R-07-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court

John T. Zastro (002738)
308 East Claremont Street
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-266-3665

R-07-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court

Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell
Presiding Judge
Superior Court in Maricopa County
125 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-6130

Arizona State Representative Jonathan Paton
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Phone: 602-926-3235
Fax: 602-417-3030
Email: [email protected]


I write in support of the Petition of KPNX Broadcasting Company (“KPNX”) to amend Rule 122 of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regarding camera coverage of courtroom proceedings.

As you may know, for several years the Arizona Legislature has streamed its proceedings live on the Internet, allowing the public to monitor all committee meetings, majority and minority caucus meetings and floor sessions. In my experience, citizens appreciate the ability to monitor legislative proceedings directly and evaluate the work of their elected representatives. Visual coverage of legislative proceedings allows the public a means of following debate on important issues of the day. Increased video coverage has played an important role in making the legislative process more accessible to the public.

While I realize that the proposed amendment to Rule 122 would not provide coverage of all courtroom proceedings, it would adopt basic procedural safeguards that would permit camera coverage except upon a written finding of “substantial likelihood of harm” – a significant improvement over the current rule. The result would be greater camera access to the judicial branch, perhaps the least understood of our three branches of government. I believe the proposed amendment would improve the public’s understanding of the judiciary for the following reasons.

First, camera coverage requests are too often summarily denied under the current rule. The public has a strong interest in monitoring civil and criminal court cases, from murders and child abuse cases to high-profile civil lawsuits involving public bodies and major corporations. Under the current rule, judges can deny camera coverage requests without hearing or explanation, and without the prospect of appellate review. Such denials of access occur even where less-restrictive alternatives are available, including allowing camera coverage of portions of proceedings. This is contrary to the
presumption of openness and access in the Arizona Open Meetings and Arizona Public Records Laws. It is similarly inconsistent with the long tradition of openness of Arizona court proceedings.

Second, the proposed rule is desirable because it will require judges to make on-the-record findings before denying courtroom access to cameras. This will encourage courts to consider reasonable alternatives to blanket prohibitions on camera coverage of courtroom proceedings. It also encourages judges to evaluate the merits of camera coverage thoughtfully. This will result in better decisions about when camera coverage of judicial proceedings is appropriate.

Third, the proposed rule requires the trial court to hold a hearing if any party or witness objects to camera coverage of a proceeding. This provision – not in the current rule – safeguards the rights of crime victims and others who may have legitimate concerns about the presence of cameras in the courtroom. As such, it enhances the privacy and related protections in the current rule.

Fourth, technological and societal changes over the past decade have rendered Rule 122 obsolete. Cameras are no longer clunky, noisy, distracting, unfamiliar devices that clog hearing rooms with wires and cables. Most cameras are small and silent. Where the old rule allowing unfettered discretion to the trial judge might have been justified before recent technological advances, it is out of step with the reality of modern camera technology. For this reason, a more open approach is appropriate.

Similarly, the current rule provides too much discretion to trial courts to exclude the medium by which most citizens receive news about public institutions. Indeed, television and the Internet are often the primary source of news for many Arizonans. Images – whether still or video – convey important information to the public beyond what words alone can provide, and are crucial to both television and Internet news coverage. At bottom, the proposed rule more appropriately balances the benefits of camera coverage of courtroom proceedings with necessary safeguards that protect the dignity of the courtroom.

Finally, the revisions proposed by Maricopa County Superior Court in its April 8, 2008 Comment enhance KPNX’s Petition by strengthening protections for the privacy of third parties and minimizing the risk of delay of proceedings. I support the Superior Court’s Comment, and understand that KPNX does as well.

For these reasons, and based on my personal experience with video coverage of legislative proceedings, I urge the Court to adopt the proposed amendment with the revisions proposed by Maricopa County Superior Court.

