particular, please provide them here:

Thank you for responding to the survey. You may use the Back or Next buttons to 

review or edit your responses, or simply click the “SUBMIT SURVEY” button below to submit your responses now. 
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 22

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR JUDGES WHO RECORDED A 

PROCEEDING AND COMPLETED THE 

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project

September 2015

A. INTRODUCTION 

I’m calling to ask you a few questions about your experience with the pilot program that authorized video recording of civil proceedings. As you know, the Federal Judicial Center is evaluating the pilot project on behalf of the Judicial Conference. As part of this evaluation we’re interviewing the judges who have had experience with video recording under the project.

I have a specific set of questions to ask you, but please feel free to volunteer any 

additional thoughts you might have as the interview goes along. For the sake of 

consistency, we’re asking the same questions of all judges with experience under 

the pilot project, so just let me know if a particular question doesn’t apply to you 

or your court. 

I’m not asking some questions that may seem obvious, but that’s because we asked 

them in our online questionnaire.

I should note that we’ll report aggregate responses only from our interviews, and 

no answers or comments will be attributed to particular individuals.

I have two sets of questions: 

(1) a few about your participation in the pilot project, including selection 

of cases and the effects of video recording on participants, and

(2) a few about your overall views of video recording.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 23

B. YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PILOT PROGRAM, CASE SELECTION, 

VIDEO RECORDING EFFECTS

The list below is only to help the interviewer see what’s covered in this portion 

of the interview.

• Deciding to participate

• Defining eligibility and selecting cases

• Party consents

• Instructing jurors

• Effects on participants

1. Did the court, or did you for your own caseload, define what types of cases 

or proceedings would be “eligible” for video recording?

2. What was the process for notifying cases or proceedings of the opportunity 

to video record – e.g., did the court notify all eligible cases of the 

opportunity to record, or did you identify appropriate cases, or did you 

leave it to someone else (parties, media) to raise it, or what?

3. If you raised the opportunity to record with the parties, how did you raise 

the issue? Did you raise it in every case with a courtroom proceeding 

scheduled? 

4. How did attorneys and parties provide their responses to the notice of the 

opportunity to record [Or: to your/others’ suggestion that they record] the 

proceeding? About what percentage were willing to be recorded?

5. Did you video record any jury trials? [If yes:] Did you instruct the jurors 

about the presence of video recorders? If so, what information did you 

include in your instructions?

6. Based on your observations, do you believe that the fact a proceeding is 

being video recorded affects any of the participants—yourself, attorneys, 

witnesses, jurors—in a significant way, either positively or negatively? If so, 

please describe.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 24

C. PARTICIPANT VIEWS ABOUT VIDEO RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

7. In your district [As appropriate: quite a few judges, only a few judges, only 

you] participated in the pilot project. Do you have any thoughts about why 

this occurred?

8. Do you think the video recording program should be continued or 

expanded to other district courts? Why or why not? If yes, for what 

purpose? Would you continue to participate?

9. Are there any aspects of the pilot program you would change if authority 

to video record courtroom proceedings were continued or expanded?

10. Based on your experience with video recording, is there anything I haven’t 

asked that you think the policy makers should know about the use and 

effects of video recording?
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 25

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR JUDGES WHO RECORDED A 

PROCEEDING AND DID NOT COMPLETE THE 

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project

September 2015

A. INTRODUCTION 

I’m calling to ask you a few questions about your experience with the pilot program that authorized video recording of civil proceedings. As you know, the Federal Judicial Center is evaluating the pilot project on behalf of the Judicial Conference. As part of this evaluation we’re interviewing the judges who have had experience with video recording under the project.

I have a specific set of questions to ask you, but please feel free to volunteer any 

additional thoughts you might have as the interview goes along. For the sake of 

consistency, we’re asking the same questions of all judges with experience under 

the pilot project, so just let me know if a particular question doesn’t apply to you 

or your court. 

I should note that we’ll report aggregate responses only from our interviews, and 

no answers or comments will be attributed to particular individuals.

I have three sets of questions: 

(1) a few about your participation in the pilot project, including selection of 

cases and the effects of video recording on participants; 

(2) one about the administrative and technological aspects of video 

recordings; and

(3) a few about your overall views of video recording.
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 26

B. YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE PILOT PROGRAM, CASE SELECTION, 

VIDEO RECORDING EFFECTS

The list below is only to help the interviewer see what’s covered in this portion 

of the interview.

• Deciding to participate

• Defining eligibility and selecting cases

• Party consents

• Instructing jurors

• Purpose for recording and posting recordings

• Effects on participants

1. When the pilot program first began in your court, why did you decide to 

participate?

2. Did the court, or did you for your own caseload, define what types of cases or 

proceedings would be “eligible” for video recording?

3. What was the process for notifying cases or proceedings of the opportunity to 

video record – e.g., did the court notify all eligible cases of the opportunity to 

record, or did you identify appropriate cases, or did you leave it to someone 

else (parties, media) to raise it, or what?

4. If you raised the opportunity to record with the parties, how did you raise the 

issue? Did you raise it in every case with a courtroom proceeding scheduled? 

5. How did attorneys and parties provide their responses to the notice of the 

opportunity to record [Or: to your/others’ suggestion that they record] the 

proceeding? About what percentage were willing to be recorded?

6. Did you video record any jury trials? [If yes:] Did you instruct the jurors about 

the presence of video recorders? If so, what information did you include in 

your instructions?

7. Based on your observations, do you believe that the fact a proceeding is being 

video recorded affects any of the participants—yourself, attorneys, witnesses, 

jurors—in a significant way, either positively or negatively? If so, please 

describe.

8. Did you record any proceedings that weren’t posted? [If yes:] Why weren’t they 

posted? Did you record any proceedings for purposes other than posting 

online? [If yes:] For what purpose?
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 27

C. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES RELATED TO 

RECORDING

9. From your standpoint, did any administrative or technological problems 

come up related to video recording proceedings? What were they and how 

were they resolved?

D. PARTICIPANT VIEWS ABOUT VIDEO RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

10. In your district [As appropriate: quite a few judges, only a few judges, only 

you] participated in the pilot project. Do you have any thoughts about why 

this occurred?

11. Do you think the video recording program should be continued or 

expanded to other district courts? Why or why not? If yes, for what 

purpose? Would you continue to participate?

12. Are there any aspects of the pilot program you would change if authority 

to video record courtroom proceedings were continued or expanded?

13. What is your overall opinion of video recording civil proceedings and 

making the recordings publicly available? Would you say you greatly favor 

it, favor it, oppose it, greatly oppose it, or have no opinion?

14. Based on your experience with video recording, is there anything I haven’t 

asked that you think the policy makers should know about the use and 

effects of video recording?
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 28

COURT STAFF INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project

September 2015

I’m calling to ask you a few questions about your experience with the pilot program that authorized video recording of civil proceedings. As you know, the Federal Judicial Center is evaluating the pilot program on behalf of the Judicial Conference. As part of this evaluation we’re interviewing court staff who played a role 

in the pilot project—for example, the staff who served as liaisons to the Center 

and the staff who installed or operated the recording equipment.

I have a specific set of questions to ask you, but please feel free to volunteer any 

additional thoughts you might have as the interview goes along. I should note that 

we’ll report aggregate responses only from our interviews, and no answers or comments will be attributed to particular individuals.

My questions focus on the administration and operation of the pilot program. 

Some questions will apply to only one [or some] of you, and I’ll rely on you to determine who should answer each question.

1. What has your role been in the cameras pilot project—e.g., 

(a) on the administrative side such tasks as: developing procedures for 

the pilot project; handling the process of notifying parties and getting consents; keeping data for the Center’s study?

(b) on the operational and technical sides such tasks as: setting up a 

web page; purchasing and installing the video recording equipment; setting up equipment for proceedings; operating the equipment during proceedings; reviewing and posting recordings?

Please describe what you did. 
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 29

2. I’m going to name some tasks that are involved in administering the pilot 

project in each court. For each task I name, could you indicate approximately 

how many hours you spent on that task?

(a) installing equipment and establishing procedures for notifying parties when the project was first being set up

(b) identifying appropriate cases and communicating with parties

(c) handling the recorded proceedings, including time before, during, 

and after

(d) any other tasks you undertook in administering the program in 

your court

Did this seem like a reasonable amount of time, or was the demand too 

great?

3. Did any technical problems come up during any of the recorded proceedings? 

If so, please describe what they were and how you handled them.

4. How many video cameras does the court have? Are they fixed in courtrooms 

or portable on carts? Did judges have to share them? How did that work out?

5. Has the equipment been used for other purposes—to broadcast to an overflow 

courtroom or to record an investiture or naturalization ceremony?

6. Were any other court staff members involved in some way with the pilot 

project, and what did they do? [Get names/positions of any we might want to 

interview.]

7. Is there anything else you think it’s important for the judiciary’s policy makers 

to know about the administrative, operational, or technological aspects of the 

cameras pilot project in your court?
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 30

“POP-UP” SURVEY OF VIEWERS WHO ACCESSED

VIDEO RECORDINGS AT THE “CAMERAS IN COURTS” PAGE AT

WWW.USCOURTS.GOV

Please help evaluate the Cameras in Courts project by answering a few questions 

about your visit to this web page. You are welcome to answer this survey more 

than once if you are a repeat visitor.

What prompts your visit to the Cameras in Courts pages of the uscourts.gov 

website? Please check all that apply.

q I	have	a	general	interest	in	observing	U.S.	federal	court	case	proceedings.

q I	am	interested	in	observing	a	specific	case.

q I	am	interested	in	observing	specific	persons	(i.e.,	judge,	attorney,	witness).

q I	am	interested	in	viewing	material	that	is	relevant	to	an	education-related	objective.		(Select	this	option	if,	for	example,	you	are	developing	class	material,	completing	a	class	assignment,	providing	CLE	training,	etc.)

q I	had	another	reason	for	visiting	this	website	(please	explain).	

____________________

In what capacity did you visit this website? Please check all that apply.

q I	am	an	educator,	librarian,	or	a	trainer.

q I	am	a	student.

q I	am	a	government	employee	(includes	judges	and	government	lawyers).

q I	am	a	lawyer	or	an	employee	of	a	law	firm,	or	of	another	legal	unit	(not	governmental).

q I	am	a	member	of	a	media	or	communications	organization	(e.g.,	reporter,	blogger,	

producer,	analyst).

q I	am	a	member	of	the	international	community.

q I	am	a	member	of	the	general	U.S.-based	public.

q Other	(please	explain).	____________________

Answer	If	Respondent	Selected	“In	what	capacity	did	you	visit	this	website?...	I	am	an	

educator,	librarian,	or	a	trainer.”

What level of educator, librarian or trainer are you?

m high	school

m secondary	(i.e.,	college)

m post-secondary	(i.e,	law	school,	graduate	school)

m other	(please	explain)	____________________
Appendix C

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix C – 31

Answer	If	Respondent	Selected	“In	what	capacity	did	you	visit	this	website?...	I	am	a	student.”

What level of student are you?

m high	school

m secondary	(i.e.,	college)

m post-secondary	(i.e.,	law	school,	graduate	school)

m other	(please	specify)	____________________

Answer	If Respondent	Selected “In	what	capacity	did	you	visit	this	website?...	I	am	a	

government	employee	(including	judge	and government	lawyers).”

In which setting are you employed?

m federal	court

m state	or	local	court	system

m federal	government,	non-court	setting

m state	or	local	government,	non-court	setting

m other	(please	explain)	____________________

Have you visited this site before?

m No

m Yes

Answer	If	Respondent	Selected	“Have	you	visited	this	site	before?	Yes”

How many times?

m 1-3	times

m 4-10	times

m more	than	10	times

Have you answered this survey before?

m Yes

m No

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

Appendix D

2015 Judge Survey Responses

Grouped in Various Ways, Both With and Without the Inclusion of 

No Opinion Responses

Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 1

Appendix D, Table 1.a

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, by Original Response 

Categories, No Opinion Included

To No 

Extent

To a Small 

Extent

To a

Moderate 

Extent

To a

Great 

Extent

No

Opinion Total*

Motivates witnesses to be

truthful

55

51%

17

16%

11

10%

0

0%

24

22% 107

Distracts witnesses 29

27%

27

25%

17

16%

19

18%

14

13% 106

Makes witnesses more nervous

than they otherwise would be

26

25%

32

31%

12

12%

22

21%

11

11% 103

Increases juror attentiveness 52

50%

20

19%

11

10%

4

4%

18

17% 105

Signals to jurors that a witness

or argument is particularly important

54

50%

16

15%

10

9%

8

7%

19

18% 107

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict49

47%

22

21%

10

10%

4

4%

20

19% 105

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence jurorfriends

44

42%

13

12%

14

13%

6

6%

29

27% 106

Causes attorneys to urge their

clients to consent to recording

in order to please the judge

60

57%

16

15%

8

8%

2

2%

20

19% 106

Motivates attorneys to come to 

court better prepared

25

24%

33

31%

30

28%

9

8%

9

8% 106

Causes attorneys to be more

theatrical in their presentation

28

26%

20

19%

20

19%

28

26%

10

9% 106

Prompts attorneys to be more

courteous

29

28%

33

31%

25

24%

7

7%

11

10% 105

Increases judge attentiveness 52

50%

25

24%

12

12%

6

6%

9

9% 104
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 2

To No 

Extent

To a Small 

Extent

To a

Moderate 

Extent

To a

Great 

Extent

No

Opinion Total*

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions

75

71%

11

10%

4

4%

2

2%

14

13% 106

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding

53

50%

29

27%

5

5%

3

3%

16

15% 106

Prompts judges to be more

courteous

41

39%

34

32%

16

15%

4

4%

11

10% 106

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

47

45%

25

24%

11

11%

11

11%

10

10% 104

Educates the public about

courtroom procedure

6

6%

25

24%

37

36%

26

25%

9

9% 103

Educates the public about the legal issues in court cases

9

8%

33

31%

33

31%

22

21%

9

8% 106

Increases public access to the

federal courts

11

10%

21

20%

29

27%

33

31%

12

11% 106

Decreases public confidence in

the federal courts

72

68%

11

10%

5

5%

1

1%

17

16% 106

Increases public confidence in

the federal courts

25

24%

19

18%

20

19%

23

22%

19

18% 106

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting information from all respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses to a

question.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 3

Appendix D, Table 1.b

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, by Original Response

Categories, No Opinion Excluded

To No 

Extent

To a Small 

Extent

To a

Moderate 

Extent

To a Great 

Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 55

66%

17

20%

11

13%

0

0% 83

Distracts witnesses 29

32%

27

29%

17

18%

19

21% 92

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

26

28%

32

35%

12

13%

22

24% 92

Increases juror attentiveness 52

60%

20

23%

11

13%

4

5% 87

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important

54

61%

16

18%

10

11%

8

9% 88

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility

for their verdict

49

58%

22

26%

10

12%

4

5% 85

Prompts people who see coverage to try

to influence juror-friends

44

57%

13

17%

14

18%

6

8% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to please

the judge

60

70%

16

19%

8

9%

2

2% 86

Motivates attorneys to come to court 

better prepared

25

26%

33

34%

30

31%

9

9% 97

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in

their presentation

28

29%

20

21%

20

21%

28

29% 96

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 29

31%

33

35%

25

27%

7

7% 94

Increases judge attentiveness 52

55%

25

26%

12

13%

6

6% 95

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions

75

82%

11

12%

4

4%

2

2% 92
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 4

To No 

Extent

To a Small 

Extent

To a

Moderate 

Extent

To a Great 

Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

53

59%

29

32%

5

6%

3

3% 90

Prompts judges to be more courteous 41

43%

34

36%

16

17%

4

4% 95

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

47

50%

25

27%

11

12%

11

12% 94

Educates the public about courtroom

procedure

6

6%

25

27%

37

39%

26

28% 94

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

9

9%

33

34%

33

34%

22

23% 97

Increases public access to the federal

courts

11

12%

21

22%

29

31%

33

35% 94

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts

72

81%

11

12%

5

6%

1

1% 89

Increases public confidence in the federal courts

25

29%

19

22%

20

23%

23

26% 87

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting

information where the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total

to 110.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 5

Appendix D, Table 2.a

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories Grouped 

into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent and Moderate Extent/Great Extent; No 

