Cameras in the Courtroom for the Verdict

During Jury Deliberations:  Guilt Phase

November 4, 2004

JUDGE: Now, the next thing is trying to persuade me that the cameras should be in here for the verdict. And I read your motion. I don't want to burden you with arguing to me again. I understand your arguments. I was just to going to invite counsel's reasons. The motion was also filed, made a part of the record, and that motion is on the internet, the motion -- the motion to reconsider the Court's initial ruling in allowing cameras in the courtroom for the verdict. But that motion that was filed by, joined in by counsel was filed with the court. And that's also made it on to the internet. If anybody is interested in the reasons, they are there. But if you want to add something else, go ahead.

WILCOX: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE: I don't mean to cut you off.

WILCOX: The Court had already recognized the public interest in permitting broadcast of the verdict in initially deciding that the verdict should be broadcast. The public, as you have recognized, as you have repeatedly iterated --

JUDGE: There is a -- in case you don't know about it yet, there is going to be a live feed when the verdict is --

WILCOX: Audio feed?

JUDGE: Yes.

WILCOX: It's the pictures, and it's my understanding -- let me just point out, reiterate what your Honor just mentioned about the reason why you are not going to unseal the chambers conferences is because of the prejudice to the defendant and the balance. Here there is no prejudice to the defendant at all. It is simply the verdict. There is no evidence at issue. There are no questions at all that can be raised from that perspective. Now, clearly Rule 980 with the opposition of the parties is a factor, it's one factor, and it is the third factor. The first two factors -- and we think that those factors weigh heavily in favor of allowing the broadcast of the verdict here, maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. It is -- this is a key moment in this trial. The public has been here through their proxies. They have been permitted to hear what happened. They have been permitted to read the transcripts. But they have not been able to see -- the Court graciously permitted broadcast of a hearing, I think, to give the public a picture of the current courtroom. But the public hasn't really seen what has happened in this trial in a way that can only happen over television. Admittedly a lot of the cases that we cite talk about open proceedings, and they are talking about just giving the public access to the proceedings. But that society has evolved. Television, which is the public -- it's television is where we get our news.

JUDGE: You believe everything you see in television?

WILCOX: But it's --

JUDGE: By utilizing the polls, for example.

WILCOX: Yeah. It's not a question about believing or not believing here. It's a question about whether or not the public should be able to see this moment in time. Reading of the verdict is a key moment in the trial. It is a culmination of months of effort, and it gives the public a little bit. We still think the Court should have -- and we know you disagree. We still think the Court should have permitted broadcast of the trial. We think this was a valuable thing for the public.

JUDGE: That was taken up on appeal, and that --

WILCOX: We know.

JUDGE: You were you unsuccessful. At least some people in the reviewing courts agreed with me on that issue.

WILCOX: Right. We recognize there is also a lot of discretion in this court. And we are not successful when we took a writ under Rule 980. The fact is that the Judicial Council has decided that you should balance the interests, and you should decide whether or not it would be in the public's interest to permit broadcast of a proceeding. And we think that --

JUDGE: Let me ask you a question. Would it be in the public's interest to see -- either one of these families can incur a meltdown in the courtroom, depending how that happens in the verdict. How is that in the public interest?

WILCOX: Well, we didn't want to --

JUDGE: How am I going to guarantee that's not going to happen?

WILCOX: We can aim the camera there, and it will show only the defendant and the lawyers. And that is -- I mean the screen is up there. And there is no way for the camera to go into the gallery. Rule 980 prohibits any photography of the gallery. The cameraman who is here and who would broadcast, who would be taking the verdict, has been doing this for years. He's Court TV's most senior cameraman. He knows the rules, and he follows them. But if something unexpected was to happen, what we can do is, we can -- there is a computer set up right back there. That is where we'll be getting the picture that the camera is taking. The person who is controlling the camera will be sitting there. If something unexpected happens, then the camera goes to black. I mean the only thing that would happen --

JUDGE: You are going to guarantee that the camera is going to go black?

WILCOX: I have guarantees from Mr. Shapen, who is Court TV's --

JUDGE: I trust Mr. Shapen.

WILCOX: I know that you do. If you want --

JUDGE: That's not a facetious comment. I do trust him. There he is.

