Opening Statement

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on:
H.R. 917, the “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2013”
Before the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Wednesday, December 3, 2014, at 1:00 a.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

     H.R. 917, THE “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act,” would authorize “photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting or televising” of any court proceeding held in federal district court, the circuit court of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, subject to certain exceptions.

     As many of you may recall, the Committee on the Judiciary considered legislation substantially identical to H.R. 917, the “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act,” in 2007.  Although I voted in favor of this prior legislation, I nevertheless have several concerns.

     Most importantly, I want the proponents of H.R. 917 to address the Judicial Conference’s observation that this measure could potentially impair the fundamental right of a citizen to a fair and impartial trial.

     For example, Justice Elena Kagan earlier this year said that televised coverage of federal court proceedings would encourage participants to “play to the camera.”  In fact, the Supreme Court in Estes v. Texas, a case involving a state criminal trial that was televised, observed:

The chief function of our judicial machinery is to ascertain the truth.  The use of television, however, cannot be said to contribute materially to this objective.  Rather, its use amounts to the injection of an irrelevant factor into court proceedings.  In addition, experience teaches that there are numerous situations in which it might cause actual unfairness – some so subtle as to defy detection by the accused or control by the judge.

     Accordingly, I want the proponents of H.R. 917 to explain how the bill does not undermine a citizen’s right to due process and a fair trial.

     Second, we should ensure that the bill adequately protects the privacy rights of participants in federal judicial proceedings.

     Clearly, we must be cognizant of the fact that electronic media coverage presents the prospect of public disclosure of personal information that may have a material effect on an individual’s willingness to testify or lace an individual at risk of being a target for retribution or intimidation.  I realize the bill authorizes a witness’s image and voice to be obscured, under certain circumstances.  But, is this sufficient to protect the witness’s privacy?

     Finally, we must be mindful of the need to ensure the safety and security of our judges, law enforcement officers and other participants in the judicial process.  Some believe that cameras in the courtroom could heighten the level of and potential threats to federal judges, particularly those proceedings involving highly controversial matters.

     The Judicial Conference is currently in the midst of a pilot program – expected to conclude next July – that among other things, is examining the impact of electronic media on the safety and security of the courtroom.  Hopefully, that test program will provide some guidance on this issue so that court security is not undermined.

      At this point, I would like to yield my remaining time to my colleague, Ted Deutch, an original cosponsor of H.R. 917, to offer remarks.