Lawmakers push for cameras in courtrooms
/
Legislators, including Assemblymember David Weprin and State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, lobbied in support of adding a bill that would allow cameras into state courtrooms into this year’s budget. Photo via Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal
By Ryan Schwach
In the wake of the media frenzy that was the Donald Trump arraignment, some state legislators are doubling down on a bill that would allow cameras in the courts, and are pushing for its inclusion in the state’s budget.
Manhattan Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Queens Assemblymember David Weprin are each arguing for their bills in their respective chambers that would allow cameras back in New York state courtrooms, which they say would boost public accountability.
New York is currently one of two states in the union that banishes cameras from courtrooms, the other being Louisina, which does not allow cameras in their lower courts.
“The people of New York are entitled to greater transparency in how our systems of government, law, and justice function,” said Weprin, who represents the central Queens neighborhoods from Richmond Hill, Jamaica Estates and Hollis. “Having cameras in the courtroom is long overdue, and New York should join the 48 other states that provide for the public to bear witness to courtroom proceedings. I will continue to advocate with my partners in the Senate and Assembly to see that this measure is adopted and enacted.”
The legislators are using the recent indictment and arraignment of the former president last week, which saw an unprecedented armada of global media descend on Manhattan all hoping to cover the historic court appearance, as an example of why their bills should be taken into consideration.
“As the media capital of the world – and the venue for the arraignment of Donald Trump – we must change this outdated law to allow the public to witness trials,” said Hoylman-Sigal, chair of the Judiciary Committee. “With a first-of-its-kind trial on the horizon, there’s no time to waste in opening the doors of the courthouse to the media and the American public.”
In the case of Trump’s arraignment, five pool photographers were allowed to take photographs for a short period of time before the actual arraignment began, and reporters who were allowed in were not allowed to bring in any electronic devices.
Both Weprin and Hoylman-Sigal argued their case in front of the Manhattan courthouses on April 2, urging Governor Kathy Hochul to include the provision into the budget, which is still being debated in Albany. TheSsenate has already endorsed it in its one-house resolution.
“I always thought it should be part of the budget, because it does envision some use of taxpayer dollars to implement,” Hoylman-Sigal told the Eagle. “I think [Trump’s] arraignment and pending trial is another good argument that the public has a right to know what goes on behind closed doors.”
“It's also a glaring omission on the part of our state when 48 other states allow audio visual recording in courts,” he added.
Hoylman-Sigal and Weprin were joined by other elected officials who spoke in favor of the bill.
“Transparency is essential to our democracy,” said Manhattan Congressman Jerry Nadler. “Without televised access, the courts are effectively out of reach to most of the public. That is why I have long sponsored legislation to require cameras in the federal courts.”
“I hope that New York will follow the lead of other states and ensure that the public is able to witness important judicial proceedings in real time,” he added.
Allowing cameras into courts would benefit the New York press corp, many of whom waited in line for several hours to attend Trump’s arraignment last week.
“Every New Yorker has an interest in the fairness and effectiveness of our court system,” said Diane Kennedy, president of New York News Publishers Association, a non-profit trade association which represents papers across the state including the New York Times, New York Post and Wall Street Journal. “Restoring the ability to view audiovisual coverage of court proceedings would assure New Yorkers that the administration of justice in New York is transparent and equitable.”
There have been several attempts to get similar bills passed along in the legislature as far back as 2011, when Weprin first brought it to the table. All those bills eventually failed.
“The pushback has been mostly due to inertia,” Hoylman-Sigal said, adding that he believes some of the pushback comes from within the court itself.
“I think a lot of judges don't want it,” he said. “Judges have had a lot of influence in our political process. They don't want it because they don't want the public looking over their shoulder and second guessing their decisions.”
On Jan. 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in favor of the bill, with three senators, Senators Kevin Thomas, Thomas O’Mara and Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick voting in favor, but with reservations.
After that vote, the bill was moved to the finance committee where it sits now.
The Office of Court Administration says it does not take a position on the bill, but does have its concerns with some aspects of its plans.
“We have considerable concerns regarding implementation of the mandatory court-run livestreaming of all proceedings also contained in the bill due to the significant costs and extremely short timeframes laid out in the proposal,” said OCA spokesperson Lucain Chalfen. “To achieve this would require, at a minimum, years and over a hundred million dollars of additional ongoing appropriations above the current requests in the Judiciary budget for the necessary technological upgrades, hosting and archiving, and staff training and support.”
Hoylman-Sigal doesn’t think that the OCA’s take is “grounded to reality.”
“I think that’s histrionics,” he said. “Given that the courts have been operating already since COVID with audiovisual equipment currently in their courtrooms. Secondly, we're also talking about cameras being pooled by members of the press.”
“Suggesting that the public interest isn't worth the expenditure, there could be nothing further from the truth,” he added.
