Code of Judicial Administration

CJA 04-0401.01. Electronic media coverage of court proceedings. Amend. Provides a presumption of electronic media coverage in court proceedings where the predominant purpose of the coverage is journalism or dissemination of news to the public. Provides that all requests for electronic media coverage must come through the court’s public information office. Requires that news reporters providing pool coverage shall promptly share their files with other news reporters and that news reporters must be willing and able to share their files to be approved to provide coverage.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
17 thoughts on “Code of Judicial Administration
  1. Russell Minas

    With respect to CJA 04-401.01, I oppose the proposed change to Lines 27-28. Where an action is classified as private, usually family-related, the burden should rest on the journalist to demonstrate that electronic media coverage outweighs the presumption of privacy, not the other way around.

     
  2. Eric Johnson

    The express purpose of UCJA 4-401.01 was to open public court proceedings to greater public access, but that has not been how the rule is applied. When the original version of 4-401.01 was issued, I started the Utah Family Law TV channel for the purpose of reporting on the operations of Utah courts in domestic relations cases.
    My channel’s stated purpose (written on the channel site itself) is “Utah Family Law TV, and the reporters connected with it, gather, record, photograph, report, and publish information for the primary purpose of disseminating news and information to the public pertaining to Utah family law and other domestic relations matters.”
    As soon as UTFLTV started making electronic media coverage requests, however, the courts reacted with patently lame excuses for denying the requests. Without wishing to appear immodest, my channel is the reason why Rule 4-401.01 was amended in April of 2014 to make it more difficult (though ostensibly not impossible) to cover public domestic relations proceedings. No matter how UTFLTV offers to bend over backward by volunteering to blot out faces, bleep out words, and any other reasonable accommodation so that the news can be reported without unduly invading the privacy of others, our requests are routinely denied statewide. Not because the requests are improper or will cause harm, but because the courts don’t want themselves covered by the news media.
    My concern, then is this: it appears to me, based upon my experience as an electronic media journalist, that Utah courts want credit for appearing more open to electronic news media coverage without actually being more open to electronic news media coverage.
    This new proposed amendment language, if applied in the spirit of Rule 4-401.01’s stated intent, would strike a fine balance between public access, freedom of the press, and preservation of participant privacy.
    HOWEVER, the language can be (and surely will be, based upon my previous experience) construed so that the courts can define who or what is a journalist because the rule does not define the term. Making the definition a purely subjective one will–mark my words–will result in courts capriciously defining “journalist” and “news reporter” and “predominant purpose” on a shifting, ludicrously narrow, and case by case basis not for the purpose of protecting privacy, but to keep reporters they do not want in the courtrooms out and allowing those they do want in.

     
  3. Nate Carlisle

    To whom it may concern:
    I support the proposed changes to CJA-04-0401.01 and ask they please be adopted.
    I am a reporter at The Salt Lake Tribune and am on the board of the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Utah Association of Latino Journalists. The proposals safeguard news gathering in courts. The technical changes are prudent.
    Thank you.
    Nate Carlisle

     
  4. Commissioner T. Patrick Casey

    The exception for private cases is justified. It is impossible for the Court to police how information is used and disseminated outside the courtroom, and the privacy interests of parties and children in those proceedings are more important than the claimed interest, asserted by a certain operator of a private website, in being able to make and publish recordings of court hearings for “educational purposes.” In the event a particular hearing or case is in fact newsworthy, it may be appropriate to conduct a hearing to determine whether the privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in news.
    As it is, we are inundated by requests by this one website operator, who happens to also be a practicing family lawyer, with requests to record proceedings that on their face have no general newsworthiness. His position is that he is no different than any other media outlet, and that he does not have to prove that a case is newsworthy because of the presumption provided by the rule (even though the rule as now written excepts domestic and other private cases from the presumption). I have determined that, although the rule presently allows an ex parte request, I would not consider allowing such a request except after notice to all parties and counsel and an opportunity to be heard on the subject. This puts the requesting party in the position of being able to, if nothing else, subject the parties to unnecessary expense, and possibly a delay of a hearing so the issue of whether to allow recording can be heard (these requests are generally made on just a few days’ notice). It also puts a potentially significant additional burden on the court and staff. I do not know how else I could possibly make the necessary findings in a fair way. And frankly, I do not know how I can make findings about what the “purpose” of the request is, at least not without, again, taking evidence and allowing all parties and counsel to be heard on the issue. I do not think changing the rule to limit the presumption to genuine journalistic and news-gathering activities is going to do anything other than shift the focus of the inquiry.

