b e n c h p r e s s
TRANSCRIPT
Page 13
B e n c h P r e s s March, 2012
The Newsletter of St. Louis Circuit Court
See You
In Court
Page 7
In Our
Nation’s
Capital Page 12
Taking a
Shot Page 10
1
echnology figures into all areas of the courthouse, from the email system we use to communicate with each other to the electronic filing and storage of court records that are making our work faster and more efficient. In my second year as presiding judge it is becoming increasingly clear to me how much we rely on technology experts to keep the business of Circuit Court moving and how much more of a role this will all play in the years to come. This issue of Bench Press highlights some of the advances high-tech devices are bringing to the courthouse and some of the challenges they present. Digital technology in the news media and the desire for instant video and images of high-profile trials are forcing us to take a new look at the cameras-in-the-courtroom debate. The latest in video production equipment is being used to teach important life lessons to juvenile offenders and criminal defendants are now appearing in some courtrooms via closed-circuit television. We are indeed living in a wired world. Although government, and certainly courthouses, are often accused of moving slowly in the face of change, our Court is doing its best to recognize where technology is headed and to move along with it. Steven Ohmer Presiding Judge
2
Law
wenty years after the state of Missouri first allowed news cameras to videotape courtroom proceedings the debate still rages on. In fact, with the introduction of digital technology and
easy-to-use cameras that can shoot video and almost instantly upload that footage to YouTube and news media websites, the cameras in the courtroom question is more complicated than ever.
T
through
a LENS
2
3
“Missouri’s rule was written at a time when we didn’t have cell phones, let alone cell phones that double as cameras,” said Beth Riggert, Communications Counsel for the Missouri Supreme Court. “Now these phones are also a video camera and an audio recorder and a still camera. If someone wants to bring in a cell phone is that subject to the cameras in the courtroom rule? Should it be? Right now we have more questions than answers.” Even the federal courts, where cameras have never been a welcome sight, are slowly testing the waters amid the changing times and the public’s expectation that video of the day’s news events will be a mouse click away.
Fourteen federal trial courts (the Eastern District of Missouri among them) are taking part in the federal Judiciary's digital video pilot, which started last summer and will evaluate the effect of cameras in courtrooms. All 14 courts volunteered to participate in the three-year experiment. In 2010, when California’s high-profile Proposition 8 debate over gay marriage reached the federal courthouse, Judge Alex Kozinski collided with the U.S. Judicial Conference over its frowning on news cameras in the courtroom. “Like it or not, we are now well into the Twenty-First Century and it is up to those
of us who lead the federal judiciary to adopt policies that are consistent with the spirit of the times and the advantages afforded us by new technology. If we do not, Congress will do it for us,” the judge wrote. And this year Illinois defected from the remaining 14 states that still ban courtroom cameras. Madison County is now one of three jurisdictions in the Land of Lincoln taking part in the experimental project authorized by the Illinois Supreme Court that allows videotaping of trials. It is the first time in the state’s history that such comprehensive media coverage has been granted. At St. Louis Circuit Court television cameras are allowed under Supreme Court Operating Rule 16, but judges have wide discretion on when to approve and when to deny. “Media coverage of a proceeding shall not be permitted if the judge concludes that under the circumstances of the particular proceeding, such coverage would materially interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”
4
Most of the time when news cameras are in our courtrooms it is because the judges have invited them to cover something newsworthy that the Court is involved in, such as a Drug Court graduation or a new technology being rolled out. Video coverage of actual trials remains rare and usually limited to notable cases that have already received extensive media coverage leading up to the trial. One such case was the murder of Gina Stallis, a nurse and mother of two, shot to death during a 2009 home invasion in the LaSalle Park neighborhood. The CBS true crime series “48 Hours” contacted Circuit Court when the first of the two defendants went to trial. Judge Dierker denied the network’s request to allow a camera into his courtroom, fearing that the media coverage could have an effect on the jury that would eventually sit in
judgment of the second defendant. Undeterred, CBS again asked for permission when that second defendant went to trial last December, this time armed with letters from Stallis’ family expressing their desire for the verdict and sentencing to be videotaped for “48 Hours”. “I felt the victims deserved consideration and if this was something important to them then I felt their request deserved to be heard,” said Judge Dierker. “And the taping was limited to the verdict and sentencing so it would not affect the fairness of the actual trial.” Judge Dierker’s courtroom was one of those selected during Missouri’s pilot project 20 years ago and, admittedly, he is not a big cheerleader for courtroom cameras. He believes the presence of a camera can affect peoples’ behavior in the court-room and the absence of any real educational value makes camera coverage hard to justify.