Respectfully submitted,



State Rep. Jonathan Paton
Legislative District 30

Dee-Dee Samet
717 N. 6th Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85705
520-624-8595
[email protected]

David M. Giles, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
The E.W. Scripps Company
312 Walnut Street, Suite 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 977-3891
(513) 977-3892
[email protected]
Ohio Bar No. 0077589

Frank X. Gordon, Jr.
Former Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court, Retired
9414 North 25th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85028
[email protected]
(602) 493-1666 (phone)
(602) 893-0859 (fax)
Arizona Bar Number 751

Comment by Frank X. Gordon, Jr., Former Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court, Retired, On Proposed Amendment to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122.


Please consider this Comment as my approval and endorsement of the Proposed Amendment to Arizona Supreme Court’s Rule 122, together with the suggested modifications made by the Maricopa County Superior Court.

While I was an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court I was involved with the drafting and adoption of the existing Rule 122. At that time the Arizona Supreme Court was concerned about the impact that the proposed rule would have on the every day operation of trial courts in Arizona, such as whether media requests would delay, disrupt or even derail trials of high profile cases in Arizona. I can state that these concerns had a great deal of influence on the inclusion of the provisions giving trial judges complete and unexplained jurisdiction to refuse coverage when requested.

I have been advised that on many occasions, requests for media coverage have been refused for what the media believes are apparently no reason or insufficient reason to refuse.

In 1987 and 1988, while I was Chief Justice, the Supreme Court sponsored a study by the Commission on the Courts, a broad based commission which had as its mission to make recommendations that would make the courts in Arizona more accessible to and understood by the public as well as more modern and efficient. The Commission ultimately made around 150 recommendations in its final report, many of which have been partly if not wholly accomplished. In my opinion the proposed Amendment to Rule 122, together with the suggested modifications made by the Maricopa County Superior Court, would go a long way in furthering the recommendations of the Commission on the Courts by making decisions of the trial courts in Arizona more understandable.

In addition, I do not believe that a conscientious trial judge would be unduly burdened by being required to make a record finding under subsections (b) and (c) of the Rule in order to justify a refusal to allow media coverage.

With these thoughts in mind, I hope you give favorable consideration to adopting the Amendments as previously mentioned.

Art Brooks
President & CEO
Arizona Broadcasters Association
426 N. 44th Street
Suite 310
Phoenix, AZ 85008
PH 602-252-4833
FAX 602-252-5265
[email protected]

I serve as President/CEO of the Arizona Broadcasters Association (“ABA”). In that capacity, I write in support of the Petition of KPNX Broadcasting Company (“KPNX”) to amend Rule 122 of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regarding camera coverage of courtroom proceedings. I also write in support of the revisions to KPNX’s Petition proposed in the April 8, 2008 Comment of the Maricopa County Superior Court, which I understand KPNX supports.

The ABA represents 32 television stations and 132 radio stations in Arizona. It is dedicated to fostering the development of the art of radio and television broadcasting and promoting customs and practices that will advance the public interest and the interests of the broadcasting industry. KPNX’s Petition is consistent with those goals because its proposed rule change will allow the broadcast media to provide better and more informative news coverage of judicial proceedings to the public.

A 2006 study commissioned by the Radio Television News Directors Foundation found that 65 percent of Americans rely on local television stations as their primary source of news. [http://www.rtnda.org/medi...ey/section2.pdf] Yet in recent years, Arizona courts have increasingly restricted or banned camera coverage of judicial proceedings, often without hearing or explanation. This restricts the flow of information to the public and hampers the broadcast media’s ability to accurately and transparently report news to the public. As the New Hampshire Supreme Court observed in adopting a new camera coverage rule in 2002, the right of media access to judicial proceedings necessarily includes the technological advances and tools of the profession. For television journalists, this must include cameras.

Television camera technology has advanced significantly since the early broadcast era, when cameras were large, noisy, cumbersome and distracting. By contrast, today’s cameras are small, silent, operate without cables, attachments or lights. For this reason, many of the concerns about camera coverage raised decades ago are no longer valid. As the studies cited in KPNX’s Petition suggest, camera coverage does not detract from the dignity of courtroom proceedings or disrupt the trial process in any way. Simply put, allowing cameras in the courtroom provides the public a window into the judicial system and a tool to receive unfiltered information about their courts.

