“Cameras are already in the courtrooms, folks. And, for our entertainment, cameras are delivering courtroom trials right thru our tv monitors. So, there should be no problems with cameras recording serious trial cases. If cameras can record and deliver court facts as entertainment, they can do wonders ensuring that a person gets a fair trial and that each law, is correctly applied. The enforcement of camera use inside our courtrooms…will be a vital step toward the ensuring of Justice”…~an AmericaOnCoffee (AOC) Commentary~
Cameras are typically not allowed in federal trial courts. But the Judicial Conference announced in September 2010 a pilot project to allow cameras in some federal district courtroom proceedings. The conference said that only civil cases will be included in the program. Although details of the program (known as the Digital Video Pilot Project) are still in development, participation in the program is to be at the discretion of the trial judge, with the parties to the court proceedings having the opportunity to veto cameras. The cameras would be set up and operated by court personnel.
Legislative efforts to allow cameras in federal trial and appellate courts on an experimental basis have been introduced repeatedly in Congress, but have never passed. <most recently, the u.s. senate’s Cameras in the Courtroom
Act of 2011, introduced with an eye toward arguments in three cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in late March 2012, would have required the Supreme Court to televise its public proceedings. The Supreme Court declined the news media’s request for camera access to the high-profile health care arguments but did agree to release same-day audio recordings of the arguments, scheduled for nearly six hours over three days. Recent proceedings in the high-profile challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage continue to sharpen the debate over camera use in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the trial court from broadcasting the trial at the time, but the appellate arguments were broadcast live. After the fact, the trial judge >ruled that a video recording of the proceeding should be made available to the public, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that order and held that the trial judge’s guarantees to the parties that the tapes would not be publicly disclosed required the continued sealing of the video.
A “Corruption Barometer” is another measure that can be used.