     
  5. Griffin Bonacci

    To whom it concerns,
    I am the chair of Reform Utah Family Law, and we are a local organization working toward more transparency and accountability within our district courts, particularly family courts. There is a major lack of transparency at this point within our courts, and the fact that the courts took away our rights as media outlets to record and report the outcome of the family law cases, further perpetuates the ever growing belief among the public and thousands of parents that there is a clear bias and clear violation of due process, violation of parental rights and clear violation by judges of our state and federal constitutional rights as parents. We have been meeting with state and federal lawmakers to seek this change and others to provide clear transparency in our judicial system, as there should now be. We srtrongly support and encourage this change to the law, as we are going to continue to push for this reform if it is not approved here.

     
  6. Danny

    I feel the conduct of the officers of the court should conduct themselves with the up most scrutiny.
    The ability to cover the court will ensure compliance with the law. It will also provide those with memory issues, such as those which come with PTSD or other cases of personal trauma. To deny this is to descriminat against those who need the system to be fair and impartial holding court officers accountable to the people they serve.

     
  7. Brian N.Godfrey

    Commissioner Casey’s comments are misrepresentations for the following reasons (which can be confirmed in the record):
    1) The electronic media coverage requests you claim to be “inundated by” are in actual number of less than 10 over the course of several months. There were two people submitting them, Eric Johnson, and myself.
    2) To suggest that a practicing lawyer cannot also be a reporter is an argument with more holes than Swiss cheese. Making mention of the fact that Eric Johnson is also a family law attorney (as well as a news reporter) only serves to divert from the facts that really matter: that the majority of Utah courts have long flouted UCJA 4-401.01 (in any form) and have every intention of continuing to do so (especially regarding smaller media outlets), no matter what form UCJA 4-401.01 takes. It’s appalling and I won’t mince words about my feelings regarding the matter. No “legal smoke screen” will change the facts, and frankly, the citizens of Utah are not that stupid.
    3) Why do the courts not want the public to have access to public court proceedings through the news media? The elephant in the room has long been ignored and it’s high time it be properly addressed. Transparency at all levels of state and local government is crucial not only to maintaining respect for the government, but also in maintaining respect for the laws or individuals that govern our land or are voted into positions to do so.
    4) Utah Family Law TV is not a “private website,” it’s a YouTube channel. Commissioner Blomquist denied a Utah Family Law TV request because she–fatuously–claimed Utah Family Law TV is not a commercial news outlet, and you, Commissioner Casey, complain that Utah Family Law TV is a “private” news outlet, as if the local KSL, KUTV, CBS, and Fox affiliates aren’t private companies, and as if being a private entity has anything to do with one’s legitimacy as a news outlet.
    I started my YouTube channel (Utah Justice TV) before I was employed by Eric Johnson. Contrary to what you claim, Utah Justice TV is not a website, it is a YouTube channel. It is not a commercial channel (not that that should matter). For nearly a year now, Utah Justice TV and Utah Family Law TV have seen every kind of lame excuse in the book used to deny reporting on public court proceedings, the same proceedings any member of the public can attend in person. I have reported news to my community long before I started the Utah Justice TV YouTube Channel. I am a news reporter as UCJA 4-401.01 defines the term, which (for the readers) reads as follows:
    (1)(D) “News reporter” as used in this rule means a publisher, editor, reporter or other similar person who gathers, records, photographs, reports, or publishes information for the primary purpose of disseminating news to the public, and any newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, press association or wire service, radio station, television station, satellite broadcast, cable system or other organization with whom that person is connected.
    5) I understand if you (as a Commissioner) would prefer to never have to deal with reporting of what goes on in your courtroom. To have the option of simply shutting the door of the public court room in the face of any reporter wishing to report the news has obvious personal benefits. But courts are open to the public, so your desire to bar the door to the news media doesn’t hold water.