Opinion Included

To No Extent 

or to a Small

Extent

To a Moderate

Extent or to a

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total*

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 72

67%

11

10%

24

22% 107

Distracts witnesses 56

53%

36

34%

14

13% 106

Makes witnesses more nervous than

they otherwise would be

58

56%

34

33%

11

11% 103

Increases juror attentiveness 72

69%

15

14%

18

17% 105

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important70

65%

18

17%

19

18% 107

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility

for their verdict

71

68%

14

13%

20

19% 105

Prompts people who see coverage to try

to influence juror-friends

57

54%

20

19%

29

27% 106

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to please

the judge

76

72%

10

9%

20

19% 106

Motivates attorneys to come to court 

better prepared

58

55%

39

37%

9

8% 106

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical

in their presentation

48

45%

48

45%

10

9% 106

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous

62

59%

32

30%

11

10% 105

Increases judge attentiveness 77

74%

18

17%

9

9% 104
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 6

To No Extent 

or to a Small

Extent

To a Moderate

Extent or to a

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total*

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions86

81%

6

6%

14

13% 106

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

82

77%

8

8%

16

15% 106

Prompts judges to be more courteous 75

71%

20

19%

11

10% 106

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

72

69%

22

21%

10

10% 104

Educates the public about courtroom

procedure

31

30%

63

61%

9

9% 103

Educates the public about the legal issues in court cases42

40%

55

52%

9

8% 106

Increases public access to the federal

courts

32

30%

62

58%

12

11% 106

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts83

78%

6

6%

17

16% 106

Increases public confidence in the federal courts44

42%

43

41%

19

18% 106

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting

information from all respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses

to a question.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 7

Appendix D, Table 2.b

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent and Moderate Extent/Great 

Extent; No Opinion Excluded

To No 

Extent or

to a Small

Extent

To a

Moderate

Extent or to a

Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 72

87%

11

13% 83

Distracts witnesses 56

61%

36

39% 92

Makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise would be58

63%

34

37% 92

Increases juror attentiveness 72

83%

15

17% 87

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is

particularly important

70

80%

18

20% 88

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their

verdict

71

84%

14

16% 85

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence juror-friends57

74%

20

26% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent 

to recording in order to please the judge

76

88%

10

12% 86

Motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared58

60%

39

40% 97

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

48

50%

48

50% 96

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 62

66%

32

34% 94

Increases judge attentiveness 77

81%

18

19% 95

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or

positions

86

93%

6

7% 92

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting

the proceeding

82

91%

8

9% 90
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 8

To No 

Extent or

to a Small

Extent

To a

Moderate

Extent or to a

Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Prompts judges to be more courteous 75

79%

20

21% 95

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

72

77%

22

23% 94

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

31

33%

63

67% 94

Educates the public about the legal issues in court

cases

42

43%

55

57% 97

Increases public access to the federal courts 32

34%

62

66% 94

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 83

93%

6

7% 89

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 44

51%

43

49% 87

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting information where the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total to 110.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 9

Appendix D, Table 3.a

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent and Small Extent/Moderate Extent/

Great Extent; No Opinion Included

To No Extent

To a Small

Extent, to a

Moderate

Extent, or to a

Great Extent No Opinion Total*

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 55

51%

28

26%

24

22% 107

Distracts witnesses 29

27%

63

59%

14

13% 106

Makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise would be

26

25%

66

64%

11

11% 103

Increases juror attentiveness 52

50%

35

33%

18

17% 105

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is

particularly important

54

50%

34

32%

19

18% 107

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their

verdict

49

47%

36

34%

20

19% 105

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence juror-friends

44

42%

33

31%

29

27% 106

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent 

to recording in order to please the judge

60

57%

26

25%

20

19% 106

Motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared

25

24%

72

68%

9

8% 106

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

28

26%

68

64%

10

9% 106

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 29

28%

65

62%

11

10% 105

Increases judge attentiveness 52

50%

43

41%

9

9% 104

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or

positions

75

71%

17

16%

14

13% 106

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding

53

50%

37

35%

16

15% 106
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 10

To No Extent

To a Small

Extent, to a

Moderate

Extent, or to a

Great Extent No Opinion Total*

Prompts judges to be more courteous 41

39%

54

51%

11

10% 106

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

47

45%

47

45%

10

10% 104

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

6

6%

88

85%

9

9% 103

Educates the public about the legal issues in

court cases

9

8%

88

83%

9

8% 106

Increases public access to the federal courts 11

10%

83

78%

12

11% 106

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 72

68%

17

16%

17

16% 106

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 25

24%

62

58%

19

18% 106

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting information from all respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses to a question.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 11

Appendix D, Table 3.b

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent and Small Extent/Moderate Extent/

Great Extent; No Opinion Excluded

To No 

Extent

To a Small Extent, 

to a Moderate

Extent, or to 

a Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 55

66%

28

34% 83

Distracts witnesses 29

32%

63

68% 92

Makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise

would be

26

28%

66

72% 92

Increases juror attentiveness 52

60%

35

40% 87

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important54

61%

34

39% 88

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict49

58%

36

42% 85

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence

juror-friends

44

57%

33

43% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to recording in order to please the judge60

70%

26

30% 86

Motivates attorneys to come to court better prepared 25

26%

72

74% 97

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their presentation28

29%

68

71% 96

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 29

31%

65

69% 94

Increases judge attentiveness 52

55%

43

45% 95

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions75

82%

17

18% 92

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the

proceeding

53

59%

37

41% 90
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 12

To No 

Extent

To a Small Extent, 

to a Moderate

Extent, or to 

a Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Prompts judges to be more courteous 41

43%

54

57% 95

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

47

50%

47

50% 94

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

6

6%

88

94% 94

Educates the public about the legal issues in court cases 9

9%

88

91% 97

Increases public access to the federal courts 11

12%

83

88% 94

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 72

81%

17

19% 89

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 25

29%

62

71% 87

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting information where the No Opinion responses to the survey have been omitted, numbers will not total to 110.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 13

Appendix D, Table 4.a

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent/Moderate Extent and 

Great Extent; No Opinion Included

To No Extent 

or to a Small

Extent or to a

Moderate

Extent

To a Great 

Extent No Opinion Total*

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 83

78%

0

0%

24

22% 107

Distracts witnesses 73

69%

19

18%

14

13% 106

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

70

68%

22

21%

11

11% 103

Increases juror attentiveness 83

79%

4

4%

18

17% 105

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important80

75%

8

7%

19

18% 107

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility

for their verdict

81

77%

4

4%

20

19% 105

Prompts people who see coverage to try

to influence juror-friends

71

67%

6

6%

29

27% 106

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to please

the judge

84

79%

2

2%

20

19% 106

Motivates attorneys to come to court 

better prepared

88

83%

9

8%

9

8% 106

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in

their presentation

68

64%

28

26%

10

9% 106

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 87

83%

7

7%

11

10% 105
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 14

To No Extent 

or to a Small

Extent or to a

Moderate

Extent

To a Great 

Extent No Opinion Total*

Increases judge attentiveness 89

86%

6

6%

9

9% 104

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions90

85%

2

2%

14

13% 106

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

87

82%

3

3%

16

15% 106

Prompts judges to be more courteous 91

86%

4

4%

11

10% 106

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

83

80%

11

11%

10

10% 104

Educates the public about courtroom

procedure

68

66%

26

25%

9

9% 103

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

75

71%

22

21%

9

8% 106

Increases public access to the federal

courts

61

58%

33

31%

12

11% 106

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts88

83%

1

1%

17

16% 106

Increases public confidence in the federal

courts

64

60%

23

22%

19

18% 106

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting

information from all respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 110 because of non-responses

to that question.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 15

Appendix D, Table 4.b

Extent to Which Pilot Court Judges Think the Presence of Video Recording

Has the Following Listed Effects (N=110)

Number and Percent of Pilot Judges Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent/Moderate Extent and Great 

Extent; No Opinion Excluded

To No

Extent or to a

Small Extent or 

to a Moderate

Extent

To a

Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 83

100%

0

0% 83

Distracts witnesses 73

79%

19

21% 92

Makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise would be70

76%

22

24% 92

Increases juror attentiveness 83

95%

4

5% 87

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is

particularly important

80

91%

8

9% 88

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for 

their verdict

81

95%

4

5% 85

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence juror-friends71

92%

6

8% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to recording in order to please the judge84

98%

2

2% 86

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

88

91%

9

9% 97

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

68

71%

28

29% 96

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 87

93%

7

7% 94

Increases judge attentiveness 89

94%

6

6% 95

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or

positions

90

98%

2

2% 92

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding87

97%

3

3% 90
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 16

To No

Extent or to a

Small Extent or 

to a Moderate

Extent

To a

Great Extent

Total*

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Prompts judges to be more courteous 91

96%

4

4% 95

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

83

88%

11

12% 94

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

68

72%

26

28% 162

Educates the public about the legal issues in

court cases

75

77%

22

23% 97

Increases public access to the federal courts

61

65%

33

35% 94

Decreases public confidence in the federal

courts

88

99%

1

1% 89

Increases public confidence in the federal

courts

64

74%

23

26% 87

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 110 pilot court judges. Here and in other tables reporting

information where the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total

to 110.
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 17

Appendix D, Table 5.a

Extent to Which Judges Who Did and Did Not Participate in the Pilot Project 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Listed Effects

To

No Extent

To a

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate

Extent

To a

Great 

Extent

No

Opinion Total

Effect and Judge Type n % n % n % n % n %

Motivates witnesses to be truthful

Participant 29 47% 10 16% 7 11% 0 0% 16 26% 62

Nonparticipant 19 66% 3 10% 4 14% 3 10% 0 0% 29

Distracts witnesses

Participant 25 40% 18 29% 7 11% 3 5% 9 15% 62

Nonparticipant 1 4% 4 14% 8 29% 14 50% 1 4% 28

Makes witnesses more nervous than they 

otherwise would be

Participant 23 38% 21 35% 3 5% 5 8% 8 13% 60

Nonparticipant 1 4% 6 21% 7 25% 14 50% 0 0% 28

Increases juror attentiveness

Participant 27 45% 13 22% 5 8% 2 3% 13 22% 60

Nonparticipant 18 62% 4 14% 6 21% 1 3% 0 0% 29

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument 

is particularly important

Participant 27 44% 13 21% 5 8% 4 7% 13 21% 62

Nonparticipant 17 59% 3 10% 5 17% 4 14% 0 0% 29

Increases jurors' sense of responsibility for 

their verdict

Participant 28 46% 12 20% 5 8% 2 3% 14 23% 61

Nonparticipant 14 50% 5 18% 5 18% 1 4% 3 11% 28

Prompts people who see the coverage to try 

to influence juror-friends

Participant 31 51% 7 12% 6 10% 0 0% 17 28% 61

Nonparticipant 7 24% 4 14% 7 24% 4 14% 7 24% 29

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to 

consent to recording in order to please the 

judge

Participant 38 62% 7 12% 3 5% 0 0% 13 21% 61

Nonparticipant 16 55% 6 21% 3 10% 2 7% 2 7% 29

Motivates attorneys to come to court better 

prepared

Participant 14 23% 21 34% 16 26% 5 8% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 8 28% 5 17% 13 45% 2 7% 1 3% 29
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 18

To

No Extent

To a

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate

Extent

To a

Great 

Extent

No

Opinion Total

Effect and Judge Type n % n % n % n % n %

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in 

their presentation

Participant 26 43% 12 20% 10 16% 8 13% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 0 0% 4 14% 6 21% 17 59% 2 7% 29

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous

Participant 17 28% 18 30% 15 25% 4 7% 6 10% 60

Nonparticipant 7 24% 9 31% 9 31% 2 7% 2 7% 29

Increases judge attentiveness

Participant 30 49% 15 25% 7 12% 4 7% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 14 50% 8 29% 4 14% 1 4% 1 4% 28

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions 

or positions

Participant 47 77% 5 8% 0 0% 0 0% 9 15% 61

Nonparticipant 16 55% 6 21% 4 14% 2 7% 1 3% 29

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding

Participant 39 64% 10 16% 1 2% 0 0% 11 18% 61

Nonparticipant 6 21% 15 52% 4 14% 3 10% 1 3% 29

Prompts judges to be more courteous

Participant 24 39% 18 30% 10 16% 3 5% 6 10% 61

Nonparticipant 11 38% 10 35% 6 21% 1 3% 1 3% 29

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

Participant 38 63% 12 20% 3 5% 1 2% 6 10% 60

Nonparticipant 1 4% 10 36% 8 29% 8 29% 1 4% 28

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

Participant 3 5% 13 22% 17 29% 21 36% 5 9% 59

Nonparticipant 3 11% 9 32% 11 39% 4 14% 1 4% 28

Educates the public about the legal issues in 

court cases

Participant 4 7% 17 28% 15 25% 20 33% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 5 17% 10 35% 12 41% 1 3% 1 3% 29

Increases public access to the federal courts

Participant 4 7% 12 20% 12 20% 25 41% 8 13% 61

Nonparticipant 7 24% 7 24% 9 31% 5 17% 1 3% 29

Decreases public confidence in the federal 

courts

Participant 44 72% 5 8% 1 2% 1 2% 10 16% 61

Nonparticipant 19 66% 4 14% 4 14% 0 0% 2 7% 29
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 19

To

No Extent

To a

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate

Extent

To a

Great 

Extent

No

Opinion Total

Effect and Judge Type n % n % n % n % n %

Increases public confidence in the federal 

courts

Participant 9 15% 10 16% 10 16% 20 33% 12 20% 61

Nonparticipant 12 41% 4 14% 9 31% 2 7% 2 7% 29
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 20

Appendix D, Table 5.b

Extent to Which Judges Who Did and Did Not Participate in the Pilot Project 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Listed Effects (Data Grouped in 

the Manner Consistently Used Throughout the Main Report)

Effect and Judge Type

To No/Small

Extent

To a 

Moderate/

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total

n % n % n %

Motivates witnesses to be truthful

Participant 39 63% 7 11% 16 26% 62

Nonparticipant 22 76% 7 24% 0 0% 29

Distracts witnesses

Participant 43 69% 10 16% 9 15% 62

Nonparticipant 5 18% 22 79% 1 4% 28

Makes witnesses more nervous than they otherwise would be

Participant 44 73% 8 13% 8 13% 60

Nonparticipant 7 25% 21 75% 0 0% 28

Increases juror attentiveness

Participant 40 67% 7 12% 13 22% 60

Nonparticipant 22 76% 7 24% 0 0% 29

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is 

particularly important

Participant 40 65% 9 15% 13 21% 62

Nonparticipant 20 69% 9 31% 0 0% 29

Increases jurors' sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

Participant 40 66% 7 12% 14 23% 61

Nonparticipant 19 68% 6 22% 3 11% 28

Prompts people who see the coverage to try to 

influence juror-friends

Participant 38 62% 6 10% 17 28% 61

Nonparticipant 11 38% 11 38% 7 24% 29

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to recording in order to please the judge

Participant 45 74% 3 5% 13 21% 61

Nonparticipant 22 76% 5 17% 2 7% 29
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 21

