N.Y. high court won't hear cameras-in-court case
By The Associated Press
07.07.00
Printer-friendly page
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York's highest court declined yesterday to
consider whether a judge was right to let cameras into his Rochester courtroom
during a death penalty trial.
The decision by Monroe County Court Judge William Bristol to let
cameras into the trial of Jose Julian Santiago had no practical effect —
it was immediately stayed by a state Supreme Court justice and the trial was
soon over with Santiago getting life without parole instead of death.
But four television stations and the Gannett Rochester Newspapers
pursued the appeal in hopes of having the state Court of Appeals decide on the
constitutionality of a 1952 state law outlawing cameras from criminal trials in
New York, and to get the high court to standardize camera access to courts in
the future.
The court refused yesterday, however.
In declining to hear the case, the court said a ruling in May by the
Appellate Division of state Supreme Court upholding a prohibition against
cameras at the Santiago trial was decided on non-constitutional grounds. Thus,
the judges said, they were rejecting a request by the media lawyers to consider
the constitutional implications of the cameras law.
The judges did take pains to say their refusal to hear the appeal
should not be interpreted as their passing judgment on the legality of the
camera-ban law.
"The Court of Appeals restates the rule that denial of a motion for
leave to appeal is not equivalent to an affirmance and has no precedential
value," the judges said in a terse, unsigned motion.
Floyd Abrams, who represented the four television stations, called the
court's refusal to hear the case a "genuine setback for the cause of public
access to the courts."
The status of cameras in criminal trial courts has been the cause of
controversy and confusion in New York since 1997, when the state Legislature
and governor allowed a 10-year-old law allowing cameras into court on an
"experimental" basis to lapse.
Opposition from state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly
Democrats has blocked court camera bills from passage each year since.
Early this year, however, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi
ruled that the 1952 law banning cameras was unconstitutional, and he allowed
still and television cameras into the trial of the New York City police
officers accused of murdering black immigrant Amadou Diallo in New York
City.
Some judges have ignored Teresi's ruling and have continued to bar
cameras. Others have let cameras in.
Media lawyers had hoped that the state Court of Appeals would hear the
Santiago case and straighten out the situation in the absence of legislative
action.
Silver's opposition and the high court's refusal to consider the
matter judicially "leaves the state that is supposedly the media center of the
nation without the most modern way to show the courts to the public," Abrams
said.
The television stations pursuing the appeal were WOKR, WHEC, WUHF and
R-NEWS.
Judge Bristol also appealed, seeking to have the high court uphold his
initial ruling.
Monroe County District Attorney Howard Relin and Santiago's
lawyers from the state Capital Defender's office opposed Bristol's ruling to
open the trial to cameras.Related
Court TV challenges law banning cameras in N.Y. trial courts
Cable network argues broadcast media, as members of press, have First Amendment right to access courtrooms.
09.06.01
N.Y. court agrees to televise judge's bribery trial
Case will mark first time TV cameras have been allowed in New York City courtrooms in five years.
02.12.02
Federal judiciary voices opposition to cameras-in-court bill
Senate subcommittee hears testimony on Sen. Chuck Grassley's measure that would allow federal judges to permit broadcast coverage.
09.07.00
Diallo trial spurs promise for legislation to restore courtroom cameras
But opponents voice same objections that prompted New York lawmakers to end televised criminal trials three years ago.
02.28.00
N.Y. governor proposes measure to restore courtroom cameras
'As demonstrated by the recent Diallo trial, appropriate, televised coverage of courtroom proceedings provides undeniable benefits to the people of our state,' says George Pataki.
03.17.00
Panelists split over benefits, dangers of cameras in courtroom
If ever there was a court case that belonged on television, the Amadou Diallo trial in Albany, N.Y., was that case, Fred Graham, chief anchor and managing editor of Court TV, said during a discussion Tuesday at Newseum/NY of placing still and TV cameras in courtrooms.
04.12.00