KPNX’s proposed amendment does not require judges to allow camera coverage of proceedings or even create a presumption that camera coverage is permitted. Instead, the proposed rule includes procedural safeguards that would require a court to hold a hearing only when there is an objection to a request for camera coverage or to an order allowing such coverage. The proposed rule would require a judge to issue specific, written findings in support of a decision to deny camera coverage. Finally, the proposed rule would allow appellate review of camera coverage decisions, allowing appellate oversight in rare cases where camera coverage decisions are clearly inappropriate. The result will be better, more-informed decisions about when and how to allow camera coverage of the judicial system.

During a 2006 murder trial in Pima County, the Arizona Supreme Court recognized the unique role camera coverage plays in informing the public about the justice system. When citizens see and hear court proceedings with their own eyes and ears, they understand for themselves the roles played by judges, lawyers and prosecutors in the court system, and the importance of that system in their lives.

Finally, the revisions proposed by Maricopa County Superior Court in its April 8, 2008 Comment enhance KPNX’s Petition by clarifying procedures for requesting camera coverage and minimizing the risk of delay of proceedings. I understand that KPNX supports the Superior Court’s proposed amendments, as does the ABA.

KPNX’s proposed rule change – as amended by Maricopa County Superior Court’s April 8, 2008 proposed revisions – is consistent with the Court’s desire for increased public awareness of the legal system. It brings a measure of due process to the otherwise unfettered discretion of trial court judges in denying camera coverage. For these reasons, the ABA urges the Court to adopt the proposed amendment to Rule 122.

Respectfully submitted,
Art Brooks

R-07-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court

Jan E. Kearney
Presiding Judge
Superior Court in Pima County
110 West Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-740-8782

Comment submitted on behalf of
Hon. Randolph A. Bartlett,
Presiding Judge, Mohave County
401 E. Spring St.
P.O. Box 7000
Kingman, AZ 86402-7000
928-453-0739

Hon. Monica Stauffer,
Presiding Judge, Greenlee County
P.O. Box 1027
Clifton, AZ 85333
928-865-3872

Judge Bartlett’s Comments:

(1)With the possible exception of our Bullhead City Superior Court facility, our other Courtrooms were not designed to accommodate television coverage and all of the equipment and television personnel that go with it.

(2)We do not have sufficient staff or security to properly handle media coverage contemplated by the modified Rule. We had one incident where a member of the general public tripped over TV cables and fell in the court hallway. The TV crew didn’t aid the person and they berated court staff, who did come to render aid. (The crew’s concern was focused on protecting their equipment.) The trial judge did not know about the incident until after the trial.

(3)Most of our high profile cases are heard in Kingman, our County seat. The Courthouse was built in 1914. According to the NCSC January 2007 New Law and Justice Needs Assessment Final Report the existing facility has major deficiencies. Appendix A to the Report sets forth the specific findings, including:

• Building layout poses “extreme difficulties” for security staff and emergency responders;
• Lack of provisions for the security and safety of the staff while in contact with the public, especially in high incident areas such as family court, domestic proceedings and the clerks counter;
• Lack of holding cells, separate circulation patterns, or appropriate waiting areas for in-custody defendants; and
• Lack of accessible areas for the disabled, including some restrooms on some floors.

(4)The proposed rule creates a new standard that is not well defined, and it places an additional and needless burden upon busy trial judges.

(5)I have no issue in letting each Judge make their individual decisions as to whether to permit media coverage or deny coverage.

(6)Some of our non-lawyer JPs and Magistrates may not truly reflect the highest levels of professionalism or knowledge, which would reflect poorly upon the judiciary as a whole.

Hon. Monica Stauffer, Presiding Judge in Greenlee County, has reviewed Judge Bartlett’s comments and generally agrees with his position. The Greenlee County Courthouse was constructed in 1911.

Wallace R. Hoggatt
Presiding Judge, Cochise County
100 Quality Hill
Bisbee, Arizona 85603
520-432-8540

The Superior Court bench in Cochise County is in unanimous opposition to the proposal to amend Rule 122. Of the six members of our bench, five have reviewed the comment from the Superior Court in Pima County and are in strong agreement with it. (The sixth judge has been out of the office this week and has not had an opportunity to read the draft, but in previous discussions he expressed opposition to the proposed amendment for many of the reasons stated in the Pima County comment.) Judge Kearney has done an excellent job in stating the numerous problems with the proposed change.