Effect and Judge Type

To No/Small

Extent

To a 

Moderate/

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total

n % n % n %

Motivates attorneys to come to court better 

prepared

Participant 35 57% 21 34% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 13 45% 15 52% 1 3% 29

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

Participant 38 62% 18 30% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 4 14% 23 79% 2 7% 29

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous

Participant 35 58% 19 32% 6 10% 60

Nonparticipant 16 55% 11 38% 2 7% 29

Increases judge attentiveness

Participant 45 74% 11 18% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 22 79% 5 18% 1 4% 28

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or 

positions

Participant 52 85% 0 0% 9 15% 61

Nonparticipant 22 76% 6 21% 1 3% 29

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the proceeding

Participant 49 80% 1 2% 11 18% 61

Nonparticipant 21 72% 7 24% 1 3% 29

Prompts judges to be more courteous

Participant 42 69% 13 21% 6 10% 61

Nonparticipant 21 72% 7 24% 1 3% 29

Disrupts courtroom proceedings

Participant 50 83% 4 7% 6 10% 60

Nonparticipant 11 39% 16 57% 1 4% 28

Educates the public about courtroom procedure

Participant 16 27% 38 64% 5 9% 59

Nonparticipant 12 43% 15 54% 1 4% 28

Educates the public about the legal issues in 

court cases

Participant 21 34% 35 57% 5 8% 61

Nonparticipant 15 52% 13 45% 1 3% 29
Appendix D

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix D – 22

Effect and Judge Type

To No/Small

Extent

To a 

Moderate/

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total

n % n % n %

Increases public access to the federal courts

Participant 16 26% 37 61% 8 13% 61

Nonparticipant 14 48% 14 48% 1 3% 29

Decreases public confidence in the federal 

courts

Participant 49 80% 2 3% 10 16% 61

Nonparticipant 23 79% 4 14% 2 7% 29

Increases public confidence in the federal 

courts

Participant 19 31% 30 49% 12 20% 61

Nonparticipant 16 55% 11 38% 2 7% 29
Appendix E

Attorney Survey Responses

Grouped in Various Ways, Both With and Without the Inclusion of 

No Opinion Responses

Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 1

Appendix E, Table1.a

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, by Original Response 

Categories, No Opinion Included 

To No 

Extent

To a 

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

To a 

Great 

Extent

No 

Opinion Total*

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 71

40%

18

10%

19

11%

7

4%

63

35% 178

Distracts witnesses 79

45%

40

23%

7

4%

4

2%

47

27% 177

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

70

39%

45

25%

9

5%

7

4%

49

27% 180

Increases juror attentiveness 48

27%

23

13%

12

7%

5

3%

90

51% 178

Signals to jurors that a witness or 

argument is particularly important

62

35%

16

9%

16

9%

1

1%

84

47% 179

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility 

for their verdict

52

30%

24

14%

12

7%

3

2%

85

48% 176

Prompts people who see coverage to try 

to influence juror-friends

60

34%

11

6%

5

3%

1

1%

102

57% 179

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to

consent to recording in order to please 

the judge

94

53%

30

17%

19

11%

12

7%

24

13% 179

Motivates attorneys to come to court 

better prepared

67

37%

56

31%

45

25%

9

5%

4

2% 181

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in 

their presentation

103

57%

48

27%

14

8%

3

2%

13

7% 181

Prompts attorneys to be more 

courteous

82

45%

55

30%

31

17%

6

3%

7

4% 181

Increases judge attentiveness 79

44%

35

20%

21

12%

2

1%

41

23% 178

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or positions124

69%

8

4%

8

4%

0

0%

39

22% 179

Causes judges to be more theatrical in 

conducting the proceeding

119

66%

22

12%

7

4%

3

2%

29

16% 180
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 2

To No 

Extent

To a 

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

To a 

Great 

Extent

No 

Opinion Total*

Prompts judges to be more courteous 83

46%

56

31%

15

8%

3

2%

23

13% 180

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 147

83%

15

8%

12

7%

2

1%

1

1% 177

Educates the public about courtroom 

procedure

13

7%

32

18%

43

24%

68

38%

21

12% 177

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

16

9%

37

21%

46

26%

59

33%

20

11% 178

Increases public access to the federal 

courts

10

6%

34

19%

50

28%

75

42%

11

6% 180

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts139

78%

6

3%

3

2%

2

1%

28

16% 178

Increases public confidence in the federal 

courts

23

13%

38

21%

38

21%

47

26%

34

19% 180

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information from all 

respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 181 because of non-responses to a question.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 3

Appendix E, Table 1.b

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, by Original Response 

Categories, No Opinion Excluded 

To No 

Extent

To a 

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

To a 

Great 

Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 71

62%

18

16%

19

17%

7

6% 115

Distracts witnesses 79

61%

40

31%

7

5%

4

3% 130

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

70

53%

45

34%

9

7%

7

5% 131

Increases juror attentiveness 48

55%

23

26%

12

14%

5

6% 88

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is 

particularly important

62

65%

16

17%

16

17%

1

1% 95

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

52

57%

24

26%

12

13%

3

3% 91

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

60

78%

11

14%

5

6%

1

1% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to 

recording in order to please the judge

94

61%

30

19%

19

12%

12

8% 155

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

67

38%

56

32%

45

25%

9

5% 177

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

103

61%

48

29%

14

8%

3

2% 168

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 82

47%

55

32%

31

18%

6

3% 174

Increases judge attentiveness 79

58%

35

26%

21

15%

2

1% 137

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

124

89%

8

6%

8

6%

0

0% 140

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

119

79%

22

15%

7

5%

3

2% 151

Prompts judges to be more courteous 83

53%

56

36%

15

10%

3

2% 157
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 4

To No 

Extent

To a 

Small 

Extent

To a 

Moderate 

Extent

To a 

Great 

Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 147

84%

15

9%

12

7%

2

1% 176

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 13

8%

32

21%

43

28%

68

44% 156

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

16

10%

37

23%

46

29%

59

37% 158

Increases public access to the federal courts

10

6%

34

20%

50

30%

75

44% 169

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 139

93%

6

4%

3

2%

2

1% 150

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 23

16%

38

26%

38

26%

47

32% 146

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information where 

the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total to 181.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 5

Appendix E, Table 2.a

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent and Moderate Extent/Great 

Extent, No Opinion Included 

To No Extent 

or to a Small 

Extent

To a Moderate 

Extent or to a 

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total *

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 89

50%

26

15%

63

35% 178

Distracts witnesses 119

67%

11

6%

47

27% 177

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

115

64%

16

9%

49

27% 180

Increases juror attentiveness 71

40%

17

10%

90

51% 178

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important78

44%

17

9%

84

47% 179

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict76

43%

15

9%

85

48% 176

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

71

40%

6

3%

102

57% 179

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to

consent to recording in order to please the judge

124

69%

31

17%

24

13% 179

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

123

68%

54

30%

4

2% 181

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

151

83%

17

9%

13

7% 181

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 137

76%

37

20%

7

4% 181

Increases judge attentiveness 114

64%

23

13%

41

23% 178

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

132

74%

8

4%

39

22% 179

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

141

78%

10

6%

29

16% 180

Prompts judges to be more courteous 139

77%

18

10%

23

13% 180
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 6

To No Extent 

or to a Small 

Extent

To a Moderate 

Extent or to a 

Great Extent

No

Opinion Total *

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 162

92%

14

8%

1

1% 177

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 45

25%

111

63%

21

12% 177

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

53

30%

105

59%

20

11% 178

Increases public access to the federal courts 44

24%

125

69%

11

6% 180

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 145

81%

5

3%

28

16% 178

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 61

34%

85

47%

34

19% 180

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information from all 

respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 181 because of non-responses to a question.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 7

Appendix E, Table 2.b

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent and Moderate Extent/Great 

Extent, No Opinion Excluded 

To No Extent or to 

a Small Extent

To a Moderate 

Extent or to a 

Great Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 89

77%

26

23% 115

Distracts witnesses 119

92%

11

8% 130

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

115

88%

16

12% 131

Increases juror attentiveness 71

81%

17

19% 88

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is 

particularly important

78

82%

17

18% 95

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

76

84%

15

16% 91

Prompts people who see coverage to try to influence 

juror-friends

71

92%

6

8% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to 

recording in order to please the judge

124

80%

31

20% 155

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

123

69%

54

31% 177

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

151

90%

17

10% 168

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 137

79%

37

21% 174

Increases judge attentiveness 114

83%

23

17% 137

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions or 

positions

132

94%

8

6% 140

Causes judges to be more theatrical in conducting the 

proceeding

141

93%

10

7% 151

Prompts judges to be more courteous 139

89%

18

11% 157
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 8

To No Extent or to 

a Small Extent

To a Moderate 

Extent or to a 

Great Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses 

excluded)

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 162

92%

14

8% 176

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 45

29%

111

71% 156

Educates the public about the legal issues in court 

cases

53

34%

105

66% 158

Increases public access to the federal courts 44

26%

125

74% 169

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 145

97%

5

3% 150

Increases public confidence in the federal courts

61

42%

85

58% 146

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information where the 

No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total to 181.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 9

Appendix E, Table 3.a

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent and Small Extent/Moderate Extent/Great 

Extent, No Opinion Included 

To No

Extent

To a Small 

Extent, to a 

Moderate 

Extent, or to

a Great Extent No Opinion Total *

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 71

40%

44

25%

63

35% 178

Distracts witnesses 79

45%

51

29%

47

27% 177

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

70

39%

61

34%

49

27% 180

Increases juror attentiveness 48

27%

40

22%

90

51% 178

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important62

35%

33

18%

84

47% 179

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

52

30%

39

22%

85

48% 176

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

60

34%

17

9%

102

57% 179

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to

consent to recording in order to please the judge

94

53%

61

34%

24

13% 179

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

67

37%

110

61%

4

2% 181

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

103

57%

65

36%

13

7% 181

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 82

45%

92

51%

7

4% 181

Increases judge attentiveness 79

44%

58

33%

41

23% 178

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

124

69%

16

9%

39

22% 179

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

119

66%

32

18%

29

16% 180
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 10

To No

Extent

To a Small 

Extent, to a 

Moderate 

Extent, or to

a Great Extent No Opinion Total *

Prompts judges to be more courteous 83

46%

74

41%

23

13% 180

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 147

83%

29

16%

1

1% 177

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 13

7%

143

81%

21

12% 177

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

16

9%

142

80%

20

11% 178

Increases public access to the federal courts 10

6%

159

88%

11

6% 180

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 139

78%

11

6%

28

16% 178

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 23

13%

123

68%

34

19% 180

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information from all 

respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 181 because of non-responses to a question.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 11

Appendix E, Table 3.b

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent and Small Extent/Moderate Extent/Great 

Extent, No Opinion Excluded 

To No

Extent

To a Small

Extent, to a 

Moderate Extent, or 

to a Great Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 71

62%

44

38%

115

Distracts witnesses 79

61%

51

39%

130

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

70

53%

61

47%

131

Increases juror attentiveness 48

55%

40

45% 88

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important

62

65%

33

35%

95

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

52

57%

39

43% 91

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

60

78%

17

22%

77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to

consent to recording in order to please the judge

94

61%

61

39% 155

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

67

38%

110

62%

177

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

103

61%

65

39%

168

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 82

47%

92

53%

174

Increases judge attentiveness 79

58%

58

42%

137

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

124

89%

16

11% 140
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 12

To No

Extent

To a Small

Extent, to a 

Moderate Extent, or 

to a Great Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

119

79%

32

21%

151

Prompts judges to be more courteous 83

53%

74

47% 157

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 147

84%

29

16% 176

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 13

8%

143

92% 156

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

16

10%

142

90%

158

Increases public access to the federal courts 10

6%

159

94%

169

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts

139

93%

11

7%

150

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 23

16%

123

84%

146

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information where 

the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total to 181.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 13

Appendix E, Table 4.a

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent/Moderate Extent and Great 

Extent, No Opinion Included 

To No Extent, to 

a Small Extent, 

or to a Moderate 

Extent

To a

Great

Extent

No

Opinion Total *

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 108

61%

7

4%

63

35% 178

Distracts witnesses 126

71%

4

2%

47

27% 177

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

124

69%

7

4%

49

27% 180

Increases juror attentiveness 83

47%

5

3%

90

51% 178

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is particularly important94

53%

1

1%

84

47% 179

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their verdict88

50%

3

2%

85

48% 176

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

76

42%

1

1%

102

57% 179

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to

consent to recording in order to please the judge

143

80%

12

7%

24

13% 179

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

168

93%

9

5%

4

2% 181

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

165

91%

3

2%

13

7% 181

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 168

93%

6

3%

7

4% 181

Increases judge attentiveness 135

76%

2

1%

41

23% 178

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

140

78%

0

0%

39

22% 179

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

148

82%

3

2%

29

16% 180
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 14

To No Extent, to 

a Small Extent, 

or to a Moderate 

Extent

To a

Great

Extent

No

Opinion Total *

Prompts judges to be more courteous 154

86%

3

2%

23

13% 180

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 174

98%

2

1%

1

1% 177

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 88

50%

68

38%

21

12% 177

Educates the public about the legal issues

in court cases

99

56%

59

33%

20

11% 178

Increases public access to the federal courts 94

52%

75

42%

11

6% 180

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 148

83%

2

1%

28

16% 178

Increases public confidence in the federal courts

99

55%

47

26%

34

19% 180

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information from all 

respondents to the questionnaire, numbers may not total to 181 because of non-responses to a question.
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 15

Appendix E, Table 4.b

Extent to Which Attorneys Who Participated in Video Recorded Proceedings 

Think the Presence of Video Recording Has the Following Listed Effects (N=181)

Number and Percent of Participating Attorney Responses, Response Categories 

Grouped into Two Sets: No Extent/Small Extent/Moderate Extent and Great 

Extent, No Opinion Excluded 

To No Extent,

to a Small Extent, 

or to a

Moderate Extent

To a Great

Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Motivates witnesses to be truthful 108

94%

7

6% 115

Distracts witnesses 126

97%

4

3% 130

Makes witnesses more nervous than they

otherwise would be

124

95%

7

5% 131

Increases juror attentiveness 83

94%

5

6% 88

Signals to jurors that a witness or argument is 

particularly important

94

99%

1

1% 95

Increases jurors’ sense of responsibility for their 

verdict

88

97%

3

3% 91

Prompts people who see coverage to try to

influence juror-friends

76

99%

1

1% 77

Causes attorneys to urge their clients to consent to 

recording in order to please the judge

143

92%

12

8% 155

Motivates attorneys to come to court better

prepared

168

95%

9

5% 177

Causes attorneys to be more theatrical in their 

presentation

165

98%

3

2% 168

Prompts attorneys to be more courteous 168

97%

6

3% 174

Increases judge attentiveness 135

99%

2

1% 137

Causes judges to avoid unpopular decisions

or positions

140

100%

0

0% 140
Appendix E

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix E – 16

To No Extent,

to a Small Extent, 

or to a

Moderate Extent

To a Great

Extent

Total *

(No Opinion 

responses

excluded)

Causes judges to be more theatrical in

conducting the proceeding

148

98%

3

2% 151

Prompts judges to be more courteous 154

98%

3

2% 157

Disrupts courtroom proceedings 174

99%

2

1% 176

Educates the public about courtroom procedure 88

56%

68

44% 156

Educates the public about the legal issues in court 

cases

99

63%

59

37% 158

Increases public access to the federal courts 94

56%

75

44% 169

Decreases public confidence in the federal courts 148

99%

2

1% 150

Increases public confidence in the federal courts 99

68%

47

32% 146

* The total number of questionnaire respondents was 181 attorneys. Here and in other tables reporting information where 

the No Opinion responses to the questionnaire have been omitted, numbers will not total to 181.
Appendix F

Judge and Attorney Questionnaire Comments

Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 1

JUDGE QUESTIONNAIRE COMMENTS

If you have additional thoughts about benefits that result from video recording 

civil proceedings, please describe them here.

