News came out this morning that the Illinois Supreme Court is allowing video and still cameras in the state’s courtrooms. The decision comes after more than 20 years of debate on the subject.
I reported on the first trial in our judicial district, only the second in the state of Iowa, in which cameras would be present.
The court’s permission to allow cameras came on what was considered a trial basis with strict limits and watchful eyes. The courts were watching to make sure the cameras would not disrupt the judicial process.
All of the newspapers and the state newspaper association were watching to, frankly, make sure that no one screwed it up for everyone else.
Being only the second trial with cameras in the state meant that all of those eyes were on us.
The trial involved three young men who had kidnapped a night manager at the local Pizza Hut, drove her in her vehicle to another part of the town where they dumped her off and then drove away in a second car with the night’s receipts. As it turned out I’d gone to high school with all three defendants, though none of them made it to the graduation ceremonies.
I was not the photographer assigned to the trial but I was charged with making the various arrangements necessary to be granted permission. You couldn’t just show up and start taking photos.
Generally speaking the details involved:
-- The state newspaper association had been charged with coordinating any requests. I had to first contact them and make the case that the trial was worthy of photographic coverage. They, in turn, made the formal request to the courts for permission.
-- Only two photographers were allowed to be in the courtroom so a pool system was used. If more than two newspapers requested permission, two of them would be chosen to take the photos but they had to provide copies to all other newspapers who requested them.
-- The photographers were not assigned to specific areas of the courtroom, but they did have to be in the general audience section and were not allowed to move around once they were seated.
Fortunately for us everything went smoothly and we were able to demonstrate that photos could be successfully taken without disrupting the court.
I’m sure there have been changes in the system in the 30 years since those first photos were taken. Today it has become a fairly common practice and people really don’t think all that much about it.
For those of us in the newspaper business at that time though it was a quite momentous occasion. I’m proud to say that I played a small role in making it happen.
Iowa has allowed still cameras in the courtrooms for 30 years. I’ve always been proud of the, albeit small, part I played when it was first allowed here.
The newspapers around Iowa fought long and hard to earn the right to take photos during trials. I was working at the Oskaloosa Herald, my first job after college, when the Iowa courts finally granted permission.
I reported on the first trial in our judicial district, only the second in the state of Iowa, in which cameras would be present.
The court’s permission to allow cameras came on what was considered a trial basis with strict limits and watchful eyes. The courts were watching to make sure the cameras would not disrupt the judicial process.
All of the newspapers and the state newspaper association were watching to, frankly, make sure that no one screwed it up for everyone else.
Being only the second trial with cameras in the state meant that all of those eyes were on us.
The trial involved three young men who had kidnapped a night manager at the local Pizza Hut, drove her in her vehicle to another part of the town where they dumped her off and then drove away in a second car with the night’s receipts. As it turned out I’d gone to high school with all three defendants, though none of them made it to the graduation ceremonies.
I was not the photographer assigned to the trial but I was charged with making the various arrangements necessary to be granted permission. You couldn’t just show up and start taking photos.
Generally speaking the details involved:
-- The state newspaper association had been charged with coordinating any requests. I had to first contact them and make the case that the trial was worthy of photographic coverage. They, in turn, made the formal request to the courts for permission.
-- Only two photographers were allowed to be in the courtroom so a pool system was used. If more than two newspapers requested permission, two of them would be chosen to take the photos but they had to provide copies to all other newspapers who requested them.
-- The photographers were not assigned to specific areas of the courtroom, but they did have to be in the general audience section and were not allowed to move around once they were seated.
Fortunately for us everything went smoothly and we were able to demonstrate that photos could be successfully taken without disrupting the court.
I’m sure there have been changes in the system in the 30 years since those first photos were taken. Today it has become a fairly common practice and people really don’t think all that much about it.
For those of us in the newspaper business at that time though it was a quite momentous occasion. I’m proud to say that I played a small role in making it happen.