The judicial system was not created to ensure a continuing supply of video content for local news programs, cable news networks, reality television shows, or YouTube.

Randy Lovely
Editor, Vice President/News
The Arizona Republic
200 E. Van Buren St.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
602-444-8790
fax: 602-444-4420
[email protected]

I write in support of KPNX’s Petition to Amend Rule 122 of the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court concerning camera coverage of courtroom proceedings. I offer my comment as Editor and Vice President/News for Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., publisher of The Arizona Republic, which partners with KPNX in hosting the Web site, azcentral.com.

As the court well knows, Arizona has a long tradition of guaranteeing openness and transparency in government. Arizona’s Open Meetings and Public Records Laws are among the nation’s strongest, and the Arizona Constitution and this court’s rules create a presumption of public access to most court records and proceedings. In this tradition, this court first adopted Rule 122 in the mid-1980s, making Arizona a leader in allowing camera coverage of courtroom proceedings. Yet times have changed dramatically during the past few decades, and Rule 122 should be revised to reflect the unique role camera technology plays in conveying information to the public.

Camera technology has improved exponentially in the past few decades. Where newspapers previously used only still photographs in courtroom coverage, digital technology now enables Internet-streaming, opening courtrooms to viewers on the Internet. Contrary to the suggestions in the comment by the Pima County Bar Association, PNI’s cameras operate silently and without any external lights. Our journalists can photograph court proceedings without distracting participants by using a small camera in the back of the courtroom.

The public has come to rely on visual images as an information source more than ever before. Newspaper readership surveys show that readers are increasingly pressed for time. Photographs help the public process information and draw attention to important articles. On the Internet, camera coverage provides an in-depth source of information for readers who want to go beyond the information presented in the print edition. Photographs convey moods and emotions that are often difficult to capture with text alone.

KPNX’s proposed amendment to Rule 122 – as augmented by the Maricopa County Superior Court’s suggested language – appropriately addresses these realities. Under the current rule, trial courts frequently deny requests for camera coverage without explanation and without considering reasonable alternatives to prohibiting cameras altogether, such as limiting coverage of certain witnesses and evidence. As a result, the public often is deprived of photographic news reports, which sometimes can be the most efficient means of learning about the inner workings of the judicial system.

The Pima County Bar Association’s comment wrongly suggests that a “substantial likelihood of harm” standard would be difficult to apply and somehow lead to problems in different areas of the state. Yet the amendment preserves all the various protections in the current rule for fair trial rights, privacy of parties and witnesses, safety and well-being of trial participants, the risk of distractions and the adequacy of the courtroom’s physical facilities. By requiring findings before limiting or prohibiting camera coverage, the amendment simply encourages judges to examine these factors carefully and consider alternatives to a blanket prohibition on camera coverage. The proposed amendment allows the parties to request a hearing on any request for camera coverage or order allowing such coverage, and provides a modicum of due process to the decision-making process.

As KPNX’s Petition points out (pp. 6-7), studies of cameras in the courtroom have shown that photographic coverage does not detract from the dignity of judicial proceedings or distract participants. By contrast, the same studies have concluded that camera coverage improves the public’s knowledge of the judiciary and helps citizens relate the legal system to their everyday lives.

KPNX’s proposed amendment is entirely consistent with Arizona’s commitment to open government. By adopting the proposal, this court can continue its commitment to an informed society by recognizing the technological advances that have made cameras such an important information-gathering tool for journalists and the public in the last decade.