1 Demonstrates to the public that the courthouse is open to people who are interested in watching, which is good because transparency is always good.

2 Despite my best efforts AND prompting, I could not get civil lawyers to agree 

to have any trials recorded by video. In [name of district], the experiment was 

an unmitigated failure. Of course, I came from a state system that DID allow 

cameras in the courtroom . . . and the results have been very successful.

3 I see no benefits worth the disruptive effects.

4 The primary benefit is public education, and hopefully, it promotes greater 

courtesy.

5 The way in which our cameras were set up for the pilot project was not visible 

to the public; therefore, it was not intrusive. It was as if the cameras were not 

there. I could detect no noticeable difference in courtroom decorum and the 

demeanor of the parties and the lawyers. I think where there are important 

issues before the court in civil proceedings and the cameras in the courtroom 

were positioned in such a way that was not distracting, the cameras should be 

allowed. This would clearly engender more transparency. 

6 There can be no excuse for a public institution to make itself unavailable to 

the public in this day and age.

7 Unfortunately, I was only able to have two proceedings recorded . . . As a result, I did not have sufficient experience with cameras in the courtroom to be 

able to formulate any opinion on any of the inquiries. Any responses that I 

would give would be based on my gut feelings and not based on my actual 

experience.

8 This video recording is a very good tool for law firm training of their lawyers. 

I have heard that from a few law firms across the country. Increase the public 

credibility of our proceedings.

9 Like jurors, the public can better understand how the federal courts work and 

how seriously everyone involved takes the endeavor towards equal justice under law. There are some cases, such as patent cases, that would be useful to 

televise, not for the public at large, but for the technical folks and other IP 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 2

lawyers. Those cases rarely go to juries, however. Markman hearings, however, 

would be a good possibility. Appellate arguments, especially SCOTUS, should 

be videotaped and then televised.

10 It does permit a large number of the bar and law students to observe trial proceedings, especially high profile proceedings, which has an educational benefit 

for the bar. 

11 If cameras were allowed, it should be up to the discretion of each individual 

judge.

12 The recording generated is more accurate than the transcript. Video recording 

also increases the public’s access to court proceeding.

13 In some cases, a video recording may be of assistance to a reviewing court.

14 I see very little if any benefit to video recording.

15 Unfortunately, I have nothing to offer in this survey. I have only been on the 

bench a little over a year, and this issue has not arisen during that time.

16 I do believe the video recording of civil proceedings is a positive approach. I 

conducted 2 or 3 trial utilizing video recordings and did not detect any effect 

it had on witnesses, jurors, the court or the outcome of the case. It may have 

motivated counsel to be more theatrical but only minimally if at all. I believe 

it promotes transparency for the federal judiciary and can be a useful tool in 

helping educate the public on the scope and day to day operations of the federal court system. I’m very curious to see to what extent the public is aware of 

and will actually view recordings of civil proceedings in the federal system. At 

this point, I’m a strong advocate for expanding and implementing video recording of civil proceedings in all federal district courts.

17 I have never used cameras in my courtroom so I have no informed opinions 

on the subject

18 I answered “to no extent” to all questions because I am certain that no one—

including me—is conscious that recordings occurring. So far as I am aware, 

no one has asked to see a recording. (By hindsight, I now believe I should have 

been reminding the attorneys that the recordings are available for post trial 

self-critique). Because no one is aware of the recording, recording civil trials 

has no impact on anyone—witnesses, lawyers, jurors, me, or the public. Never 

likely to because civil trials are so infrequent, and, even when they occur, almost never involve anything of interest to anyone but the parties and their 

lawyers. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 3

19 The more the public sees about the federal courts the more confidence the 

people will have in the federal courts and our justice system.

20 I am overseeing a consent decree.... We video and post all proceedings. The 

press reports are better. The parties try harder and are more reasonable. The 

letters to the editor and posted comments are of better quality; more accurate; 

and display a greater understanding of the process. Everyone is a winner.

21 I am not a fan of video recording. The general public is not accessing the videos. If our goal is to educate the public about our justice system and how it 

really works, our time and money is better spent in outreach education to students and adults and courthouse tours where the public has personal contact 

with judges and courthouse personnel. Most civil cases are not that captivating—people would rather watch a fictional courtroom drama or comedy, even 

with its distortions. Why is it everyone knows Judge Judy and not real judges 

or courtroom behavior? Because she is rude entertainment (and highly paid at 

that). So I ask what is it we are trying to achieve? Unlike an oral argument 

which requires little time investment, a trial, to get the complete picture, requires days of time investment. Give me an audience once a month for 1–2 

hours when I can explain our judicial system—including the importance of 

trials—that will not only educate but also hopefully inspire confidence and 

pride in our civil justice system.

22 To be honest, I cannot cite a single example in which cameras have produced 

a tangible, known benefit. (On the other side, I cannot cite a single negative 

result of cameras in the courtroom.) In the end, I think it comes down to our 

values as an institution. If transparency is one of our values, and we have no 

evidence of actual negative consequences, we may need to go where the evidence (or lack thereof) leads us.

23 Benefits are purely educational and then of course depend upon what is done 

with the recording. Most proceedings will never be watched by anyone other 

than the small group of people interested in that particular litigation. High 

profile matters that would generate a lot of interest are rarely ever going to 

result in the consent of both sides.

24 Putting aside the occasional case where witness and/or juror safety is an issue, 

my experience with the presence of press in the courtroom is that it enhances 

all participants’ sense of the importance of what they are doing and thus has a 

beneficial effect.

25 In three years I can only recall two cases in which both parties agreed to have 

the case video recorded. In our Court, this option is presented at the initial 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 4

pretrial conference. I recall no proceeding in my courtroom being video recorded as the cases in which such recording was approved by counsel generally 

settle and go out on summary judgment. During my tenure as a member of 

the [name] County [state] Court, the news media were permitted to record 

both civil and criminal proceedings. News media resources and focus of coverage tended to effect a reduction in the number of cases that actually made 

the news. Typically, aggravated murder cases in which the death penalty was 

in play tended to be the cases followed by local media. 

26 I’ve had a few recorded proceedings, and it seems to me that everyone 

promptly forgets the recording is happening, and we proceed normally. They 

have not been in any way even slightly disruptive.

27 I don’t see a benefit.

28 Whatever benefit there is, it is not worth the negatives of everyone in the courtroom being susceptible to “playing to the camera”. 

29 I conducted no video recording of civil proceedings so I cannot answer any of 

the questions.

30 No proceedings were recorded in our court. We decided to allow the attorneys 

to opt in and no one did.

31 I have tried non-jury cases to judgment, motions to rulings, and enjoyed having video available. It enhanced attorney preparation and was not distracting. 

I could later review the presentations on video to be sure my notes were accurate.

32 As I anticipated [at the outset of the project], the provision giving the parties 

the right to decline to have a proceeding recorded greatly diminished, if not 

eliminated, the potential value of the pilot. I continue to believe, based in 

meaningful measure on the experience in state courts, that recording and 

broadcast of civil proceedings particularly can be done without disrupting the 

proceedings and would cause there to be greater confidence in the federal 

courts, which the polls show has been eroding. 

33 I do not know how much traffic there actually has been in viewing the recordings, but just giving persons that opportunity is a major step forward. Video 

recording in my court has been a total non-event—I do not believe it has impacted any aspect of our proceedings. One benefit that may be overlooked is 

that lawyers have an opportunity to become better at what they do by reviewing the recordings, particularly with a mentor or more experienced lawyer. In 

a spirit of complete disclosure, I have advocated for cameras in the courtrooms 

for years, as I believe it is consistent with our mission to educate the public 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 5

about what we do, and because I believe that complete transparency can only 

enhance overall confidence in the courts.

34 As you know, public trials and court proceedings are a hallmark of the American judiciary. Anything that improves public access to and awareness of what 

we do in court is good in so many ways. It affirms our special tradition of open 

and public proceedings, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the rule of law and 

impartial justice, the separation of powers, the role of the Constitution and 

more. It used to be that trials were a major forum for public engagement and 

participation with the judiciary—they were often the best show in town. We 

can get some of that benefit back by making trials accessible through 21st century technology. I’m all for it. 

35 Transparency. 

If you have additional thoughts about harms that result from video recording civil 

proceedings, please describe them here.

1 Cannot think of a negative. 

2 Just one more equipment failure problem to manage. 

3 The two interesting unexpected consequences of my experience with cameras 

in the courtroom (in addition to the lack of manpower to monitor the camera 

to make sure it was not only functioning but capturing the witness and or 

counsel) were: (1) an unsuccessful plaintiff who consented in an employment 

dispute, later sought to require the court to remove his videoed testimony, as 

it was being viewed by potential employers and interfering with his ability to 

get a new job. (The video showed why the jury did not find him credible.). 

(2) in a case involving a . . . plaintiff who prevailed at trial, the defendant demanded that the court provide a new trial or a video copy of the proceedings 

[for use in supporting his] appeal. It was only discovered after the trial that the 

cameras weren’t functioning. 

4 I suppose if you allow media outlets to bring their own cameras into our 

courts, this would be a totally different environment. The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals have been able to address this issue by designating one outlet to be 

the official media outlet with the provision that this outlet share the recordings 

with other outlets in a timely fashion. 

5 There are no harms.

6 The only cases that will be televised are the ones with popular appeal—Michael 

Jordan’s trademark case, for example. Televising it turns it into a reality TV 

show. What good comes of it? 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 6

7 Video recording of the trial, only, tends to present a distorted view of the proceedings. Many proceedings and rulings lead up to the trial, of which the attorneys and their parties are aware, but about which others are unadvised. Discussions with jurors following the trial confirm that they have many questions 

about what is presented, and what is not presented. These questions can be 

answered for the jurors following the trial, but are never answered for those 

who simply view the trial and, in the media, are fodder for rank speculation. 

8 Video cameras can be very intimidating to witnesses and even jurors. I saw this 

first hand when I served as a judge in state court.

9 In civil proceedings there appears to be little harm from use of a discrete video 

recording system. There is some risk of grandstanding but that can be controlled by 3rd party and/or judicial review of video before posting it to a website.

10 Video recording negatively affects the way attorneys present themselves and 

their case. 

11 Unfortunately, I have nothing to offer in this survey. I have only been on the 

bench a little over a year, and this issue has not arisen during that time.

12 None whatsoever.

13 One weaker attorney sometimes carries on a bit more. Otherwise, none.

14 Puts the judicial process at risk for unfair assessment and criticism.

15 I saw in state court how cameras affected the way some people act or react—

causing them to play to the camera—distorting the presentation of evidence. 

Of course the less intrusive, the less risk. And there will always be some witnesses who provide drama—my experience has been that jurors usually know 

who is acting and who is telling the truth. Why add any more risk? I am not a 

fan of video recording. The general public is not accessing the videos. If our 

goal is to educate the public about our justice system and how it really works, 

our time and money is better spent in outreach education to students and 

adults and courthouse tours where the public has personal contact with judges 

and courthouse personnel. Most civil cases are not that captivating—people 

would rather watch a fictional courtroom drama or comedy, even with its distortions. Why is it everyone knows Judge Judy and not real judges or courtroom behavior? Because she is rude entertainment (and highly paid at that). 

So I ask what is it we are trying to achieve? Unlike an oral argument which 

requires little time investment, a trial, to get the complete picture, requires 

days of time investment. Give me an audience once a month for 1–2 hours 

when I can explain our judicial system—including the importance of trials—
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 7

that will not only educate but also hopefully inspire confidence and pride in 

our civil justice system.

16 This entire controversy is like Y2K for the garden variety trial. High profile 

cases are a different issue, but that is true even without cameras in the courtroom.

17 The only real harm is the decorum of the court and the stress on the participants. I think trials are already stressful enough for the lawyers that the added 

pressures of having to think about how what they say and do looks like on TV 

is potentially an unnecessary burden for them to bear. The parties are rightfully more concerned about their case and what’s at stake than about educating 

the public.

18 In my opinion, and based upon my experience as a judge and a former litigator 

in both the state and federal systems, cameras in a federal courtroom will undermine the administration of justice.

19 Certain cases with issues of witness or juror or party safety should probably 

not be recorded. These harms can be avoided by judicial engagement with the 

trial participants so that any concerns about safety surface before trial and can 

be addressed. Other potential harms, such as lawyer theatricality, should be 

controllable by the presiding judge. Any audience—such as a jury—can provoke some lawyers to bad behavior, and in my experience, the judge can control the problem. 

20 I continue to think that, on the whole, the risk of increased lawyer, and sometimes judge, theatrics, as well as increased anxiety and pressure on witnesses, 

jurors, staff, and judges far outweighs any benefit flowing from video recording.

21 I have presided over trials in state court where cameras in the courtroom was 

permitted. It has in my opinion a negative effect. It causes the attorneys to 

showboat, the Judge to be tempted to grandstand, the witnesses to be intimidated, and the jurors to think they are part of a Court TV show. I am opposed 

to Cameras in the Courtroom. 

22 In the retrial of a remanded case, counsel utilized the recording for the testimony of an unavailable witness. Despite direction from the Court that the 

video must show only the witness and no one else in the courtroom, at the end 

of the testimony the image on the video was allowed to go to a wide shot of 

the courtroom showing all of the people sitting at the counsel tables in the 

same positions as the current trial. This prompted a motion for mistrial that, 

while denied, created an unnecessary complication in the record.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 8

23 My experience tells me that no meaningful harm is presented by the presence 

of cameras in the courtroom. There are sufficient protective steps available to 

the trial judge to handle most if not all potential harm. 

24 The resources could be better directed.

25 Assuring that justice is done in the courtroom is not enhanced by the presence 

of cameras.

26 I have significant concerns about the effects of cameras in the courtroom on 

jurors, in cases where there are concerns re: juror safety particularly. I am also 

principally concerned about the interaction of members of the public who 

know jurors and watch the trial; there is a significant increase in the risk that 

those viewers would attempt to communicate with the jurors about the trial. I 

am also concerned that jurors will want to view broadcasts of the trial, in part 

or in whole, to see what is shown, whether they are ever on camera, and perhaps also to review critical testimony. This could adversely affect deliberations 

(it is the equivalent of allowing an individual juror in deliberations to review 

a transcript of a particular piece of testimony) and increase the risk that jurors 

rely on information from external sources about the trial.

27 Distracting.

28 Because the video proceedings were consented to pre- trial or hearing, no one 

was surprised or baffled. It is win-win. 

29 I do not see any downside at all.

30 Concerned that in high profile cases witness behavior will be influenced and 

all parties will be concerned about appearing politically correct.

31 It is possible that attorneys could engage in theatrics, or that the media could 

try to take material out of context, but that was not our experience. 

Which of the following statements best describes your participation in the pilot 

project? Responses for the Other-Please describe option.

1 I had state court experience with recording and cameras in court with no negative results.

2 No interest, but not hostile.

3 Did not participate because I had many trials in State Court covered by camera 

and wanted to give others a chance to experience recorded trials.

4 I had two jury trials recorded and many other proceedings, motion practice, 

etc. Very much enjoyed the “experiment” and wished it were permanent.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 9

5 Not aware of it.

6 None of the above.

7 There were a number of recordings and most were posted.

8 Never came up.

9 I am in the [Division 1] courthouse which was not technically equipped in 

order to participate—only [Division 2] courtrooms were.

10 I was not on the bench at the time the project started, and I did not participate.

11 Because other judges had volunteered in my district, my participation in the 

pilot program was not needed.

12 I had no cases in which the parties expressed interest in video recording.

13 No appropriate trials occurred during the pilot project period.

14 The issue has not arisen.

15 I was not aware of the presence of technology I could use to record proceedings.

16 No jury trials in 2014.

17 There have been no requests for coverage.

18 Two cases in which the parties agreed at the outset that were resolved prior to 

trial.