“Grandstanding is a legitimate concern. I think it can lead to lawyers pursuing side issues not because they have any particular relevance but because it’s good theater,” said Judge Dierker. “That’s not to say they don’t do that without cameras, they do. But I think the incentive becomes greater when they can garner some media attention.” For CBS producer Shoshanah Wolfson, it was crucial to the story that she capture the verdict being announced and the Stallis family’s reaction as Judge Dierker handed down multiple life sentences. “There are so many people who were affected by this crime and the way they all acted in
tandem that night to prevent any more lives from being lost, it is very compelling to hear that story. “I know Judge Dierker has skepticism about cameras but he was extraordinarily open in listening to our request and we were very, very grateful. I hope that we have been able to show that cameras do not have to be disruptive, it does not mean that people always ‘perform’ and hopefully it has lessened the Court’s concern about cameras in the courtroom.” Those concerns are getting thoroughly aired this year as Riggert and other state officials reexamine
5
Rule 16. The judiciary has realized that the original policy has not kept pace with technological advances and the demands that the Internet age has brought. Judges, court personnel and media professionals from around Missouri are being asked for their advice and opinions in developing an updated rule that fits the reality of today’s instant-news world. “It was adopted 20 years ago but we have noticed that Rule 16 addresses things that don’t need to be addressed and fails to address things that judges are concerned about,” said Riggert. One common complaint from judges centers on what TV stations and other news media choose to show the public. A week-long trial can get little more that 30 seconds of dramatic, sensational video on the evening news. “Judges are telling me that they would be more open to cameras if it was gavel-to-gavel coverage and not edited down. Perhaps there might be a way that the courts and media can work together to have more expanded coverage, perhaps on a TV station’s website, so that the coverage actually means something more than a simplified 30-second sound bite,” she said. Complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of any trial is exceedingly rare. The time and expense it requires, especially in the era of shrinking newsroom budgets, makes that kind of investment unattractive for many news outlets. And in-depth extended courtroom coverage can also bring its own brand of problems. For many judges around the United States, including Judge Dierker, the practice has become synonymous with two letters - O.J. “Without a doubt it was a mistake for the California courts to allow those TV cameras. I can still remember watching the Tonight Show during that time and seeing the “Dancing Itos” (a comedy sketch poking fun at Judge Lance Ito.) It was a mockery and you have to ask, what purpose was served by that nonstop TV coverage?”
6
Wired ‘See you in court’ has a whole new meaning
udges at St. Louis Circuit Court are proving that with the right technology dockets can move faster and courtrooms can become more efficient.
With the flick of a switch closed-circuit hookups at the Justice Center and MSI are allowing criminal defendants to appear before a judge without the time and expense of transporting them to the courthouse.
J
7
“We’re not really doing things any differently, they’re still appearing. I still have to fit them into my regular docket call. They’re just appearing on the Polycom now” said Judge Stelzer. “But we’re cutting down on the amount of time getting them here and by and large I think it’s a great step forward. I’m thrilled with how it’s working.” Polycom is the flat screen monitor that sits on the judge’s bench. One by one defendants on that day’s docket step in front of a similar monitor installed in a holding area at the jail. A built-in camera lens means the judge can see them and they can see the judge. The ease and convenience of Polycom was discovered three years ago by the Probate Division, where mentally ill patients are ordered for treatment to a psychiatric unit. BJC, St. Louis’ largest provider of in-patient psychiatric services, suggested Probate start using Polycom and even paid for that initial hookup. It has saved the hospital the expense of transporting patients and
Judge Stelzer talks to sheriff’s deputy Nick Sarkis via closed-circuit hookup before the start of the Division 26 confined docket.
staff by ambulance to the courtroom for those routine hearings. Judge Stelzer is the first to use the monitors in an arraignment division but other areas of the courthouse are now looking into Polycom to see how the technology can be used to save time and money. Judge Stelzer says one line item that the Court’s budget committee deals with every year is the number of transports from the jails. “There are quite a few of those folks who get transported to this division, so I would hope that by the end of the year that expense gets smaller. “We’ve had great cooperation between the public defenders and prosecutors, sheriff’s employees, clerks and city jailers. I’m glad we’re doing it and I hope we explore other ways it can benefit the court.”
