In my frequent exposures to different federal judicial proceedings as a law student judicial intern in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, I have witnessed several high-profile proceedings garner heightened interest from the public and the press. During these proceedings, I sit in the courtroom gallery alongside anyone else fortunate enough to get a seat in the room. In most courtrooms, that includes around twenty members of the public and court staff, as well as twenty to thirty members of the press. All of us are barked at by court marshals and given a multitude of instructions for how to properly exist in the courtroom. Instructions including “no hats,” “no phones,” “no food,” and “no chewing gum” remind me of being a child in church. While the hearing is underway, I watch a sketch artist work quickly and tirelessly to complete as much of her sketch as possible in such a short time, capturing as many details as she can, all to have some record of what happened so it can be shared with the rest of the world. The day after the hearing ends, I see her sketches plastered all over newspapers’ websites to give a brief snapshot of what has occurred inside the courtroom.
All of these theatrics, rules, and limitations make the courtroom experience feel like Manhattan’s most secret club that prioritizes exclusivity above all. The implication of these procedures is that in courtrooms, things happen that we want to keep out of the public eye and hide away from any firsthand observers. However, I argue that a judicial system that theoretically values transparency and accountability should not function outside public observation and instead, should put resources toward creating a more accessible, public-facing court system.
A simple but impactful way that federal courts can make hearings and trials more accessible is to allow limited video camera recording in court proceedings. With the feed from court-installed cameras, courts could livestream all hearings, and news outlets could disseminate footage they deem to be of public importance after the hearings conclude. The footage could then be archived, allowing anyone to view the full recording for any reason. Removing unnecessary barriers to access in this way would build more public trust between the courts and members of the public, educate the public about what goes on in courtrooms outside of what they see on television or the internet, and give litigants greater assurance that there are people watching who are not a part of the system, providing a greater sense of accountability.
From the court’s perspective, increased accessibility would allow the public to bear witness to what occurs inside the courtroom, fostering a sense of trust from the public since the proceedings would no longer seem secretive. Although the nature of what occurs in courtrooms is potentially sensitive in nature, there is already an understanding among judges and court staff that anyone is capable of sitting in on nearly any hearing. Therefore, a video recording would hardly be any greater intrusion on the proceedings than is already possible. Further, because viewership would be less exclusive, high-profile proceedings would invite less of a circus of individuals hoping to watch the proceeding in real time, since they would be able to livestream it from anywhere. This would alleviate some of the strain on court marshals who need to control crowds for these proceedings.
From the public’s perspective, this access would offer educational, civically engaging content that is important to hear and observe. Students could watch from classrooms to gain an understanding of courtroom procedure, how lawyers work, and the day-to-day functions of the justice system. Friends and families of the parties could observe from afar and keep up with case progress. Lawyers could observe how specific judges run their courtrooms to prepare for future arguments in front of those judges. When elected officials or government entities are parties to a proceeding, members of the electorate could observe how those officials conduct themselves and what kinds of issues are at stake. If those officials are acting in a way that is unethical or unprofessional during the proceedings, people who vote for them should have the opportunity to observe that conduct.
Finally, from the parties’ perspective, this level of access would add a layer of accountability from the public to ensure that the parties’ day in court is respected. This concern is especially significant for criminal defendants who face systemic challenges to fair treatment throughout the legal process. Although hopefully it is not common, abuses of power do occur inside the courtroom. If court staff, judges, and law enforcement personnel are aware that the public and the press can observe their actions even if observers are not physically present, potential abuses of power may be prevented.
Although court proceedings are technically open to the public, there still remains a great feeling of secrecy and exclusivity. This perception is harmful to the public opinion of the judicial system, makes education and understanding of court proceedings more difficult, and can make litigants, especially criminal defendants, feel isolated and powerless. Increasing access to court proceedings would help mitigate these harmful effects, and I believe procedures to further that goal should be implemented in federal courtrooms in the future. In the meantime, I plan to inform and remind the people around me, both those who are interested in the legal field and those who are not, that they can attend court proceedings whenever they want, as long as there is room.