19 Only participation was as counsel in a case, before I was appointed to this position.

20 I did not want to participate in the pilot program because I am a relatively new 

judge and am still working through my own standard trial procedures.

21 I wanted to participate and have had a number of proceedings recorded and 

posted on the public website.

22 No one asked me to record proceedings, so I had no occasion to analyze the 

situation. 

Which of the following statements describes your reasons for choosing to participate? Responses for the Other-Please describe option.

1 Way to see if different than state court experience. It wasn’t.

2 When in private practice in the early ’80’s, I worked on promoting cameras in 

the courtroom in [state].
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 10

3 Received request to have proceeding recorded.

4 I think it is the court’s obligation to the public.

5 I believe strongly that all federal proceedings should be recorded and the recordings should be readily and promptly available to the public, including the 

broadcast media.

6 I believe the more the public understands what we do, the better they will understand that we strive to be fair and just.

7 I also used courtroom cameras in [name of state] State Court proceedings.

8 I believe strongly that federal judicial proceedings should be as transparent 

and accessible as reasonably possible. Recording and broadcasting will enhance both, without injuring the integrity of the proceedings.

If you have other operational or administrative concerns about video recording, 

please describe them here.

1 Not necessarily too much staff time, but someone else (e.g., from the Clerk’s 

Office) must be trained in how to monitor the video (that is a separate person 

not connected with the judge). So that’s a consideration.

2 Our case load was such that we did not have the luxury of having anyone who 

could sit in the courtroom and monitor the cameras. We simply had our tech 

folks turn the cameras on, we’d adjust the angle to capture the counsel and 

witness and we left the rest up to our tech folks to do whatever needed to be 

done with whatever was captured. 

3 We needed to train someone to handle the actual operations. IT said it was no 

big deal and the actual operators loved it. Said it made them feel like they were 

recruited to do Monday Night Football.

4 We have had many technical difficulties, with audio etc., and some problems 

uploading the video though I am not conversant as to those issues.

If you wish to provide comment, you may do so below. (After question on overall 

opinion about video recording civil proceedings and making the recordings publicly available.)

1 . . . based on my long time experience in the [name of state] state court system, 

where cameras in the courtroom are allowed (with appropriate guidelines).

2 I do not think that we should condition recording on the parties’ consent.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 11

3 Philosophically, I support cameras in the courtroom as it provides the modern 

opportunity for the public to see what really happens in court. However, given 

the quality of the product, the infrequency of parties consenting, and the general public lack of interest in most run of the mill civil cases in federal court 

(or most courts for that matter) is it worth the costs in time and equipment 

for the infrequent times it would be very useful to the public given all of the 

other responsibilities of a court?

4 I am greatly in favor so long as we have the necessary resources. 

5 Because so few lawyers consented, our district’s experience was very limited. I 

only had one partial bench trial recorded—we stopped because there were logistical problems involving another trial, not because of the technology. So my 

opinions here should probably be discounted.

6 Just as digital audio is available to the public now in all my civil and criminal 

cases, video will greatly enhance judicial transparency and thus greater public 

confidence in the federal trial courts. I can think of no more important task.

7 Although I have no experience with this, I would be concerned that the video 

recording would do more harm than good.

8 It is difficult to get both sides to consent.

9 I believe the recording of criminal cases would have a much greater impact on 

educating the public and providing access to the federal courts. I do not believe 

the public is generally interested in civil cases. I question the benefits of recording civil cases other than as an aid to relatively inexperienced lawyers.

10 Candidly, recording civil proceedings doesn’t matter a whole lot, if at all. My 

views remain entirely unchanged as a result of my participation in the pilot 

project, but my fear abides that the Judicial Conference will persist obdurately 

in the wrong-headed view that criminal proceedings should not be recorded 

and thereby available for broadcasting. Most states allow it; so it’s been tested 

and proven. If any of the ill-effects the opponents of moving into the Twentieth, much less the Twenty-First, were anything but chimerical, no doubt that 

would be well validated, well publicized, and well known. Video access to 

criminal proceedings in federal court matters for one simple but compelling 

reason: the public is utterly unaware of the sentences we impose. The print 

media pays infrequent, and even then, but passing attention on behalf of its 

steadily diminishing readership. Broadcast media does not care and even turns 

away because we slam the door in its face. As a result, the eighty-five percent 

of the public that’s gets “informed” solely via TV or the internet remains utterly ignorant of the most important thing we do. For me, the main purpose 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 12

of a sentence is individual and public deterrence. Very, very few of the hundreds of thousands of federal inmates had any idea about the severity of the 

sentence they would receive if they committed a drug offense or downloaded 

and shared child pornography. I firmly believe that had a fair number of those 

inmates known the consequences of being convicted in federal court, they 

might have refrained from the acts that have cost them their liberty. So, I have 

a couple of suggestions, and, if they fall on inattentive ears, a request. My suggestion: let individual trial judges have discretion to record or not record criminal proceedings in whole or part. Run a pilot project while doing so. Get some 

real data about real issues in the cases in which, unlike most civil cases, those 

issues and problems, if any, will arise. If the Conference won’t go that far, AT 

THE VERY LEAST AUTHORIZE VIDEO RECORDING OF SENTENCINGS. 

The Federal Judiciary has inflicted, continues to inflict, and will keep on inflicting a self-inflicted and unnecessary wound on itself, its standing, and on 

public understanding and respect for what we do. The present “policy” is, at 

its core, undemocratic and unworthy. Thank you for your consideration of 

these views.

11 I have had both high profile and run of the mill cases with consents. The positive impact in high profile cases is profound. In the smaller cases, it has had 

limited value to the public but was of importance to the parties.

12 I feel that something is lost when a live courtroom proceeding is translated 

into video. Somehow, the participants seem less like real people than characters. I know so little about video recording, having had no experience with it 

myself. If I knew more about the pros and cons, I might have a favorable opinion of it. It is also possible that my opposition to it would increase.

13 It can affect attorneys’ behavior during trial in a negative way and distract the 

jurors by their flamboyant actions, leaving the judge to try to ‘unring the bell’.

14 In my preliminary view (“preliminary” because I would want to consider other 

data before formulating a final opinion), one of the attorneys did act more 

theatrically than the attorney would have had there not been a video recording, 

and one of the attorneys acted more nervously. That is a substantial downside 

to video recording. Moreover, live streaming of video would, I believe, exacerbate theatricality and undermine the solemnity of the proceedings. One 

other downside is that courts and lawyers should not rely on video recordings 

in lieu of a court-reported transcript, because it is only a court reporter who 

can reliably ask for unintelligible statements to be repeated. Having said all 

that, I do recognize that video recording for later viewing (not live streaming) 

does have some educational purposes. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 13

15 The only benefit I see to allowing cameras in federal courts would be to show 

a skeptical person what actually goes on in a trial. I have fortunately never witnessed any of the theatrics suggested by the earlier questions in the survey.

16 I see no benefit and think recording would be another of the myriad obligations, given the limited resources of the court; any funds and human resources 

employed in this effort, could be better directed. 

17 As I wrote previously, I believe that making recordings publicly available increases the transparency and accessibility of the courts. Like the requirement 

of public access to courtrooms, such recordings also enhance the accountability of the court and the government, which is desirable in a democracy. As the 

polls indicate, the people who know the most about the operation of the federal courts have the most confidence in them and therefore making recordings 

of proceedings of public interest is not only right, but in the enlightened selfinterest of the federal judiciary.

18 Please see my earlier comments. I am a proponent of cameras in the courtrooms.

Please explain, if you wish. (Following closed-ended responses to “If the Judicial 

Conference were to authorize future video recording of civil proceedings under 

the conditions of the pilot project, would you permit recording in your courtroom? Assume the proceedings are appropriate to record and parties have consented.”)

1 Of course, under our supervision, our civil proceedings ought to be available 

on video. The one exception I can see is for jury trials. I’m not confident we 

can fashion instructions to prevent people from commenting to jurors on social media “I caught your trial on TV, YouTube, etc., and I think . . . “

2 . . . the primary problem is getting parties to consent, and I would be happy to 

listen to/offer suggestions.

3 It would depend on whether participation is required (or not) by the Conference.

4 It would depend on the nature of the case.

5 Please note that the consent requirement reduced the number of recordings. 

6 In my limited experience, I did not see any negative aspect to having the cameras in the courtroom.

7 I would be willing to give it a try. Perhaps I could be persuaded otherwise.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 14

8 Generally public proceedings should be available by video recording both for 

the education of the public and to enhance public confidence in the civil justice system. 

9 Under limited circumstances on the right case with very good lawyers it could 

be a good thing. 

10 If the parties felt strongly, I would allow it.

11 I believe that the restrictions imposed by the pilot make the project pretty 

much worthless. 

12 I would need to know more about the process and I would have to decide 

whether it would be a distraction or too cumbersome to use.

13 Disrupts the flow of the case.

14 I think that the likelihood of obtaining consent to video recording of a civil 

proceeding is remote.

15 As I explained above, I would want more data before making a final opinion 

on recording, so I would be willing to authorize additional recordings to add 

to my experience. 

16 I’m skeptical but willing to consider the possibility.

17 I believe that no disruption to proceedings results from video recording hearings either criminal or civil because I worked for 7 plus years in the busiest 

trial court in [state], where the recording of events by the news media was 

available.

18 It would depend on the case. Many factors would influence my decision.

If you have any additional comments about video recording of civil proceedings in 

general, or the pilot program in particular, please provide them here.

1 As designed, this program was far, far too cumbersome and intricate. As one 

of my colleagues presciently said “This program was designed to fail and in 

that alone will it succeed.” The one unalloyed success is that we now have—

or should have—a number of videos of judges doing what judges do. This is 

of enormous educational value . . .

2 My comments are contained (previously) herein. But I think the video recording experiment should be authorized to continue.

3 I do not think we should condition recording on the parties’ consent.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 15

4 As a state judge, I had a very bad experience with a televised criminal trial (as 

state rules allowed). That experience has shaped my views in a negative way.

5 I completely agree with the pilot project to see how everyone feels about the 

experience. Let the chips fall where they may.

6 I am a new judge and didn’t take the bench until the project was well under 

way. My views on this issue might reflect my relative inexperience as a judge 

and my more extensive experience as a litigant. 

7 See earlier comments about the limited participation.

8 The burden of proof as to why we should NOT record ALL events is on those 

who believe it is somehow disruptive. We are doing the public’s business 

therefore absent some kind of security concerns all of what we do should be 

able to be observed by the public.

9 I strongly support the use of video recording in all proceedings both civil and 

criminal. Indeed, I would not require the consent of the parties.

10 I see no persuasive reason not to generally permit cameras in the courtroom 

whenever the press is interested in civil litigation subject to restrictions placed 

by the judge (i.e. to protect privacy of a witness on medical issues).

11 As a state general jurisdiction judge, I earlier presided over criminal cases that 

had video segments recorded for news coverage. It created no major problems 

but sometimes made the attorneys more theatrical and sometimes seemed to 

distract jurors to minor degrees.

12 The pilot program isn’t even a baby step in the right direction. At best it’s a 

timid toe in the water. The judiciary of which I am a long-serving and proud 

member, and which is the best judicial system created by mankind, should be 

proud of what it does, instead of fearful of public view.

13 Let’s expand the program! 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 16

ATTORNEY QUESTIONNAIRE COMMENTS

If you have any comments on other benefits or harms from video recording, 

please use the space below.

1 This case was a bench trial. The camera was focused on the witness. My recollection was that the testimony was difficult to hear if the tape was viewed. The 

trial went on for 3 weeks so the cameras became one more piece of furniture. 

The nature of the claim and the testimony had to do with a ... construction 

project. 20 or more witnesses, multiple experts, 1000's of pages of exhibits. 

Unless a person is a [ ] expert, or enjoys watching paint dry, it had no value as 

a tool for lawyers, judges or the public. I did not watch the tape.

2 It was non-descript; frankly as I sit here, I don't recall any adverse effects or 

positive effects for that matter.

3 The cameras are so unobtrusive you forget they are even there. It makes for a 

very helpful teaching tool.

4 At first, I thought cameras/recording would be distracting, but I found the 

cameras to be unobtrusive. While I appreciate the concerns I have heard expressed regarding “playing to the camera,” etc., I did not find that to be the 

case. I think that having open access to hearings via cameras (like they are set 

up in the federal courtrooms—not news cameras) and the internet is a way to 

increase the public’s confidence in our judicial system by providing direct access to the proceedings for those who would not otherwise be able to observe. 

It did not appear to me that the attorneys or the Judge in our case were affected 

by the recording. Opposing counsel is well-prepared regardless of whether 

there is a recording, and I did not do anything different because of the cameras. Having been in front of our Judge with and without cameras, I can say 

that his demeanor and rulings are not affected by the presence of the cameras. 

His professionalism and good judicial demeanor is present whether the cameras are on or off.

5 This matter involved neither jurors nor witnesses. The experience was positive. 

However, the video made available was of poor technical quality (fuzzy low 

resolution images), making it of limited use to the media.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 17

6 Personally, I thought the cameras were very helpful and allowed me to go back 

and see how I presented the case and what I could do to become a better attorney. There was absolutely no distraction, and no difference to a case that I 

have presented with no cameras.

7 This was argument on a motion in a civil case. There were no witnesses or 

jurors so I did not answer those questions. If, for some reason, you just want 

my opinion, I can provide it.

8 Once the proceedings began the camera was not noticeable.

9 It disrupted proceedings a number of times.

10 One concern I have is that the use of cameras allows sensitive, personal information of parties to be disseminated widely, and that may not be appropriate. 

If embarrassing issues are raised in open court, it is bad enough that such matters are made known to persons present; it is worse if any person anywhere 

can gain access to such information by watching a video of the proceedings. It 

is also hard to gauge exactly how any particular participants will be more theatrical or honest/dishonest in order to please whoever they perceive to be 

watching. For instance, a witness who knows s/he will look bad on camera by 

telling the truth (e.g., "yes, I lied previously" or "yes, I am a drug addict") will 

undoubtedly be more motivated not to tell the truth in front of a camera. That 

is not an insignificant concern in certain circumstances, and especially in 

criminal cases. If witnesses know that their personal exposure and scrutiny of 

their actions is limited to those who are actually in the courtroom, then I 

would think they would tend to be more honest in their answers. 

11 Except for being aware that set-up of cameras was being performed before 

court began, the cameras were all but invisible to me. Lawyers are accustomed 

now to having video cameras in depositions, so having them in the courtroom 

wasn't a big change for me. And I don't recall an instance when a deposition 

witness remarked that the presence of a video camera made him/her more 

nervous, theatrical or courteous.

12 As a younger practitioner, it was beneficial for me to be able to critique my 

own performance in the courtroom. Plus, the client could see the quality of 

the advocacy it was paying for. Finally, I was able to distribute the video to my 

supervising attorneys so they could confirm the strength of my skills as a practitioner. I am 100% in favor of continuing the use of cameras in federal courts.

13 My hearing was procedural, hence no witnesses or jury involved. 

14 The recorded hearing was a summary judgment argument. My views on the 

influence on witnesses and jurors is purely opinion, not experience.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 18

15 I don't think there are any negatives to having cameras in the courtroom. I 

also think it is the best way to educate the public about what really goes on in 

the courtroom and about our legal system. 

16 I think it would be disruptive; there is enough going on now with the [electronic] courtroom.

17 My case involved an extended oral argument, so my views about the effect on 

witnesses and jurors are purely speculation... 

18 Some of the recordings were used by third party websites and blogs to publically ridicule the attorneys who participated. Although that is unavoidable, it 

has an extremely negative impact on agreeing to future participation. An unfortunate byproduct of our times, those who cry for public openness are the 

same people who misuse it and create an aversion to public openness.