2
s readers of Bench Press know from our last issue, the Court has been actively partnering with local schools in offering students the chance to learn the justice system up close.
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
A For example, the pre-law program at St. Louis University has been sending groups of undergrads to the courthouse to meet with judges, observe proceedings and see what a typical day is like in the 22nd Circuit. Judge Burke, who enthusiastically opens her office to these students, makes a point of handing out her business card, encouraging them to follow up with any questions or assistance the Court can offer. One student, Patrick Olds, has taken Judge Burke up on her offer. “Before I went to the courthouse that day I was still confused about my future and what I should be doing to make sure everything turns out well, so when Judge Burke offered this opportunity to me I took it as a sign that this is what I’ve been asking for - someone to show me direction.”
t
h
e
ropes
8
9
He is now a regular face around Division 24, showing up several hours each week to learn whatever he can from Judge Burke and her staff. And it’s not easy, between a full course load, working at the student newspaper and working full-time at the Four Seasons hotel restaurant to help pay tuition. “This is incredibly important to me and it’s a blessing to find someone like Judge Burke who is willing to work with what my schedule allows. I understand that other people would not be welcoming to that type of schedule but she is.” He attends Division 24 trials, takes notes on what the attorneys are saying, and does assigned paperwork. Sometimes he will get direction, and sometimes he won’t. It’s a way for the judge to see what he is capable of doing on his own and how fast of a learner he is.
“I like working with students and young lawyers and if I can help them by giving them information and guidance and they can help out in the courtroom in return, I think that’s a win-win all the way around,” said Judge Burke. “When I was an undergrad my father worked in a factory with a guy whose daughter was a lawyer and I got to spend time with her. She was the only connection I had to the legal world, the only source of information as to whether law school was right for me.” Olds is still contemplating his education but thinks law school will most likely be in his future. And he is grateful for contacts he is making at the courthouse. Judge Burke says he has gotten very good at taking the initiative and introducing himself to other judges and practicing attorneys in the building. All of it, he believes, will give him an advantage when it comes time to leave school and look for a job. “The funny thing is that she really appreciates me coming to work, but the truth is that it’s me who is so appreciative that she’s giving me this opportunity.”
“...it’s me who is so
appreciative that
she’s giving me this
opportunity.”
10
Taking a
Shot can filming a documentary be
the shot these kids need at
improving their lives?
How can juvenile offenders be taught the
consequences of their actions and the impact that crime has on victims? Edie Barnard thinks video may be the answer. As executive director of the nonprofit Studio E, she is teaching troubled teens how to shoot and edit a documentary on crime, complete with interviews of those who live and work with it every day. “What we found is that the minute they start doing these interviews you can hear a pin drop. They have interviewed a woman who was shot seven times at close range, someone who lost a child to gun violence and someone who lost a sister to a drunk driver,” said Barnard. “They’ve been gathering hours of footage from victims, prosecutors, detectives and a judge.” That judge is Robin Vannoy. Three young men, under the jurisdiction of the St. Louis County Family Court, recently spent an afternoon in Judge Vannoy’s courtroom asking questions about her experiences on the bench dealing with crime victims.