I urge the court to adopt KPNX’s proposed amendment to Rule 122, along with the revisions suggested by Maricopa County Superior Court.
Respectfully submitted,
Randy Lovely

R-07-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court

Honorable Paul a. Katz
Superior Court in Maricopa County
18380 N 40th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-506-5806

Daniel C. Barr
Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A.
2901 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 351-8085
Facsimile: (602) 647-7085
[email protected]
Bar No: 010149

Jennifer L. Peterson
Godfrey & Kahn
Post Office Box 2719
Madison, WI 53703-2719
Phone: 608-284-2649
Fax: 608-267-0609
Email: [email protected]

Wisconsin State Bar No. 1033482

Hon. Carmine Cornelio
Pima County Superior Court
110 W. Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701

Michelle Germano
KOLD News Director
7831 N. Business Park Drive
Tucson, Arizona 85743
Work Direct: 520-744-5299
Fax: 520-744-5235



My name is Michelle Germano and I work as news director at KOLD-TV, the CBS television affiliate in Tucson. I have worked at KOLD for the past seven years. I write in support of the petition.

In my experience, far too many Pima County judges routinely deny requests for photographic coverage without hearing or explanation. As a consequence, it is an exception, rather than rule that camera access is permitted to court proceedings in Pima County.

I have reviewed the Petition submitted by KPNX and the various comments filed in response, including the proposed revision submitted by the Maricopa County Superior Court, the comment of the First Amendment Coalition and the comment by the Pima County Superior Court. I strongly urge the Court to adopt KPNX’s proposed rule change with the revisions suggested by the Maricopa County Superior Court and the First Amendment Coalition.

In response to the comment submitted by the Pima County Superior Court, I note that nothing in KPNX’s proposed rule would require a trial court to delay an upcoming hearing or trial. Rather, the revision suggested by the Maricopa County Superior Court streamlines the camera coverage request process by allowing trial judges to consider the timeliness of a request as one of the factors in deciding whether to allow camera coverage. The main change to the Rule would simply be the addition of basic due-process requirements before judges can arbitrarily deny requests for camera coverage.

The proposed amendment to Rule 122 will benefit members of the public – whether they receive their news from television, newspapers or the Internet – by allowing more and better coverage of the courts. In my opinion, those benefits greatly outweigh any inconvenience occasioned by the duty to articulate a basis for denying camera coverage.

Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Germano

Kathleen Choal
News Director News 4, KVOA-TV
209 W. Elm St.
Tucson, AZ 85705
520-792-2270 (office)
520-884-4644 (fax)

My name is Kathleen Choal and I am the News Director at KVOA-TV, the NBC affiliate in Tucson. I write to urge the Court to adopt the amendment to Rule 122 proposed by KPNX.
In my experience in Tucson, trial judges routinely deny requests for camera coverage and offer no rhyme or reason for their decisions. The proposed rule change would improve this process by imposing minimal due process requirements – judicial findings – before a court could close proceedings to camera coverage. The rule will encourage judges to consider the Rule 122 factors before banning photographic coverage, and to consider whether alternatives exist to a complete prohibition of coverage. The result will be greater transparency and understanding of the courts – and an improved flow of news and information to the public.
I have reviewed the petition submitted by KPNX and the various comments filed in response, including the comment by the Pima County Superior Court. I take issue with the suggestion by the Pima County presiding judge that the petition was submitted to further the “commercial” interests of television stations. Requiring judicial findings before closing legal proceedings to cameras does not advance the financial interests of any media company. But it would result in more fairness and accountability in decisions that affect the public’s ability to monitor court proceedings.
This Court has taken the lead in recognizing the public’s reliance on video images as sources of news and information. All media outlets – television, print and internet – are united in the belief that KPNX’s petition is consistent with this fact and with the Court’s commitment to open court proceedings.
I strongly urge the Court to adopt KPNX’s proposed rule change with the revisions suggested by the Maricopa County Superior Court and the First Amendment Coalition.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Choal

Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq.
Executive Director
[email protected]

Gregg P. Leslie, Esq.
Legal Defense Director
[email protected]

Matthew B. Pollack, Esq.
Reporters Committee Legal Fellow
[email protected]

1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
Telephone: 703.807.2100
Facsimile: 703.807.2109
www.rcfp.org

Dee-Dee Samet
717 N. 6th Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85705
520-624-8595
[email protected]
Pima County Bar
177 N. Church
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-623-8258