MINUTES
Judicial Council Study Committee on Technology Brought into the Courtroom
June 24, 2011
Supreme Court Conference Room
PRESENT: Justice Jill Parrish, Chair, Rick Davis, Judge Christine Decker, Randy Dryer, Judge David Mortensen, Judge Rick Romney, Judge Randy Skanchy, Nancy Volmer
EXCUSED: Judge Deno Himonas, Jeff Hunt, Brent Johnson
ABSENT: Judge Jerry Jensen
STAFF: Diane Abegglen
I. WELCOME AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Justice Parrish welcomed everyone to the meeting. She asked if there were any changes to the April 22, 2011 minutes. The minutes were approved without changes.
II. DISCUSSION: CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM
Justice Parrish initiated the discussion by asking committee members to suggest strategies for carrying out the committee’s charge by April 2012. She focused the discussion on: (1) surveying state judges about their expectations and opinions of cameras in the courtroom, and (2) conducting a pilot program in district courtrooms to study the impact of video recording on courtroom proceedings. Justice Parrish deferred the committee’s discussion of public hearings and additional research until a decision is made regarding the pilot program.
With respect to a potential pilot program, Randy Dryer suggested that the concept be expanded to include live streaming over the Internet. He drew committee members’ attention to the “OpenCourt Project” in Quincy, Massachusetts (see http://opencourts.us) which allows members of the public and media to observe certain court proceedings without traveling to the courthouse. Judge Decker observed that the quality of the video streaming in the OpenCourt Project is not good. Justice Parrish questioned whether video streaming would be affordable for our committee’s purposes, but suggested that audio streaming might be feasible. Nancy Volmer questioned whether Utah media would prefer live streaming or video cameras. Randy Dryer commented that media almost always prefers to be present in the courtroom, but the pilot program should be designed to include live streaming and video cameras. Judge Mortensen suggested that the current procedures for allowing still photography in trial courtrooms could be tweaked to allow video cameras in the courtroom, but cautioned that we need to define the differences between video cameras and live streaming before we invite district court judges to participate in a pilot program.
Randy Dryer made a two-part motion that Diane Abegglen and Nancy Volmer draft an e-mail to the district court judges soliciting their participation in a two-phase pilot program (potentially involving both video cameras and live streaming) and that Diane and Nancy consult with the court’s IT Department regarding the feasibility of video and/or audio live streaming. Judge Romney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Diane and Nancy will draft and circulate a proposed e-mail to committee members before the end of June and will report back at the committee’s next meeting regarding the technological feasibility of live streaming. Justice Parrish asked Diane to invite Ron Bowmaster and Kim Allard to join us at our next meeting to discuss the feasibility of live streaming.
Judge Skanchy asked whether parties/victims/witnesses would need to sign releases before video cameras could be used in courtrooms during a pilot program. Justice Parrish asked Diane to follow up with Brent Johnson to clarify: (1) If we can conduct the proposed pilot program under existing rules, and (2) if district judges would need to obtain releases from parties/victims/witnesses before video cameras could be allowed in their courtrooms.
Regarding a survey of state judges’ expectations and opinions of cameras in the courtroom, Randy Dryer volunteered to contact the University of Utah to find out if a department at the university would be willing to create the survey instrument and conduct the survey for us. He will report back at the committee’s next meeting. Randy also suggested that committee member Jeff Hunt explore the possibility of having the news media, individually or through a professional organization, financially contribute to the pilot program. Finally, Justice Parrish asked Diane to request 5 minutes at the July 18, 2011 Judicial Council meeting for a discussion about the pilot project and possible sources of revenue.
III. DISCUSSION: BOARD OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGES’ REPORT
This agenda item was deferred until the Judicial Outreach Committee issues its recommendations regarding the use of computers, cell phones, PDAs and other electronic devices in judicial proceedings. (See Item V, below).
IV. DISCUSSION: AUDIO RECORDINGS IN JUSTICE COURTS
This agenda item was deferred until a future committee meeting when Judge Jensen can be present.
V. UPDATE: JUDICIAL OUTREACH COMMITTEE’S STUDY OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Justice Parrish invited Randy Dryer to update the committee on the Judicial Outreach Committee’s study of social media. Randy reported that the Judicial Outreach Committee has recommended a policy regarding the use of social media by judicial employees. This policy is currently under review by the court’s HR department. Randy also reported that the social media subcommittee’s proposed policy regarding the use of computers, cell phones, PDAs and other electronic devices in judicial proceedings is virtually complete. The subcommittee’s proposed policy will be presented to the Judicial Outreach Committee at its July 21st meeting, and Randy will be prepared to lead a discussion of the proposed policy at our next committee meeting.
VI. RESCHEDULE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2011 COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Justice Parrish asked Diane to contact committee members to determine if Friday, July 22, 2011, is still a good date for committee members or if we need to reschedule the meeting to the following Tuesday or Wednesday (after the 24th of July holiday). She also asked Diane to propose new dates for our November and December 2011 committee meetings (which are currently scheduled for the day after Thanksgiving and the Friday before Christmas).
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held from noon to 2 pm on Friday, July 22, 2011 in the Supreme Court Conference Room.