January 16, 2025
Whether to allow cameras in the courtroom has been a long-debated subject, with some proclaiming that such general access is a right of the public, while others maintain that it denies the defendant a fair and equitable trial. One recent ICM Fellows paper “Cameras in the Courtroom: And Justice for All . . . to See?” examines the Maryland Judiciary’s decision to lift the ban on broadcasting of court audio recordings effective January 1, 2024 and whether to allow video coverage.
In 2007 the Maryland General Assembly established the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage, which reached a firm conclusion to adhere to the status quo and continue to prohibit audiovisual recordings in courtrooms. However, in 2021, Soderberg v. Carrion found that such a ban is unconstitutional as it “prohibited the publication of lawfully obtained audio or video recordings of criminal proceedings under Maryland Rules.” As of January 1, 2024, Maryland began allowing public access to and publication of audiovisual materials in most cases except for criminal proceedings.
This report aims to uncover whether the acceptance of cameras in the courtroom should extend to criminal cases and the stance of judges on the matter. It concludes that in recent years that judges have become slightly more open to broadcasting cases and recommends the Committee on Extended Media Coverage to be reinstated to determine the best steps forward. It also finds that judges believed that the decision of broadcasting specific cases should be one made by judges and that “courtroom personnel, jurors, witnesses, and alleged victims” should not be included in broadcasts.
“Keeping Up with the Jetsons: Orange County’s Artificial Intelligence Case Study” examines another recent concern about technology. This article acknowledges the quick and unavoidable rise of AI in all workplaces and argues that judges must be well-equipped to use it correctly to ensure they maintain the public’s trust through its implementation. The study evaluates the effectiveness of Orange County, California’s two chatbots in the Jury Services and the Collections Departments. It also assesses the Civil Department’s Document Intelligence Platform (DIP), which reads and files civil default judgments.
The report finds that there are gaps between the expected and actual use of AI tools. For example, users ended up using chatbots to pay at a lesser rate than anticipated due to otherwise avoidable convenience fees. It recommends that states should establish AI teams with individuals from diverse backgrounds to create and monitor new technology, integrate newer technologies, modify AI to fit the needs of the demographics of those who use it most, and implement AI training programs for court employees.
What innovative technology are you using in your court? Email us at Knowledge@ncsc.org or call 800-616-6164 and let us know. Follow the National Center for State Courts on Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and Vimeo. For more Trending Topics posts, visit ncsc.org/trendingtopics and subscribe to the LinkedIn newsletter.