19 My experience involved oral argument on a motion for summary judgment, 

so I have no first-hand experience of the effect on witnesses or juries or on the 

interactions of judges/attorneys with witnesses or juries. All in all, I do not 

believe video recording is helpful or beneficial.

20 The video recording equipment was surprisingly unobtrusive. I barely knew it 

was there, which is a good thing.

21 My experience with the video recording was positive. The cameras were hidden/minimized to the extent they were not even thought of. Due to their fixed 

positions, it required me to stay at a podium, which was not my preferred 

method of presenting evidence, questioning witnesses or engaging the jury. I 

prefer to be able to move around; so if the cameras could accommodate movement that would be a positive change. The fact that the proceedings were 

broadcast was also a benefit to the public, clients and interested persons. I 

would support more usage of cameras in the courtroom.

22 Please make the video more accessible. Some of the positive goals listed above 

might better be achieved if the public were aware of the availability of the video 

and were able to access it. Each time I attempted to access the video, I received 

a message that it was not available. I waited the appropriate time for it to be 

posted before trying to access it.

23 The video recording of our proceeding has been of great help in educating law 

students and new lawyers. The opportunity to watch a trial from beginning to 

end gives a kind of insight into the federal courts that is of great import. The 

cameras caused zero disruption during the proceedings and I am a big fan of 

the program. A few suggestions—At times it is difficult to see or hear the proceedings in the videos so camera placement might need to be adjusted. More 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 19

important, the videos are not captioned ... I would strongly encourage the 

Federal Judicial Center to look at ways to ensure these valuable videos are accessible to all. We ... appreciate the recordings greatly for their educational 

value.

24 I didn't feel competent to comment on witnesses and jurors since I haven't 

been present for either of those. So far I've only been present for motion hearings. 

25 The video-recorded proceeding in which I attended and addressed the court 

was a hearing on the parties' joint motion to approve a settlement agreement 

in a complex case. The proceeding involved neither jurors nor witnesses, and

therefore, it provided no basis upon which I could comment on the impact of 

video recording on jurors and witnesses. Having appeared with opposing 

counsel before the judge on multiple prior occasions without video recording, 

I discerned no difference in the manner that that judge and counsel attended 

to their duties with the cameras running. 

26 I'm not sure how much people actually know that these recordings are available. For instance, I was not aware that they were easily found upon a Google 

search involving my name until recently. So, I think until it is more generally 

known that such proceedings are available, it will be difficult to assess how 

they impact the public's view (or the participant's reaction to the public's 

view).

27 My exposure was in an argument on a point of law in a pretrial motion, so no 

jury was involved and I had no opportunity to observe any impact on jurors. 

I did not find the process intrusive in any way, believe it did not impact anyone's demeanor, etc.

28 The cameras were hidden and I'm not sure that anyone even realized (unless 

they were made aware) that the proceedings were being videotaped. I know I 

didn't tell witnesses. This is the first time I've tried a case with my judge so I 

have no idea if it made an impact on his rulings or courtroom management. 

29 This was the first and last time that I agree to participate in this project. Participating in the project caused the trial to last longer than anticipated. It affected the plaintiff's performance on the stand because of the added stress of 

having the proceeding video-taped, in addition to the significant pressure 

added to an already difficult situation. The Plaintiff regrets having agreed to 

participate in the project and to this day continues to stress over his performance. While it is a good idea to offer the public at large access to real trial 

proceedings, the negative impact it had on a layperson is not worth the effort. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 20

30 Openness is a good thing. There is no benefit to keeping cameras out of the 

courtroom.

31 The video was useful to me personally as a way to critique my own work, not 

only the content of the argument but things like posture, body language, etc. 

The taped parts of our case were long oral argument on very complex motions. 

I think that no one was aware of the cameras once things got started. 

32 When recorded in a routine, unobtrusive manner, recording courtroom proceedings greatly increases public access and transparency in courtroom proceedings without noticeably detracting from the integrity of those proceedings. My views are colored by the fact that the [state] State Supreme Court has 

recorded and played back on public access TV all of its arguments for years. 

Grandstanding for the cameras simply does not occur, I believe because the 

audience of every advocate remains the bench. Much of the concern over cameras in the courtroom is based on the model in which cameras are the exception, brought in for one case particularly followed by the press. But the concerns for grandstanding all but disappear when the proceeding is recorded as 

a matter of routine, in an unobtrusive way as is done at the [state] high court 

and was done under this pilot project. Lawyers and judges in the courtroom 

are judged by jurors drawn from the public and direct their behavior accordingly. That they may be judged by the same public—and at all times, not just 

when a jury is present—should be expected to, and in my opinion does, lead 

to the same professionalism that is necessary to succeed in a jury case. 

33 I thought the process was well handled and good for the judicial system.

34 The camera did not change or affect the nature of my advocacy in any way that 

I am aware of, in part, because cameras are frequently used in state court where 

I also practice. I believe that the public access to the courtroom videos, especially in summary judgment proceeding, is enhanced because rarely are there 

non participants present. I am happy that Mr. [name]'s case was one of those 

chosen for this pilot project.. 

35 Regarding public confidence: whether it increases or decreases public confidence would depend on what happens in the proceedings; i.e., how did the 

lawyers and judge behave; what were the arguments; did it appear that the 

court was acting in a nonobjective manner; were the lawyers prepared; did any 

of the attorneys grandstand in such a way that members of the public would 

be disheartened by the proceedings.

36 I had oral argument only so I have left the jury/witnesses as no opinion since 

my opinion is no more informed that the non-camera participatory litigator. 

Also, while I am a big proponent of cameras in the courtroom, I do not believe 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 21

it has a net effect on public confidence one way or another. The public that 

does not like a ruling will lose confidence and vice versa and the cameras will 

simply add to that general effect.

37 Unfortunately the video occurred so long ago, I don’t have much of an independent recollection. I don't recall whether the video occurred during a jury 

trial, or only oral argument on motions.

38 It is not the videotaping itself that affects attorneys’ or witnesses’ conduct or 

the public’s perception; it is how those videotapes are released and used. Is the 

trial being streamed live on the Internet? Are snippets being edited into a package on CNN? Are the highlights being shown on C-SPAN? The knowledge that 

a trial is being taped will not affect either courtroom conduct or public perception. It is how the tapes are used and to whom they are released. I am generally in favor of videotaping trials and other court proceedings, and release of 

those tapes to the news media and public.

39 This was a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. All of the attorneys 

had practiced in the Federal court system previously. If anything I think it may 

have caused the attorneys to be more succinct, and to stay on point. The Judge 

was very courteous to all and appreciated our agreeing to the recording. I 

would do it any time it was requested.

40 I believe the primary benefit of the camera project is to give easier public access 

to the courts and court proceedings. It did not disrupt or change the hearing 

at all. 

41 As long as the equipment and videographer do not interfere with the proceedings, I am not sure it makes much of a difference. It is similar to a deposition 

and a witness is under oath, so I am not sure it has an impact on truthfulness. 

My experience with this video recording happened so long ago that I really 

have no recollection of what I thought about it at the time. I would suggest 

these surveys take place immediately after the event that is videotaped.

42 I don’t personally perceive any substantive harm from video recording. Any 

such harm that could be theorized would seem to be outweighed by the benefits to the public of transparency. I am a supporter of enhanced use of recording.

43 I think cameras should be allowed in federal court for all proceedings under 

written guidelines. 

44 This was a summary judgment motion hearing. No jury or witness was involved. Really never even noticed that this was being recorded aside from the 

Court's informing us.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 22

45 Court proceedings are a public matter. The more public the better. Personally, 

I don't think I gave a thought to the cameras. But if they were routine, I think 

I would become more attuned to their presence. I doubt any but the more 

notorious criminal cases would get any substantial audience. But those cases 

would probably be heavily viewed, at least the rebroadcast of more sensational 

moments, and have a great positive impact on the public. I would assume that 

anything out of the hearing of the jury would be broadcast as well. Even now 

many such matters are discussed in open court with the jury in the jury room. 

So, why not bench conferences, too? (On the other hand, in a state court where 

judges are elected, one shudders to contemplate the impact cameras would 

have. All the more reason to get rid of any judicial elections, even under a Missouri plan.)

46 I believe courtroom cameras benefit the public and do not change the actions 

of the lawyers and judges in a non-evidentiary hearing.

47 I did feel pressure to consent to this program at my trial—in fact, I was presented with a form just minutes before the trial started, with no opportunity 

to decline to participate indicated on the form. I have concerns about this type 

of program being used for an improper purpose—to embarrass attorneys, witnesses, judges, or other participants in the trial process, for entertainment 

value. I think that's the frequent result from similar programs, such as in state 

courts, where this material is routinely available. On the other hand, these are 

public proceedings, and the public has the right to know what is going on in 

their courts. To the extent that this program increases public knowledge about 

court proceedings, I view that as a benefit. I can say that the presence of cameras and the knowledge that the trial was being recorded did not alter my behavior during trial in the slightest. My work was directed at influencing the 

only people who had a say in the outcome—and that does not include anyone 

watching the recording. 

48 The hearing I was involved with did not involve a jury, and so I do not know 

the extent to which it may have an impact on a jury.

49 The placement of the camera in my case (which was only oral argument on a 

motion for summary judgment, not an evidentiary hearing or trial, so my answers concerning effects on jurors and witnesses are just personal opinion, not 

observations or experience) was very unobtrusiveness. But for Judge [name] 

explaining where the camera was located, I do not think I would have noticed. 

My primary impression was that cameras similarly placed in the courtroom 

will have little effect, and no negative effect, on the conduct of business in the 

Court, but will make access to the public business of the Court more meaningful for those who wish to take advantage of it.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 23

50 In my case, there was an oral argument on a motion for summary judgment 

so there were no witnesses or jurors involved. Therefore, the initial questions 

regarding jurors and witnesses were not applicable to my case.

51 I did not have an evidentiary proceeding recorded, therefore I don’t have an 

experience based opinion on the effect video recording may have on . . . evidentiary proceedings, and some of my opinions on the remaining questions 

are based on speculation as I don't have significant experience with effect of 

video recording on hearings. I hold the unequivocal opinion that video recording of non-evidentiary hearings and making those recordings available to 

the public would have a positive effect on federal proceedings and be of great 

benefit to the public, the bar and the judiciary. I don't have an opinion as to 

the effect video recording would have on evidentiary hearings and/or trials, I 

see potential benefits but also am mindful of the possibility for some of the 

problems that are anticipated in the questions above.

52 Based on my limited, short experience, I didn't think that the camera(s) impacted the proceedings, as I didn't think that they were intrusive or noticed.

53 I would probably not recommend to a client that they agree to video recording 

again. Witnesses and parties are nervous enough about testifying without the 

addition of a video camera to preserve their testimony (and any possible 

gaffes) for posterity. 

54 In our case, the system was brand new and had lots of glitches. So everyone 

was well aware of it. To my mind, though, I don't think it changed anyone. No 

one pays any attention. It's great for educating the public. I'm very supportive. 

55 The redaction of private information was distracting and limiting to the case. 

In this law enforcement case, much of the private information pertaining to 

the plaintiff was relevant in the sense that it demonstrated the officers were not 

being random in their treatment of the plaintiff.

56 I found the cameras to be essentially invisible in this non-jury trial. While I 

was motivated to make sure I was particularly well-prepared and courteous to 

maintain my reputation in the event someone elected to watch, I do not believe it had a strong impact on my presentation style or the Judge's behavior. I 

feel that large changes to your presentation style are more likely to detract 

from your overall presentation and effectiveness than to make you look better 

on camera. This "invisibility" of the cameras may not hold in every case. I, 

along with opposing counsel, elected to decline participation in another case 

where there was the possibility that sensitive security- and/or business operations-related information would be discussed at trial. While the parties understood that the cameras could be turned off during discussion of that type of 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 24

information, it seemed that keeping track of when the cameras should be 

turned on or off (especially if testimony unexpectedly veered into a sensitive 

topic) would add an unnecessary layer of distraction and work. I am, however, 

generally skeptical that the general public has any special interest in viewing 

the tapes except under rare circumstances (i.e., high-profile cases).

57 I believe it is particularly beneficial for appellate purposes. 

58 I believe the recordings are an educational tool on several levels for both attorneys and parties. 

59 Appellate arguments in the Ninth Circuit and the [state] Supreme Court have 

been recorded by video for years with no apparent disruption. Litigants 

quickly forget the existence of cameras. I have also participated in [name] 

County Superior Court trials that were recorded on video with no disruption. 

The technology is very unobtrusive at this point. The benefits from administering justice in an open fashion are important for public confidence and education.

60 The video recordings have the potential to be a good educational tool for attorneys and the public. 

61 We did not have a jury, so I have no opinion how the camera might have affected a jury. I did not get the impression the camera had any effect on any of 

the participants. I felt everyone involved would have acted exactly the same 

way had there not been a camera. After the first ten minutes, the fact that there 

is a camera recording everything does not even pop into your head. You just 

do what you are there to do. 

62 The proceeding I participated in as part of the pilot program was a hearing on 

a motion to dismiss, which is very different from an entire trial. Concerns applicable to televised or recorded trials will be largely inapplicable to hearings. 

63 It is difficult to speak with generality about these issues. Although the case at 

issue never went to trial, I had significant concerns about video recording and 

internet dissemination of financial and other sensitive personal information 

about the witnesses and victims, and their willingness to cooperate. 

64 I appreciated Judge [name]’s decision to video record the proceedings in this 

case. I would add to the questions above that I think video recordings are a 

good learning tool for lawyers who can watch the proceedings in other cases 

before the same judge. This is especially helpful to lawyers from out of town.

65 Sorry. I have no recollection of the hearing being recorded (There were no 

witnesses, which explains my first set of answers.) If it was recorded, I was not 

aware of it. Therefore, it couldn't have affected my actions.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 25

If you wish to provide comment, you may do so below. (After question on overall 

opinion about video recording civil proceedings and making the recordings publicly available.)

1 This case was a bench trial. The camera was focused on the witness. My recollection was that the testimony was difficult to hear if the tape was viewed. The 

trial went on for 3 weeks so the cameras became one more piece of furniture. 

The nature of the claim and the testimony had to do with a . . . construction 

project. 20 or more witnesses, multiple experts, 1000’s of pages of exhibits. 

Unless a person is a [ ] expert, or enjoys watching paint dry, it had no value as 

a tool for lawyers, judges or the public. I did not watch the tape.

2 It was non-descript; frankly as I sit here, I don’t recall any adverse effects or 

positive effects for that matter.

3 The cameras are so unobtrusive you forget they are even there. It makes for a 

very helpful teaching tool.

4 At first, I thought cameras/recording would be distracting, but I found the 

cameras to be unobtrusive. While I appreciate the concerns I have heard expressed regarding “playing to the camera,” etc., I did not find that to be the 

case. I think that having open access to hearings via cameras (like they are set 

up in the federal courtrooms—not news cameras) and the internet is a way to 

increase the public’s confidence in our judicial system by providing direct access to the proceedings for those who would not otherwise be able to observe. 

It did not appear to me that the attorneys or the Judge in our case were affected 

by the recording. Opposing counsel is well-prepared regardless of whether 

there is a recording, and I did not do anything different because of the cameras. Having been in front of our Judge with and without cameras, I can say 

that his demeanor and rulings are not affected by the presence of the cameras. 

His professionalism and good judicial demeanor is present whether the cameras are on or off.

5 This matter involved neither jurors nor witnesses. The experience was positive. 

However, the video made available was of poor technical quality (fuzzy low 

resolution images), making it of limited use to the media.

6 Personally, I thought the cameras were very helpful and allowed me to go back 

and see how I presented the case and what I could do to become a better attorney. There was absolutely no distraction, and no difference to a case that I 

have presented with no cameras.