WILCOX: You can put a bailiff right there with him. You can have the bailiff -- he will know. He'll be instructed in advance what it takes to make the camera go to black. And he can see the screen and see that it happens. He can know that. I mean it would take somebody coming up and over this rail here for that to happen.

JUDGE: And that could happen.

WILCOX: It could happen. We recognize that possibility. But there are ways to address that. And the primary way is to put a bailiff and Mr. Shapen back there with the cameraman, and let them know what it takes to control the camera, and let them be assured that when -- if something unthinkable happens, that the camera will -- okay, it won't go to black. It will go to the seal. There is -- I'm told the computer has a button, that you push one button, it automatically goes straight to the seal. So the picture will only of the of the seal. And it can happen like that. So maybe a flash of something would happen. But the cameraman is trained to react quickly, and it would be a flash. And nothing more than that. And we think that that adequately addresses the Court's concerns. And it -- also it also furthers the public interest in letting the public have this last moment, and --

JUDGE: Well, the public will get the last moment, because there is going to be a live feed. They are going to hear the verdict, Miss Wilcox. I don't mean to cut you off. You keep saying about the -- to preserve the public confidence in the judicial system. The media has been here for ten months. The transcripts have been made public. The exhibits have been made public. I permitted the filming of the jury instructions. The arguments of the attorneys are made public. I don't know what else I can do. I mean if people are that concerned about it, they could always come here and go through the lottery if they want to come in and see what's going on. Never had a case in my whole legal career, as it is, where we put the transcripts on the internet within hours after the event took place. If the public is so concerned, they can just go on the internet and they can get copies of this stuff. They can go on the internet and look at it.

WILCOX: And they can't --

JUDGE: They can see it.

WILCOX: They can't see the faces of the people.

JUDGE: That's the whole point, isn't it? Faces of the people. That's what I'm talking about. With all due respect, Miss Wilcox, I think that we're interested more with this verdict than spectacle, rather than the public's confidence in the judicial system. I know, and you know as human beings, that these two families have lived with this case for over two years. I can't predict -- there is no way I can predict what kind of reaction either side of these families are going to have. And, okay, but you understand the problem I have. I don't want to be -- I will not be part of a situation whereby, in any way, shape or form, any meltdown of these families could take place in this courtroom, or that an event take place in this courtroom, that it would reflect poorly on either one of these families. So that's why we're going to have a feed. I'm going to meet halfway there.

WILCOX: Let me offer an alternative. That is, technologically it is difficult, but it would satisfy your concerns completely. What if we had a one-minute delay, and you put a bailiff in a position, and gave him or her control and the ability to tell the person who is handling the computer to stop, and to stop the feed. If we had a one-minute delay, then there is no chance that any meltdown is going to get out.

JUDGE: Do I look like a director, TV director? I'm here -- Miss Wilcox, you know, I'm supposed to be a judge. I'm not -- I had to worry about what the jury had for lunch yesterday, you know. And I'm here trying this case, People versus Scott Peterson. I don't want to be here directing, stop the camera. I'm here trying to legally accept this verdict and do it in a legal manner so that it's not subject to review, or negatively subject to review because I screwed up accepting the verdict. I have got -- I got all these things to worry. And I got to worry about a one-minute delay and all this kind of stuff. I'm not here to orchestrate this trial. I'm here to try the case.

WILCOX: That's not anything that you would need to be concerned about, your Honor. It's my understanding that Mr. Shapen has been working with Miss Thompson, and that they have addressed a number of these technological issues, that they can resolve these without requiring anything from you. I mean the one-minute delay is technologically a little difficult, but it is something that can be done. It is foolproof. It is something that you don't have to get involved in, other than if you want to designate a bailiff. It's my understanding that you will have --

JUDGE: We're going to have a lot of bailiffs.

WILCOX: It's my understanding you will have 15 bailiffs in the courtroom to control the proceedings and to make sure that nothing unforeseen happens. If you want to designate a bailiff to be either back in the corner or in the truck where the feed comes into, and to have the authority to end the feed immediately, that's not anything you need to be worried about. It's something that if -- only if the unforeseen happens, this bailiff will have the ability to see stop it now. And Court TV has been doing this for a long time. You trust Mr. Shapen.

JUDGE: Yes, I do. Been very cooperative. He's been very helpful.