“Television makes everything seem surreal but having these kids interview someone who had a loved one die in a violent crime, I think that would have a real impact on them,” said Judge Vannoy. “It’s always difficult with teenagers, they’re sort of complicated to begin with, but these guys were very engaging and asking some really good questions.” The working title of their documentary is “Victims’ Voices.” So far the 17 juveniles who have worked on the project have shot eight hours of footage and will learn how to edit that into a half-hour program, which will get aired on the educational channel HEC-TV. Officials at the county family court evaluate the ef-fectiveness of their juvenile programs and Barnard says the experience of making this video is getting across the board praise from the kids. And from her too. “Professionally and personally this has been one of the most fulfilling projects I have ever been involved with.”
http://www.mwcml.org/about.html
11
How did your involvement in the documentary come about? Dennis Riggs, the director, and I had worked on some things in the past and he had some idea of my interest in this particular subject matter. I think he thought that my personality and voice would work well for the narration and I was happy to do it because I was interested in this topic and knew quite a lot about it going into it. Why were so many of these cases filed in St. Louis court? St. Louis was unique in the story of freedom suits because although Missouri was a slave state, the city itself was not really pro-slavery, there was a strong anti-slavery sentiment. When the legislature, and no doubt because of influence from St. Louis lawmakers, passed a law stating that once a person becomes free they are permanently free, that opened the door to the freedom suits. A lot of slave owners would take their slaves into free territory, Illinois is a perfect example, and once they were there, technically speaking, their slave was free. If the slave was living there a sufficient amount of time to be considered a temporary resident, then once the master brought him back to Missouri the slave had a legitimate claim for saying, I became free in Illinois and under Missouri law once free always free. Therefore I am going to go to court to prove that I was once free and get a court to order my release. How has the documentary been received? Everybody I’ve encountered who has seen it has been very enlightened. I’m a trial lawyer at heart and would have loved to have met one of those trial lawyers and heard the closing arguments that would move a jury to make those decisions. The slaves had no money so they had to find lawyers willing to fight for them for free in court and face all-male, all-white juries. What those attorneys did was incredible and they truly honor our profession.
OUR
HISTORY
In the 1800s many Missouri slaves sought justice from the St. Louis courts by suing for their freedom. Judge David Mason helped to tell the remarkable stories of these “freedom suits” in a 2008 award-winning documentary
“Seeking Freedom,” produced by HEC-TV, won the Mid-America Emmy for Outstanding
Historical Documentary
Click below to watch “Seeking Freedom”
http://www.hectv.org/programs/specials/seeking-
freedom/709/seeking-freedom/
12
I rise today to speak about a new and successful program for at-risk youth in St. Louis, the Innovative Concept Academy, and about its founder, my friend, Judge Jimmy Edwards. These young people, who many would have given up on, found a formidable advocate in Judge Edwards and the Academy. From the beginning, Innovative Concept Academy has been devoted to helping at-risk youth achieve success through education, rehabilitation and mentorship. Its mission, to enrich the learning environment for some of our most troubled kids, has resulted in second chances for these young men and women to dramatically improve their lives. At the start, Judge Edwards planned on providing education and mentoring to 30 kids who had been suspended or expelled due to Missouri’s Safe Schools Act. When he asked the St. Louis public school for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they asked if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more. This was a challenge, and he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do attitude. During the first year of its existence, the academy saw 246 students move through its doors. Today the academy teaches at-risk youth between ages 10 and 18 and has an enrollment of over 375. Some of these students are visiting our nation's capital this week with Judge Edwards…These are young men and women who have turned their lives around with the help of Judge Edwards and the Academy, and who serve as an inspiration to others in the community and, frankly, an inspiration to me. I am proud that he hails from my home state of Missouri and from my hometown of St. Louis. I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the Innovative Concept Academy and Judge Jimmy Edwards. The success of the academy and his dedication and service to the St. Louis community should be an inspiration for everyone serving in this chamber. If we could have a little bit of Judge Jimmy Edwards' attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit, and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf of the American people.
This month Judge Edwards was honored in Washington, D.C. by having the Innovative Concept Academy’s accomplishments officially entered in the Congressional Record. Below are excerpts
of Senator Claire McCaskill’s remarks on the Senate Floor - March 7, 2012.
13
Court staff outdid themselves planning and
decorating the annual holiday party in
December. Thank you to everyone who
helped out. And congratulations to the
clerk’s Bonding Department for winning
the tree decorating contest.
B e n c h P r e s s
22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri
A Publication of St. Louis Circuit Court
Next Issue - June, 2012
comments / story suggestions: