Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Scott Matheson Courthouse. photo by Ryan Galbraith. 12/29/1999
Lawyer wanting to film divorce cases prompts Utah courts to yell ‘cut’

Proposal came about because a family law attorney wanted to film cases.

First Published Jun 14 2014 11:03 pm • Last Updated Jun 15 2014 02:37 pm

Eric Johnson was reading the newspaper last year when a column, written by a Utah judge, caught his eye.

The judge, who was a member of a committee responsible for the historic opening of state courtrooms to cameras and other electronic media, said he hoped allowing the public to see what goes on in courtrooms from the comfort of their own homes – through television broadcasts of trial court proceedings — would increase public trust in the courts.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

It gave Johnson an idea: Why not broadcast divorce court proceedings?

"I said, ‘This is fantastic!’ " Johnson told The Tribune. "Our courts are public, and the public should know more about the courts."

The Salt Lake City-based family law attorney said his intention has always been to educate and inform — a goal, he said, that falls in line with the stated purpose of the rule allowing cameras in courtrooms.

But court administrators, judges and commissioners have questioned the lawyer’s motives and denied his requests. They also propose to change a rule.

Rather than the onus being on judges to justify why cameras should be banned from a particular court proceeding, the proposed rule states that the person applying to record a family law proceeding must prove to the judge why they ought to be allowed in.

It’s a slight change, said court officials, who insisted it would have little effect on "legitimate news organizations" and their ability to gather pertinent news.

"This is about recording information that would go out on the Internet and then be there forever," said Brent Johnson, general counsel for the courts. "Some of the concerns were about individuals’ right to a fair trial. ... The law is sometimes about line-drawing."

But media rights activists argue it’s a bad precedent.


story continues below
story continues below

"My long-term concern is this is just the first in a series of iterative exceptions that different groups think should be added to the rule," said media law attorney David Reymann, who also represents the Society of Professional Journalists in speaking out against the rule change. "It completely takes away from what the original committee was trying to do, which is open up the courts and increase transparency."

Utah’s Judicial Council, the judiciary’s policy-making body, is soliciting comments on the proposal until June 24. Court officials said the Judicial Council will likely vote on the issue during its August meeting.

Last year, when Utah opened its courts to electronic media coverage, the state went from having some of the most restricted courtrooms in the country to some of the most open.

In addition to allowing TV cameras into courtrooms, Utah joined an even more exclusive group of states that explicitly allow the use of new technologies such as smartphones, tablets and laptops.

Banning cameras, but continuing to allow members of the public to bring personal electronic devices into open proceedings — no matter whether they’re criminal or civil in nature — makes no sense, Reymann said.

"There should be no distinction between camera coverage of open proceedings and a reporter, who’s able to sit there and live-tweet the whole thing out or report it second-hand," he said. "If anything, a video recording will be more accurate."

Eric Johnson, who denied accusations that his online video channel would be used for self-promotion, said people look to the Internet to research and gain an understanding of how things work before they attempt to navigate new experiences.

"I’m not trying to be a National Enquirer-kind of guy, I just want the public to see how the courts work," Johnson said.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.