7 This was argument on a motion in a civil case. There were no witnesses or 

jurors so I did not answer those questions. If, for some reason, you just want 

my opinion, I can provide it.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 26

8 Once the proceedings began the camera was not noticeable.

9 It disrupted proceedings a number of times.

10 One concern I have is that the use of cameras allows sensitive, personal information of parties to be disseminated widely, and that may not be appropriate. 

If embarrassing issues are raised in open court, it is bad enough that such matters are made known to persons present; it is worse if any person anywhere 

can gain access to such information by watching a video of the proceedings. It 

is also hard to gauge exactly how any particular participants will be more theatrical or honest/dishonest in order to please whoever they perceive to be 

watching. For instance, a witness who knows s/he will look bad on camera by 

telling the truth (e.g., “yes, I lied previously” or “yes, I am a drug addict”) will 

undoubtedly be more motivated not to tell the truth in front of a camera. That 

is not an insignificant concern in certain circumstances, and especially in 

criminal cases. If witnesses know that their personal exposure and scrutiny of 

their actions is limited to those who are actually in the courtroom, then I 

would think they would tend to be more honest in their answers. 

11 Except for being aware that set-up of cameras was being performed before 

court began, the cameras were all but invisible to me. Lawyers are accustomed 

now to having video cameras in depositions, so having them in the courtroom 

wasn’t a big change for me. And I don’t recall an instance when a deposition 

witness remarked that the presence of a video camera made him/her more 

nervous, theatrical or courteous.

12 As a younger practitioner, it was beneficial for me to be able to critique my 

own performance in the courtroom. Plus, the client could see the quality of 

the advocacy it was paying for. Finally, I was able to distribute the video to my 

supervising attorneys so they could confirm the strength of my skills as a practitioner. I am 100% in favor of continuing the use of cameras in federal courts.

13 My hearing was procedural, hence no witnesses or jury involved. 

14 The recorded hearing was a summary judgment argument. My views on the 

influence on witnesses and jurors is purely opinion, not experience.

15 I don’t think there are any negatives to having cameras in the courtroom. I 

also think it is the best way to educate the public about what really goes on in 

the courtroom and about our legal system. 

16 I think it would be disruptive; there is enough going on now with the [electronic] courtroom.

17 My case involved an extended oral argument, so my views about the effect on 

witnesses and jurors are purely speculation... 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 27

18 Some of the recordings were used by third party websites and blogs to publically ridicule the attorneys who participated. Although that is unavoidable, it 

has an extremely negative impact on agreeing to future participation. An unfortunate byproduct of our times, those who cry for public openness are the 

same people who misuse it and create an aversion to public openness.

19 My experience involved oral argument on a motion for summary judgment, 

so I have no first-hand experience of the effect on witnesses or juries or on the 

interactions of judges/attorneys with witnesses or juries. All in all, I do not 

believe video recording is helpful or beneficial.

20 The video recording equipment was surprisingly unobtrusive. I barely knew it 

was there, which is a good thing.

21 My experience with the video recording was positive. The cameras were hidden/minimized to the extent they were not even thought of. Due to their fixed 

positions, it required me to stay at a podium, which was not my preferred 

method of presenting evidence, questioning witnesses or engaging the jury. I 

prefer to be able to move around; so if the cameras could accommodate movement that would be a positive change. The fact that the proceedings were 

broadcast was also a benefit to the public, clients and interested persons. I 

would support more usage of cameras in the courtroom.

22 Please make the video more accessible. Some of the positive goals listed above 

might better be achieved if the public were aware of the availability of the video 

and were able to access it. Each time I attempted to access the video, I received 

a message that it was not available. I waited the appropriate time for it to be 

posted before trying to access it.

23 The video recording of our proceeding has been of great help in educating law 

students and new lawyers. The opportunity to watch a trial from beginning to 

end gives a kind of insight into the federal courts that is of great import. The 

cameras caused zero disruption during the proceedings and I am a big fan of 

the program. A few suggestions—At times it is difficult to see or hear the proceedings in the videos so camera placement might need to be adjusted. More 

important, the videos are not captioned ... I would strongly encourage the 

Federal Judicial Center to look at ways to ensure these valuable videos are accessible to all. We ... appreciate the recordings greatly for their educational 

value.

24 I didn’t feel competent to comment on witnesses and jurors since I haven’t 

been present for either of those. So far I’ve only been present for motion hearings. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 28

25 The video-recorded proceeding in which I attended and addressed the court 

was a hearing on the parties’ joint motion to approve a settlement agreement 

in a complex case. The proceeding involved neither jurors nor witnesses, and 

therefore, it provided no basis upon which I could comment on the impact of 

video recording on jurors and witnesses. Having appeared with opposing 

counsel before the judge on multiple prior occasions without video recording, 

I discerned no difference in the manner that that judge and counsel attended 

to their duties with the cameras running. 

26 I’m not sure how much people actually know that these recordings are available. For instance, I was not aware that they were easily found upon a Google 

search involving my name until recently. So, I think until it is more generally 

known that such proceedings are available, it will be difficult to assess how 

they impact the public’s view (or the participant’s reaction to the public’s 

view).

27 My exposure was in an argument on a point of law in a pretrial motion, so no 

jury was involved and I had no opportunity to observe any impact on jurors. 

I did not find the process intrusive in any way, believe it did not impact anyone’s demeanor, etc.

28 The cameras were hidden and I’m not sure that anyone even realized (unless 

they were made aware) that the proceedings were being videotaped. I know I 

didn’t tell witnesses. This is the first time I’ve tried a case with my judge so I 

have no idea if it made an impact on his rulings or courtroom management. 

29 This was the first and last time that I agree to participate in this project. Participating in the project caused the trial to last longer than anticipated. It affected the plaintiff’s performance on the stand because of the added stress of 

having the proceeding video-taped, in addition to the significant pressure 

added to an already difficult situation. The Plaintiff regrets having agreed to 

participate in the project and to this day continues to stress over his performance. While it is a good idea to offer the public at large access to real trial 

proceedings, the negative impact it had on a layperson is not worth the effort. 

30 Openness is a good thing. There is no benefit to keeping cameras out of the 

courtroom.

31 The video was useful to me personally as a way to critique my own work, not 

only the content of the argument but things like posture, body language, etc. 

The taped parts of our case were long oral argument on very complex motions. 

I think that no one was aware of the cameras once things got started. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 29

32 When recorded in a routine, unobtrusive manner, recording courtroom proceedings greatly increases public access and transparency in courtroom proceedings without noticeably detracting from the integrity of those proceedings. My views are colored by the fact that the [state] State Supreme Court has 

recorded and played back on public access TV all of its arguments for years. 

Grandstanding for the cameras simply does not occur, I believe because the 

audience of every advocate remains the bench. Much of the concern over cameras in the courtroom is based on the model in which cameras are the exception, brought in for one case particularly followed by the press. But the concerns for grandstanding all but disappear when the proceeding is recorded as 

a matter of routine, in an unobtrusive way as is done at the [state] high court 

and was done under this pilot project. Lawyers and judges in the courtroom 

are judged by jurors drawn from the public and direct their behavior accordingly. That they may be judged by the same public—and at all times, not just 

when a jury is present—should be expected to, and in my opinion does, lead 

to the same professionalism that is necessary to succeed in a jury case. 

33 I thought the process was well handled and good for the judicial system.

34 The camera did not change or affect the nature of my advocacy in any way that 

I am aware of, in part, because cameras are frequently used in state court where 

I also practice. I believe that the public access to the courtroom videos, especially in summary judgment proceeding, is enhanced because rarely are there 

non participants present. I am happy that Mr. [name]’s case was one of those 

chosen for this pilot project.. 

35 Regarding public confidence: whether it increases or decreases public confidence would depend on what happens in the proceedings; i.e., how did the 

lawyers and judge behave; what were the arguments; did it appear that the 

court was acting in a nonobjective manner; were the lawyers prepared; did any 

of the attorneys grandstand in such a way that members of the public would 

be disheartened by the proceedings.

36 I had oral argument only so I have left the jury/witnesses as no opinion since 

my opinion is no more informed that the non-camera participatory litigator. 

Also, while I am a big proponent of cameras in the courtroom, I do not believe 

it has a net effect on public confidence one way or another. The public that 

does not like a ruling will lose confidence and vice versa and the cameras will 

simply add to that general effect.

37 Unfortunately the video occurred so long ago, I don’t have much of an independent recollection. I don’t recall whether the video occurred during a jury 

trial, or only oral argument on motions.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 30

38 It is not the videotaping itself that affects attorneys’ or witnesses’ conduct or 

the public’s perception; it is how those videotapes are released and used. Is the 

trial being streamed live on the Internet? Are snippets being edited into a package on CNN? Are the highlights being shown on C-SPAN? The knowledge that 

a trial is being taped will not affect either courtroom conduct or public perception. It is how the tapes are used and to whom they are released. I am generally in favor of videotaping trials and other court proceedings, and release of 

those tapes to the news media and public.

39 This was a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. All of the attorneys 

had practiced in the Federal court system previously. If anything I think it may 

have caused the attorneys to be more succinct, and to stay on point. The Judge 

was very courteous to all and appreciated our agreeing to the recording. I 

would do it any time it was requested.

40 I believe the primary benefit of the camera project is to give easier public access 

to the courts and court proceedings. It did not disrupt or change the hearing 

at all. 

41 As long as the equipment and videographer do not interfere with the proceedings, I am not sure it makes much of a difference. It is similar to a deposition 

and a witness is under oath, so I am not sure it has an impact on truthfulness. 

My experience with this video recording happened so long ago that I really 

have no recollection of what I thought about it at the time. I would suggest 

these surveys take place immediately after the event that is videotaped.

42 I don’t personally perceive any substantive harm from video recording. Any 

such harm that could be theorized would seem to be outweighed by the benefits to the public of transparency. I am a supporter of enhanced use of recording.

43 I think cameras should be allowed in federal court for all proceedings under 

written guidelines. 

44 This was a summary judgment motion hearing. No jury or witness was involved. Really never even noticed that this was being recorded aside from the 

Court’s informing us.

45 Court proceedings are a public matter. The more public the better. Personally, 

I don’t think I gave a thought to the cameras. But if they were routine, I think 

I would become more attuned to their presence. I doubt any but the more 

notorious criminal cases would get any substantial audience. But those cases 

would probably be heavily viewed, at least the rebroadcast of more sensational 

moments, and have a great positive impact on the public. I would assume that 

anything out of the hearing of the jury would be broadcast as well. Even now 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 31

many such matters are discussed in open court with the jury in the jury room. 

So, why not bench conferences, too? (On the other hand, in a state court where 

judges are elected, one shudders to contemplate the impact cameras would 

have. All the more reason to get rid of any judicial elections, even under a Missouri plan.)

46 I believe courtroom cameras benefit the public and do not change the actions 

of the lawyers and judges in a non-evidentiary hearing.

47 I did feel pressure to consent to this program at my trial—in fact, I was presented with a form just minutes before the trial started, with no opportunity 

to decline to participate indicated on the form. I have concerns about this type 

of program being used for an improper purpose—to embarrass attorneys, witnesses, judges, or other participants in the trial process, for entertainment 

value. I think that’s the frequent result from similar programs, such as in state 

courts, where this material is routinely available. On the other hand, these are 

public proceedings, and the public has the right to know what is going on in 

their courts. To the extent that this program increases public knowledge about 

court proceedings, I view that as a benefit. I can say that the presence of cameras and the knowledge that the trial was being recorded did not alter my behavior during trial in the slightest. My work was directed at influencing the 

only people who had a say in the outcome—and that does not include anyone 

watching the recording. 

48 The hearing I was involved with did not involve a jury, and so I do not know 

the extent to which it may have an impact on a jury.

49 The placement of the camera in my case (which was only oral argument on a 

motion for summary judgment, not an evidentiary hearing or trial, so my answers concerning effects on jurors and witnesses are just personal opinion, not 

observations or experience) was very unobtrusive[]. But for Judge [name] explaining where the camera was located, I do not think I would have noticed. 

My primary impression was that cameras similarly placed in the courtroom 

will have little effect, and no negative effect, on the conduct of business in the 

Court, but will make access to the public business of the Court more meaningful for those who wish to take advantage of it.

50 In my case, there was an oral argument on a motion for summary judgment 

so there were no witnesses or jurors involved. Therefore, the initial questions 

regarding jurors and witnesses were not applicable to my case.

51 I did not have an evidentiary proceeding recorded, therefore I don’t have an 

experience based opinion on the effect video recording may have on an evidentiary proceedings, and some of my opinions on the remaining questions 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 32

are based on speculation as I don’t have significant experience with effect of 

video recording on hearings. I hold the unequivocal opinion that video recording of non-evidentiary hearings and making those recordings available to 

the public would have a positive effect on federal proceedings and be of great 

benefit to the public, the bar and the judiciary. I don’t have an opinion as to 

the effect video recording would have on evidentiary hearings and/or trials, I 

see potential benefits but also am mindful of the possibility for some of the 

problems that are anticipated in the questions above.

52 Based on my limited, short experience, I didn’t think that the camera(s) impacted the proceedings, as I didn’t think that they were intrusive or noticed.

53 I would probably not recommend to a client that they agree to video recording 

again. Witnesses and parties are nervous enough about testifying without the 

addition of a video camera to preserve their testimony (and any possible 

gaffes) for posterity. 

54 In our case, the system was brand new and had lots of glitches. So everyone 

was well aware of it. To my mind, though, I don’t think it changed anyone. No 

one pays any attention. It’s great for educating the public. I’m very supportive. 

55 The redaction of private information was distracting and limiting to the case. 

In this law enforcement case, much of the private information pertaining to 

the plaintiff was relevant in the sense that it demonstrated the officers were not 

being random in their treatment of the plaintiff.

56 I found the cameras to be essentially invisible in this non-jury trial. While I 

was motivated to make sure I was particularly well-prepared and courteous to 

maintain my reputation in the event someone elected to watch, I do not believe it had a strong impact on my presentation style or the Judge’s behavior. 

I feel that large changes to your presentation style are more likely to detract 

from your overall presentation and effectiveness than to make you look better 

on camera. This “invisibility” of the cameras may not hold in every case. I, 

along with opposing counsel, elected to decline participation in another case 

where there was the possibility that sensitive security- and/or business operations-related information would be discussed at trial. While the parties understood that the cameras could be turned off during discussion of that type of 

information, it seemed that keeping track of when the cameras should be 

turned on or off (especially if testimony unexpectedly veered into a sensitive 

topic) would add an unnecessary layer of distraction and work. I am, however, 

generally skeptical that the general public has any special interest in viewing 

the tapes except under rare circumstances (i.e., high-profile cases).

57 I believe it is particularly beneficial for appellate purposes. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 33

58 I believe the recordings are an educational tool on several levels for both attorneys and parties. 

59 Appellate arguments in the Ninth Circuit and the [state] Supreme Court have 

been recorded by video for years with no apparent disruption. Litigants 

quickly forget the existence of cameras. I have also participated in [name] 

County Superior Court trials that were recorded on video with no disruption. 

The technology is very unobtrusive at this point. The benefits from administering justice in an open fashion are important for public confidence and education.

60 The video recordings have the potential to be a good educational tool for attorneys and the public. 

61 We did not have a jury, so I have no opinion how the camera might have affected a jury. I did not get the impression the camera had any effect on any of 

the participants. I felt everyone involved would have acted exactly the same 

way had there not been a camera. After the first ten minutes, the fact that there 

is a camera recording everything does not even pop into your head. You just 

do what you are there to do. 

62 The proceeding I participated in as part of the pilot program was a hearing on 

a motion to dismiss, which is very different from an entire trial. Concerns applicable to televised or recorded trials will be largely inapplicable to hearings. 

