N.H. courts to be more open to news media

By The Associated Press

12.13.02

Printer-friendly page

CONCORD, N.H. — Barring cameras from courts will be much more difficult under a ruling issued today by the state Supreme Court.

Judges who have had broad discretion to bar cameras and tape recorders now may do so only after meeting a tough four-part test.

"Fear of jurors being exposed to potentially prejudicial information or of witnesses being exposed to the testimony of other witnesses generally will not be a valid basis for denying electronic coverage," the court ruled in a case arising from the savage murders of two Dartmouth College professors in 2001. "The trial court's findings should not be based upon speculation, but rather upon the specific facts of the case."

The New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters, WMUR-TV in Manchester and The Boston Globe had sought the ruling after battling with Superior Court Judge Peter Smith over coverage of court proceedings involving two Vermont teenagers accused of murdering the professors.

Smith said he would bar cameras and recorders from one teen's trial, and maintained a hard line even after he pleaded guilty and was to be sentenced. The news organizations protested, noting there were neither witnesses nor a jury to be influenced by electronic coverage.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling said Smith had erred and it spelled out new principles governing such decisions.

To close a trial to electronic coverage in the future, the court said, closure must protect "an overriding interest" and be no broader than necessary. The judge must consider reasonable alternatives to closure and must make "particularized findings" to support the decision.

Previous

Prosecutors, public defenders make case against cameras in N.H. courts
But attorney for news media says state high court should tell judges to allow cameras, tape recorders unless lawyers can show a compelling reason to exclude them.  10.03.02

Related

N.H. high court orders audit interviews, notes made public
Justices say state's interest in confidentiality doesn't outweigh law's mandate to 'provide the utmost information to the public about what its government is up to.'  11.27.02