MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE

SUMMARY: Maryland is one of nine states that forbids the use of broadcasting, recording or photographic equipment in criminal trial courts.

In 1980 the Court of Appeals adopted Maryland Rule 1209 to permit extended media coverage of court proceedings on an experimental basis. A few months later, however, the General Assembly passed legislation prohibiting extended coverage of criminal proceedings in trial courts (Article 27, Section 467B). Over the next two years experiments were conducted with greater media coverage of civil cases in the circuit courts and a permanent rule permitting this type of access was approved in 1984. This rule was expanded to allow coverage of the appellate courts in 1992.

Although Rule 1209 allows extended media coverage of all civil actions in the trial and appellate courts there are certain restrictions. Requests from the broadcast media for access must be filed on a timely basis, written consent must be obtained from all parties involved in the case, and the coverage may not place a burden on courtroom equipment or personnel.

Supporters of opening up criminal cases to television and radio broadcasters contend that the justice system has nothing to fear from greater public access to the courts, and more media coverage would serve to educate the public about legal proceedings. They point out that the development of unobtrusive filming and audio equipment has eliminated concerns over disruption of court proceedings. As to fears that lawyers would use the media to grandstand, and that jury members may be intimidated or distracted, proponents of lifting the prohibition contend that competent judges can curb excesses and protect juries from threats or the fear of retaliation.

Opponents of any change in current practice insist that allowing electronic media into criminal trials is inconsistent with the purpose of proceedings which is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to titillate a prurient viewing public. They argue that docudramas that exploit rumors and market them as fact, and sleazy pseudo-news programs and talk shows that compete with each other to glorify depravity would exploit filming of trials as a means of boosting ratings. Foes of altering the rules also point to the broadcast of sensational criminal trials that have received extensive coverage in recent years which they feel jeopardizes the defendants' rights to a fair trial before an impartial jury.

Legislation to remove the statutory ban on cameras in the courtroom during criminal trials passed the State Senate in 1994 but failed by one vote to pass the House Judiciary Committee. The 1995 version of the bill contained detailed language regulating the uses of broadcasting equipment in addition to repealing the existing statute. The proposal was withdrawn by sponsors in the face of strong opposition from the House Judiciary Committee, and has not been introduced since that time.

MSBA 2002 POSITION: Support legislation that will reestablish the jurisdiction of the Courts in regulating extended coverage of criminal trials (Rule 1209).

SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
Senate Bill 13, General Assembly of Maryland, 1994
House Bill 609, General Assembly of Maryland, 1995

Return to 2002 Final State Legislative Program Table of Contents

Back To Top