A representative from St. Cloud is attempting to restrict camera access in Minnesota courtrooms, and both sides are heavily divided on the issue.
The bill, championed by Rep. Jim Knoblach, would restrict camera use from any criminal matter, from the court hearings to sentencing, without consent from everyone involved in the case. This means the victim, defendant, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judge would all have to give consent in order for camera access to be allowed.
Currently, Minnesota is involved in a pilot program that allows cameras to film sentencing hearings or plea deals. Rep. Knoblach basically said the pilot program was pointless and discouraged witnesses and victims from wanting to testify.
Knoblach’s Misconceptions
Knoblach’s assertion that cameras would negatively impact witness and victim testimony is a very odd statement, considering in the pilot program, the cameras never record at any point when a victim or witness would be speaking. The cameras only roll during sentencing, which is long after a witness or victim would ever have to speak, so the notion that a recording camera would hinder the legal process is not only odd, it’s downright untruthful.
Rep. Knoblach wondered what purpose the cameras served, and Mark Anfinson, an attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association, responded, saying “What it does is it provides a reassurance, a catharsis, a demonstration of how the justice system works. And that has enormous value to the people whose court system it is, after all.” He also reiterated that under the current system, “none of the testimony of victims, none of the testimony of witnesses, none of the proceedings of the court during the trial … can be captured on video or audio. … No audio or video coverage is permitted at all when a jury is present in a courtroom. None.”
Additionally, cameras are not allowed at any point if the case involves criminal sexual conduct or domestic violence, the two subjects in which victims may not want to draw any more attention to their case than necessary. The state already prohibits any recording during these cases, again suggesting that Knoblach’s thoughts that recording would keep victims from coming forward due to fear of being on camera is an unfounded belief.
Roughly 40 other states across the US have more permissive camera recording laws for court proceedings, so it’s not like the pilot program is progressive in nature. However, it appears legislators are keen to keep the public in the dark, as Knoblach’s restrictive bill has already passed through the House and is on its way to the Senate. Hopefully the Senate shoots the bill down, lest we forget the quote by Minnesota Supreme Court Associate Justice David Lillehaug, who said:
“The more transparent and accessible the courts are, the greater the trust in the judicial system will be.”