63 It is difficult to speak with generality about these issues. Although the case at 

issue never went to trial, I had significant concerns about video recording and 

internet dissemination of financial and other sensitive personal information 

about the witnesses and victims, and their willingness to cooperate. 

64 I appreciated Judge [name]’s decision to video record the proceedings in this 

case. I would add to the questions above that I think video recordings are a 

good learning tool for lawyers who can watch the proceedings in other cases 

before the same judge. This is especially helpful to lawyers from out of town.

65 Sorry. I have no recollection of the hearing being recorded (There were no 

witnesses, which explains my first set of answers.) If it was recorded, I was not 

aware of it. Therefore, it couldn’t have affected my actions.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 34

Which of the following statements best characterizes the reaction of you and your 

client to the request to video record the proceeding? Other–Please Specify. 

1 We did not feel that we had a real choice.

2 We did not readily or promptly agree, but considered our options, while 

knowing that it was the judge who had made the request. 

3 The granting of oral argument (which is rare) seemed connected to the Court’s 

desire for a video recording.

4 My clients and I were reluctant but felt we had to consent. We did not discuss 

with the judge.

5 My client and I agreed to the video recording at the initial request. 

6 We were initially reluctant to agree to a video recording but decided that it 

would not be harmful for that hearing. 

7 We agreed after further discussion amongst ourselves.

8 Neither. It didn’t bother me. My client was not present.

9 We were reluctant but eventually agreed as it seems the court wanted us to 

participate in the program. We did not speak to the judge about it that I recall. 

We may have spoken with his assistant about it.

10 I was reluctant to agree but felt that I should.

11 I don’t remember the agreement regarding video. This was a motion calendar.

12 My attempt to decline consent was ignored, but I did not regard the issue as 

important enough to merit bringing it up.

13 I readily agreed but my client was reluctant at first, but agreed after further 

thought.

14 [Comment redacted due to identifying information].

15 I was only recorded making ... arguments, so my client was not on the stand. 

Nor was the client at counsel table. 

16 We did not fully understand initially that we had agreed to video record the 

trial. When we did understand it, we did not make an effort to rescind that 

approval. 

17 My client and I were reluctant, but agreed without consulting the judge.

18 I did not believe that this particular hearing warranted any objection, but we 

would have had more reservations for trial.

19 I don’t recall my reaction.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 35

Please explain. (Asked only of those who answered yes to the question “Did you or 

your client(s) feel pressured to consent to video recording of this proceeding?”)

1 It was clear the Judge was interested in participating in the program.

2 The way it was presented we felt we had no real option to refuse.

3 We were requested by the court and wanted to accommodate the judge.

4 I do not think my client felt any pressure to agree. Although the Judge I was 

before made very clear we should feel no pressure to participate, I felt pressure 

to participate because I was concerned a negative perception could be drawn 

by the court, the opposing counsel or my client if we were to refuse. 

5 The form I was presented with did not clearly offer the option to decline, and 

my handwritten note declining to consent was ignored.

6 My client was concerned that declining to consent to video recording would 

rock the boat and curry disfavor with the judge. That is not to say that my 

client would not have consented to video recording anyway—but there was an 

element of pressure present.

7 Because I was representing governmental officials in the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, there was pressure to consent to the 

video recording of the proceeding by virtue of the request.

8 I believe we received a public records request from the [name of newspaper] 

for all correspondence relating to internal discussions as to whether to agree 

to video recording, which suggested a negative article might be forthcoming 

were we not to agree.

9 We believed the judge would want us to consent; even if the impact from declining was very tiny, we did not want even the tiniest impact. 

10 Although the Judge stated very clearly that there would be no adverse consequence to refusing to consent, he was so enthusiastic about the project that we 

felt we could not risk refusing to participate.

11 Because it was an “opt out” process, my client did not want to appear as 

though he had something to hide. Further my client did not want to be perceived as interfering with the pilot project.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 36

Why did you consent to video recording of this proceeding? Other–Please Explain. 

1 Allowed my client to view the proceeding and get a first-hand view of an important argument in their case.

2 I think the process was flawed to the extent that it added an unnecessary complicating factor to the case.

3 To clarify, I wanted the exposure for the benefits it would produce for our 

case, not for me personally. In addition, I thought recording would be useful 

to hold all parties (including the government) accountable to the statements 

made in court. 

4 My clients are public officials. While they were not seeking publicity, they were 

proud of what they had accomplished, and they had no objection to video recording that could serve to educate the public about the matter before the 

court. 

5 [Name of case] was a constitutional challenge to a City ordinance and a piece 

of local civil rights history. Both I and my clients thought it would be irresponsible of us not to consent to future generations being able to see what happened when it happened. 

6 I work for the [state] AGO and the office consented because the AGO believes 

it helps with public education about the courts.

7 “Disappoint” is probably the wrong word, re: the judge. I did not want to press 

the issue of my lack of consent, because it was ancillary to the proceeding in 

the first place. 

8 I had no reason not to consent. 

9 Because my clients were public officials, we did not have any choice but to 

consent to recording the proceeding once it was made. 

10 I’m a strong believer in public access and education, and I think there’s no 

harm. One extra benefit, though it didn’t apply to my case, is that I have tried 

cases where the judge’s tone and facial expressions carried a bias. That, of 

course, never comes out in a written transcript. I’d think that a camera might 

help improve that situation. 

11 An opportunity to try something new. 

12 While I believe it may be inappropriate to record all court proceedings, I did 

not have any inherent objection to the video recording of my proceeding. 

13 I am not at liberty to disclose our thinking. 

14 I have no recollection. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 37

For what purposes have you used the video recordings? Other–Please specify.

1 To share my performance with my family.

2 As a public interest lawyer, we have used the proceedings to educate the public 

about the status of our cases, most of which have a powerful public interest 

component. We have also used the proceedings to help educate the public 

about the court system...I feel strongly that bringing the court system and the 

actual hearing footage...[to the public] help[s] anchor it in current and ongoing events rather than having it seem like something more abstract. 

3 For use with my students at [name of law school].

4 I referred an expert witness to a video recording where the transcript of the 

proceeding was not available.

If you wish to comment, please do so below. (Following the question “To what extent do you favor or oppose video recording of federal district court civil cases?”)

1 I don’t see any harm in video recording proceedings. It gives those with interest an opportunity to view a trial. I can also see where it could be useful in 

preparing an appeal.

2 Should be case by case. BIG difference between hearings and trials—distorting 

influences primarily limited to trials, especially jury trials.

3 I believe cameras in courtrooms can be a helpful public service—mostly for 

purposes of educating the public—and should be available in select cases.

4 The benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks.

5 If recordings were made available to public they would be healthy education. 

I answered no opinion on related questions on first page because I am not 

aware of whether the public is likely to see these videos.

6 I have no objection as to my own participation or how it may be affected. The 

concern is the impact upon the other participants. Except for that concern, I 

would be very much in favor. Any indication the camera affects the integrity 

of the proceeding should end the practice of video recording. 

7 This case presents a very concrete example of the tangible benefits of video 

recording in allowing the public access to court proceedings. Numerous people told me that they watched the video of the proceeding in this case, both 

because of their general interest in the issue involved, and because their clients 

were likely to be directly affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 38

8 Putting recordings on the internet is always a bad idea. I have counseled all of 

my children against it. I had hoped that a Court proceeding would be uninteresting enough not to attract the attention of poor intentioned individuals but 

I was mistaken. The video materials have been improperly misused. 

9 I favor video recording of civil proceedings in federal district court unless the 

downsides, as shown in actual practice, outweigh the benefits of greater public 

accessibility.

10 Video recording would increase public access to the courts. My main concern 

is whether recording negatively alters the behavior of attorneys or witnesses to 

be more theatrical, although recording may make them more courteous if they 

know a video record is being made.

11 My opinion is affected by my inability to access the video and see the quality 

of the visual video and hear the quality of the audio recording. I understand 

that the camera was mounted in a fixed position. I do not know whether it 

showed a single continuous wide shot of the courtroom or whether it was directed toward the person speaking.

12 I believe that public courts are part of a functioning government acting under 

rule of law. The more we can engage the public in what the courts actually do, 

the more they understand how their country works and that’s a good thing. 

Courts should not be cloistered places that can only be seen and understood 

by those with the resources to actually attend in person (very hard for people 

with daytime jobs, kids, other responsibilities). It breeds suspicion of them 

which I think is often unfounded. It also makes them seem unnecessarily scary 

and may deter some people from standing up for their rights. 

13 There is a serious risk of witness intimidation.

14 I like the possibility of using the video on appeal or in response to an appeal 

but have yet to do so. 

15 After my experience in this case, I am opposed to video recording in civil cases. 

Trials are difficult for laypersons and the video adds a significant stressor to 

the person at the worst possible moment. Preparing a client to testify in front 

of a jury is difficult enough without having to worry about the potential negative impact the cameras would have on a client’s testimony. 

17 Transparency is one of the bedrocks of American justice. The third branch of 

government belongs to the people as much as the other two. Particularly if the 

judges and lawyers who participate in the third branch wish to keep (win?) the 

confidence of the American people, they should be doing everything they can 

to help educate the people about the goings on in court, help them become 
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 39

familiar with how their rights are protected in court, and help them see that 

justice is fairly administered. Using digital means to make this more accessible 

to more of the people seems to me to promise extraordinary benefit at very 

little cost.

18 I do not believe that video should be automatic; there are cases where it would 

be problematic, and there are attorneys (or their clients) who might be intimidated or camera-shy. Hence, while I believe that the option should be present, 

there should be an ability for any of the participants to veto the video recording, without any actual or implied consequences to that choice.

19 It delayed our proceedings a little bit at times. On the recording, you could not 

hear anyone not sitting directly in front of a microphone which made the trial 

hard to follow as a viewer. 

20 It may increase expense. Also, I did not receive a copy of the video.

21 There are some civil cases [in which] I think theatrics might become involved. 

I do primarily defense litigation and I do not know if it could influence a juror’s perception.

22 I think they may be useful show to clients later (especially those who are unable 

to attend). Sometimes the paper transcript doesn’t tell the entire story. I usually videotape depositions for the same reason.

23 The more open the courts are the better.

Please explain. (Following the question: “If the Judicial Conference were to authorize future video recording of civil proceedings under the conditions of the pilot project—civil cases only; consent of all parties, witnesses, and the judge; cameras operated by the court—would you likely participate in video recording of 

your cases?”)

1 If the Court seemed to want us to agree, I would encourage the client to agree.

2 Depends on the type of case and how comfortable my client is with a video 

record of the hearing.

3 Under appropriate guidelines, the presence of cameras in the courtroom isn’t 

[indecipherable].

4 My objection is the subsequent misuse by others, not the video recording by 

the Court. Videos have been used to ridicule, not to educate.

5 I would not participate by choice.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 40

6 I am counsel for a [name of state] state agency. While I have no personal objection to video recording cases, I must defer to the preferences of my clients. 

Thus, my answer is a definitive “maybe.”

7 It would depend on the nature of the case.

8 Again, it would depend on the case and client. My default position would be 

yes, but it would need to be reviewed as we go along.

9 If the client was out of state and wanted to review the proceedings without 

attending, it could benefit my client by eliminating the need for travel to attend the proceedings and would allow them to watch only those portions of 

the trial they wanted to see.

10 I think it makes the case be more streamlined and makes the attorneys and 

court more prepared. In rare instances, there could be an advantage to having 

it for appellate purposes.

11 Why not.

12 I work for the [state] AGO who believes in increasing public access and education about all court proceedings.

13 There should be a system in place that would allow a party to object to a particular proceeding being recorded by video without the presiding Judge learning of the identity of that party,

14 Participation would be determined, as now, on a case-by-case basis in light of 

the individual client’s interests and the subject(s) likely to be discussed at trial.

15 I definitely believe that there are some cases where recording the proceedings 

and making them publicly available would be a benefit. I support this project 

as long as there is an option to object given the circumstances of any particular 

case.

16 It depends on the case and whether there is likely to be witness intimidation. 

17 It would depend on the nature of the case, the parties involved, the attorneys 

involved and whether or not I could convince my client that the interests of 

justice, and the advancement of his/her cause, would benefit from such use.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 41

If you have any additional comments about video recording of civil proceedings in 

general, or the pilot program in particular, please provide them here.

1 If video recording is to be used in the courtroom, the quality of the audio and 

video recording needs to be improved.

2 ...[The] judge kept warning us to tell our clients /witness they were not to 

watch the video until after they testified. So we warned them—whether they 

complied with the warning I don’t know. 

3 Think it is a wise choice for reasons stated.

4 I’m not sure that the technology has caught up with the project. I found the 

depiction of exhibits to be a bit crude and slow. I think the ideal would be to 

have a split screen showing both the advocate and the exhibit simultaneously.

5 I think the strongest benefit is allowing clients who would not normally attend 

a hearing, such as the one I had, to see the proceedings directly rather than a 

summary from counsel.

6 There is no reason not to allow the public to see what goes on in the courtroom 

by video. And cameras are less distracting than a live audience. 

7 The video recording is good for public access and teaching lawyers and law 

students.

8 It is a good idea on paper but not in practice. 

9 Overall, I am not in favor of video recording in the federal courts. I would have 

no objection to audio recording, but believe the mere existence of the camera 

changes the dynamic for all participants. Thank you.

10 I have no objection to video recordings, but I do have questions about cost 

(for court and litigants) and about whether the videos will be posted on Pacer 

as a regular practice, or available only by special order.

11 It was mentioned at Federal Practice Seminars and the [name] Circuit Conferences before it was implemented, so I felt comfortable consenting to it.

12 Would the videos be available to appellate courts as well in deciding appeals? 

What an enormous can of worms that would be.

13 I watched the video. There was a screen projector (or some type of device) near 

the podium. I am not sure where the camera was but at times, I “disappeared”

behind the projector. 

14 Good idea.
Appendix F

Video Recording Courtroom Proceedings in United States District Courts: Report on a Pilot Project

Federal Judicial Center 2016

Appendix F – 42

15 I believe the records assist not only the attorneys that appear before this Court, 

but also the parties as it gives insight into what can be expected and likely 

works to counter unrealistic expectations. I say keep it and expand it.

16 I would urge the Court to video important civil proceedings and eliminate the 

consent requirements.

17 The videos are good tools for preparation for other cases and for other proceedings in the same case. It’s especially helpful to recall the court’s concerns 

about the case, as expressed through questions. It’s also helpful to go back and 

see how opposing counsel responded to questions. 

18 No good reason not to include criminal cases.

19 Great program.

20 These are my personal opinions based on my experience and not the opinions 

of the [government office]. 
The Federal Judicial Center 

Board 

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair 

Judge Catherine C. Blake, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 

Judge Curtis L. Collier, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

Judge Kent A. Jordan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

Judge Michael J. Melloy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 

Chief Judge C. Ray Mullins, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia 

James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Director 

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel 

Deputy Director 

John S. Cooke 

About the Federal Judicial Center 

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial system. It 

was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which also includes 

the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and seven judges elected by the Judicial 

Conference. 

The organization of the Center reflects its primary statutory mandates. The Education Division 

plans and produces education and training for judges and court staff, including in-person programs, video programs, publications, curriculum packages for in-district training, and Web-based 

programs and resources. The Research Division examines and evaluates current and alternative 

federal court practices and policies. This research assists Judicial Conference committees, who request most Center research, in developing policy recommendations. The Center’s research also 

contributes substantially to its educational programs. The Federal Judicial History Office helps 

courts and others study and preserve federal judicial history. The International Judicial Relations 

Office provides information to judicial and legal officials from foreign countries and informs federal judicial personnel of developments in international law and other court systems that may affect their work. Two units of the Director’s Office—the Information Technology Office and the 

Editorial & Information Services Office—support Center missions through technology, editorial 

and design assistance, and organization and dissemination of Center resources.