Cameras banned from Keene Court again?

[Coconut]

This arbitrary show of power is unacceptable. If there's a reason for them to allow just one camera, have them talk to us like people and explain the situation, not make arbitrary rules. I have gone out of my way every time to stay out of the walking path of anyone, keeping myself in and out quickly and quietly. I show their system more respect than it deserves by standing around waiting on their time, and they decide I'm abusing their leniency?

[FTL_Ian]

Why cede ground?  That said, I will enter the court if at least one camera and my audio recorder is allowed.  Otherwise, I'm walking out.

Then I hope at least one camera and your audio recorder is allowed, otherwise you won't be walking far.  I'm not sure what the charge will be (probably contempt of court if you walk out in front of the judge), but you will certainly end up in a cage.   

I wonder what bail would be set for a contempt of court jailing?   

I'd hate to see you in jail over this, but the headline is delectable: "Keene judge jails man rather than allowing camera into public trial."

What happens to FTL if you're jailed?  Will Mark go it alone, or can you bring in a substitute (G. Goldsmith maybe)?

Whatever the bail is, I won't pay it.  Nor will I sign their paperwork if someone else does - so don't pay the bail.

Mark will bring in cohosts and Julia will do the technical work.  Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's up to them how tyrannical they want to be.

[margomaps]

Wow! One way to proceed might be to ask to see the rule. Actually, a "rule" in a courthouse is baloney; ask to see the law or statute or whatever legal prohibition on cameras in the courthouse they claim exists. Then, we could continue by refuting the validity of restricting cameras - e.g., the public, the media - from recording public trials/arraignments/etc.

Another angle would be to point out that if cameras in the courtroom are indeed illegal, the judge himself has disobeyed the law by allowing them in the past (and, of course, there is video evidence of this ).

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are no laws that deal specifically with whether someone has a right to record a trial via audio or video.  What I'm guessing is that judges are allowed (via some statue no doubt) to exercise fairly broad discretion when it comes to how their court proceedings operate.  If judge Burke doesn't want to let cameras into his courtroom, the system might in fact be set up to empower him to forbid them, and to arrest anyone who disobeys his order.  I hope my guesses are wrong though!

[Mike Barskey]

I would have also guessed that there aren't any laws prohibiting cameras from being in a public courtroom (in which case, asking the judge to "show me the law" might have helped). But I didn't consider that there would be some general, dictatorial power given to judges like "you can overrule the Bill of Rights in your courtroom." I guess it would not surprise me, but I didn't consider it.

If it is true, however, that the judge can do essentially anything, it would still make good headlines, as you said: "Keene judge jails man rather than allowing camera into public trial."

[dalebert]

Courtrooms are probably where power is more dangerously concentrated than anywhere. A contempt of court charge seems to be nearly boundless in how a judge can interpret it. After witnessing the shams they called trials for Lauren and Kat, I don't think there's anything they could do to shock me at this point. This really does threaten to give me that sinking feeling of despair, but I'm instead going to use it however I can to inspire me to do more.

[Coconut]

Mark will bring in cohosts and Julia will do the technical work.  Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's up to them how tyrannical they want to be.

I'd love to learn what I could do to help sometime. My availabilitiy is limited though. I'm sure Julia can do well.

[FTL_Ian]

Actually, I really appreciate the offer.  PM me if you can come over after the show sometime in the next week, and I'll show you the ropes.  I'm sure she'd appreciate the help. 

[FTL_Ian]

I just got off the phone with Mr. Kane the "clerk".  He tells me the camera ban is an "order" in regards to their trial they are insisting on having.  He says he's leaving a couple copies for any media that want to come pick it up.  He invited me to, but I'd rather not go down there alone.  Mr. Kane refused to release information to the media (me) over the phone.

[MengerFan]

Do I understand you correctly that the camera ban applies only to this particular trial regarding the couch?

[FTL_Ian]

Thanks to Nick from the Ryder Report for attaining a copy of their "ORDER" (PDF):

State of New Hampshire
Ian H. Bernard
ORDER RE: POOL COVERAGE
Rule 1.4 of the District Court Rules defines the extent to which the Court can authorize media coverage. whether by still photography, audio·only
recording. or video recording. The Court has received at least two requests for
access to th e courtroom for purposes of creating video recordings of the
proceedings in this case. Furthermore, at the Defendant's arraignment there
were at least three video cameras observed to be operating. The Court
consir.ers this to be disruptive of the proper and orderly administration of justice.
Accordingly, the Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 1.4 (e) to
require pool coverage. A copy of the Rule is attached hereto f9f reference. Strict adherence to all the provisions of Rule 1.4 is, of course, required at all times.
Given thai this Order does not accord the media sufficient time to arrange for pool coverage. the case will be continued on the Court's motion. The case is
rescheduled for Friday, November 14, 2008, at 1:30 P.M.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.4 (d), if any person objects to the presence of video cameras in the courtroom, they may object. in which case the Court may
conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The parties are reminded that Rule 1.4 and the procedures it sets forth "apply to
all court procedures conducted outside the courtroom or court facility." District
Court Rule 1.4 (d).
Octobor 24. 2008 SO ORDERED

(This is an OCR, see the above PDF for the accurate version.)

[Mike Barskey]

Ugh. There is a general rule by which the judge can become dictator. It is now possible to ask him in what way the 3 cameramen disrupted justice at their arraignment of Ian. Not that it would have any affect, but it would be good to get on record and to publicize: "they were disruptive because I said so" or "justice wasn't served because I was concentrating on how my hair looked for the cameras."

Double ugh: "Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.4 (d), if any person objects to the presence of video cameras in the courtroom, they may object. in which case the Court may conduct an evidentiary hearing." This is even broader! "Any person" objecting to the presence of video cameras could be the judge himself! I don't think he'd have the courage to pull that, but I can easily imagine a crony in the audience protesting the presence of cameras just so the judge can then ban then and conduct an evidentiary hearing.

[TackleTheWorld]

The crony doesn't even have to be in the court.  Any person includes the obsequious, absent or insane.

[FTL_Ian]

Burke finds cameras "disruptive" moves the "trial" to 11/14 1:30pm:

http://freekeene.com/2008/10/24/justice-burke-finds-cameras-disruptive/

We'll meet in the lobby of 3 Washington St., Keene. at around 1:10p.

[Dave Ridley]

ah ok... actually notice the order came out today at least one day AFTER they said no cameras 2x.

so they seem to be compromising with us.  one camera, the typical arrangement in a post-Lindburg-baby trial, is good enough for me.  Or at least good enough for me not to consider it disobedience-worthy.  If others want to make an issue of it, I'm likely to provide coverage but not much in the way of disobedience.

[FTL_Ian]

Each member of the public should be able to bring their own recording device.  The idea that possessing a recording device is "disruptive" is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind:

The pool coverage provision demands that only one recording device be allowed in the court and that all interested media parties must share the one recording. This of course means that whichever organization or individual is chosen to be the one with permission to record will scoop all of the rest of the parties on the report. They will have their news package out the door and to their viewers and listeners while the others are still waiting to receive a copy of the audio or video. Additionally, it means that the recording organization has to spend extra time and effort making their recording available for the others. This work on their part is of course, uncompensated. Finally, it is also a creative restriction on the videographers who are choosing to cover the trial. Each videographer is forced to abide by the creative decisions of the "chosen one", like it or not.