WILCOX: He has assured me that they can make sure that nothing gets out except for the defendant. And the -- these family members, that there will be no other family.

JUDGE: I'll accept your representation. Let me hear what these folks here -- and under that rule which says the parties are -- also something the Court should take into consideration. Filed a joint motion. So go ahead, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: The reason we filed the joint motion is because, precisely, I think the Court through the questioning, got to the nub of the matter. They don't -- this has nothing to do with the public's right to know. Court has already solved that, probably, giving an audio feed. The Court has, through just two or three questions, elicited exactly what it is that they want. They want some kind of a picture for the ratings that they can put on there, because it's TV. Period. End of story. This isn't supposed to be a spectacle. It borders on being a spectacle. And it's -- at some point I'd like to remind people that it is a capital case. And the fact of the matter is, that you shouldn't have to be worrying about what's going on in the courtroom and whether or not that's going to affect whatever the picture is, or anything else. You have given them the live feed, or the live audio feed. That's all that I -- I remind counsel that all of the cases she cites are Federal cases in terms of the U.S. Supreme Court. Try to get a camera in Federal court some time and see what perhaps. It doesn't happen. And there is a reason for that. And certainly there is no Federal judge who's ever permitted a camera into a courtroom for a verdict -- for a verdict. And certainly there is no reason in this case to allow a camera into this courtroom, other than to try to get a picture that will end up being on the billboard somewhere, worse yet. So I don't understand why they want it. I think it's somewhat embarrassing to get to the point where they now argue for a one-minute delay. Because that just -- it shows that it has nothing to do with the public's right to know. Has to do with ratings. Has to do with money.

D. HARRIS: We agree. That's why we filed that joint motion. Our considerations are the families in this particular case. Regardless of which way the verdict goes, there is going to be some family that's going to be suffering. And we're hearing that by allowing live coverage of the verdict with a camera, that the public would have some better understanding of what's going to occur. It's a reading of twenty or thirty words that's supposed to teach them about the system? No. The camera is there so they can see. They are going to focus there on someone's grief, someone's anguish. And that has nothing to do with teaching anybody what the legal system is about. And that is to just -- something that's -- can't even think of the words that come to mind -- of what that's dealing with in terms of these families and emotions that they will feel. The other thing about the one-minute delay. The Court is aware of the lack of media restraint, something I was mentioning earlier in this particular case. They might agree to the one-minute delay, but once they have that tape of what's occurring, then it becomes an issue of prior restraint. And the Court is saying you cannot broadcast something that you have. And then that brings into a lot of different issues the Court. The Court, as counsel indicated, Rule 980 is absolutely the Court's discretion. And I think in this particular case, under these circumstances, with what's just been admitted, that it's really just so we can get to the faces of the people involved.

JUDGE: I don't think she is saying that. But that's a possibility that could --

D. HARRIS: Well, that possibility indicates that this court should exercise the discretion, keep the cameras out like we have been going on about forever. Just one additional thing, because if this is -- the cameras coverage in the courtroom, about them being professional. I'll accept counsel's representation of the Court's trust of these individuals. That is an issue that we raised in Modesto in front of Judge Girolami when we objected to cameras being there for hearings and for broadcasting this particular case, that we pointed out to the Court that the cameras at that point in time had violated Rule 980 by taking photographs of the video of the parties in the audience. So it's a nice thing to say. But this particular case tends to bring out things that don't happen all too often in the cases. We would ask the Court to deny it.

WILCOX: May I respond to that last point? Counsel's representation that Court TV violated Rule 980. As I understand it, Judge Girolami interpreted Rule 980 at that time not to prohibit certain photography at certain periods of time, and that it specifically didn't apply to hearings. And the cameraman was going specifically as Judge Girolami had permitted him to go. Once the issue was raised, and once there was any question at all, that didn't happen again. The Court TV and the cameraman who will be doing this complied to the letter with Rule 980 as it was interpreted by Judge Girolami. And we will absolutely comply here. And from a practical perspective with that block up there, there is just -- unless somebody comes over, which, of course, we can't --

JUDGE: That's always a possibility. I can't predict, you know, what's going to happen here.

WILCOX: I know.

JUDGE: Emotions are running very high in this case.

WILCOX: We think the one-minute delay addresses that. We also think having somebody back there to make sure that the camera goes to the seal if there is a problem comes up as the best solution because if it gets even a split second, that's all it will get. And it won't be anything of substance. To respond to the lack of media restraint, I'm not sure exactly what that is. From my understanding, the media who has participated in this trial has been -- has adhered to this court's --

JUDGE: I don't have any problem with the people that have been here in the courtroom.

WILCOX: To paint us with any other brush is really unfair. Mr. Geragos's point, clearly if we are asking for video of this, we're asking for the expressions on the faces. The expressions on the faces relay information that you cannot relay otherwise. We're not asking for the expressions on family members' faces, and we do not want to -- we do not want to go there. That's their part of the gallery. We represent to the Court that that will not happen. But clearly the reaction to the verdict will tell the public a story that they will not get just by hearing it. The reaction of the lawyers, the reaction of Mr. Peterson, will give the public an insight into what has happened in this courtroom in a way they just won't have without it. And we think that the Court -- we agree that it would -- the purpose of broadcasting is to give the public more information. And we think that the whole trial should have been broadcast. But that's not before us now. Before us now is, should we allow a broadcast of the verdict? I submit that there really are no disadvantages. The things that they have identified are not concerns that --

JUDGE: Not compelling.

WILCOX: I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't hear.

JUDGE: Not compelling.

WILCOX: They don't warrant taking this away from the public.

JUDGE: One last go-around, Mr. Geragos. Do you want to respond to that, about your client?

GERAGOS: I don't understand. I haven't heard one thing that comports with any -- I was looking through the letter that was sent, and I didn't hear anything here that addressed Rule 980. You got the live feed. That addresses Rule 980. She doesn't address -- I think she is correct when she says that I don't know of a single case where they have prevailed in the appellate level on the abuse of discretion standard on Rule 980 when the parties have been opposed. So obviously here, the jointly filed a motion, the parties are opposed. And I don't understand why the -- I mean if I were them, I would happily pack up my bag and say I got my live feed on the audio and let it be at that. I don't know why we keep pursuing the camera, except that they want to get higher ratings on Court TV because they can break One Share.

WILCOX: Court TV is not a party to this. They are doing it as a convenience.

GERAGOS: But they are certainly willing to be involved.

D. HARRIS: One thing seems to be in agreement is, there is no right to a camera in the courtroom, and we think the Court should keep it that way.

JUDGE: All right. The Court's not going to -- the Court thought about this before when the Court agreed to do this, because initially there was no objection from either side, or by the lawyers. Upon reflection they decided it would not be a good idea, for the reasons stated in their motion. So the Court reconsidered, and the Court's going to stick by that ruling. The Court's trying to accommodate the media by having a live feed. I just don't want to take the chance. Notwithstanding all the restrictions and all the precautions that are going to be taken by the cameraman and the media, I just don't want to take a chance. I cannot predict what's going to happen in this courtroom, and so I don't want to, you know, take the chance that this could degenerate into some sort of a spectacle. That's why we are flooding the courtroom with -- if there is a verdict, we are going to be flooding this courtroom with bailiffs, and so forth. And, again, it's just the nature of this particular case. So, Miss Wilcox, it's not been a good day for you. But I appreciate that you are here to argue the point of view. And it's -- a free society requires this type of discussion. But, all in all, this case is so unusual in comparison to the cases that you have cited -- and it's interesting, and I'm not going to be criticizing Federal Courts, but I have appeared in Federal Courts. And it's not -- it's like the do-as-I-say-but-don't-do-as-we-do. And they passed it off. Like Mr. Geragos pointed out, good luck to try to get a camera in Federal Court, United States Supreme Court. They don't televise their arguments, do they?

WILCOX: We're in a California State court.

JUDGE: I understand that. But there are people going to review. To talk about public confidence in the judicial system, seems to me if they had cameras in the Supreme Court when they are deciding things like affirmative action, all these other things, seems to me that would be important. But there is no way that's going to happen. I understand we're in California. But I think any reviewing court has to take in consideration the predicament or the situation the Court finds itself in. And I have to, you know, use my best judgment in these cases. And that's what I'm going to do. So that's going to be the Court's ruling. I want to thank you for your presentation. We'll be in recess.