    6) With extremely rare exception the courts deny any media coverage request of mine or of Utah Family Law TV. Some requests that were obviously of interest to the public, yet were denied out of hand. Case and point: my electronic media request to Judge Hruby-Mills for the criminal proceedings in the Alicia Englert (the young mother who put her baby in a garbage can) case (Case No. 141909909) that was set for January 26, 2015. Case No. 141909909 was presumptively entitled to electronic media coverage, but that didn’t stop Judge Hruby-Mills from denying my request on, frankly, fake grounds. Judge Hruby-Mills’s denial was so broad as to be meaningless, and it did not comply with subparagraph (2)(C) of UCJA 4-401.01. subparagraph (2)(C) of UCJA 4-401.01 requires every judge or commissioner who denies an electronic media coverage request to do as follows:
    (2)(C) If the judge prohibits or restricts electronic media coverage, the judge shall make particularized findings orally or in writing on the record. Any written order denying a request for electronic media coverage shall be made part of the case record.
    Judge Hruby-Mills did no such thing. But so what? If a judge denies a request, there is no option other than to file a petition for extraordinary writ under Rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The judges know that this means they essentially have license to flout UCJA 4-401.01 with impunity, and they exercise it licentiously.
    7) The lame excuse for denying coverage to “protect privacy” is simply a matter of convenience, and if allowed, freedom of press in Utah means nothing. No public court proceeding can be private, but that doesn’t stop the judges from “finding” otherwise. Domestic relations cases that are open to the public can’t be private. One can request a copy of the audio recording of domestic relations cases for $10.
    8) Surely providing transparency to educate the public and hold our courts more accountable (without having to spend a penny of taxpayer money) is, by itself, worth providing the public with greater access to public court proceedings. When Judge Damon Keith said, “Democracy dies in darkness” he was talking about the Watergate tapes, but what he said is just as relevant about UCJA 4-401.01 electronic media requests. I second Eric Johnson’s accusation that Rule 4-401.01 was changed because of our electronic media requests, because I watched it happen with my own eyes.
    Mr. Minas,
    Your comments and actions have a self-serving agenda of their own because you aspire to become a domestic relations commissioner. A reporter should never have “to prove newsworthiness” when the very subject of the news may be the court proceedings themselves. This Catch-22 thinking fools no one. Certainly pedophiles would much prefer to keep their crimes and secrets private as well. It’s a good thing for the public at large, however, that a pedophile is not given the right to deny media coverage. The same thing happens to one falsely accused of such horrible or violent crimes, when or if it was determined that same accused was actually innocent. What about these people? As much as I wish to protect the innocent, banning the media from public proceedings(s) places privacy over freedom of the press and the public’s right to access public court proceedings and is a disservice to Utahns overall, not the other way around.
    In a nutshell, the greater good should prevail.

     
  8. George Severson

    Judicial Council Members must be commended for taking steps to restore the proper balance to rule CJA 04-0401.01. All public hearings should be treated equally and remain open for electronic media coverage for the benefit of the people the media serve with the purpose of journalism or dissemination of news to the public. As the News Director of two news-producing television stations in Utah, I certainly appreciate the integrity of our courts and the judge’s retaining the right to individually decide whether EMC coverage is allowed on a case by case basis, rather than eliminating an entire category of cases out right. Restricting or shutting off access to courtroom proceedings only reduces public confidence in and the accountability of our court system. I ask the court to carefully consider the sincere intention of EMC requests made with the purpose of gathering information to disseminate to the public and in doing so, it would be appreciated if the court would acknowledge the ever-changing news gathering technology used to do so and not use its authority to overly restrict who is considered a journalist, taking into consideration nontraditional media is increasingly important. In turn, I encourage all journalists granted courtroom coverage to respect the rules of the courtroom and the requirement that they must be able to share their coverage with the pool in a timely manner and generally accepted format.
    I support the proposed changes to this rule and appreciate the cooperation and careful consideration of the Judicial Council.
    Thank you,
    George Severson
    News Director
    ABC4 Utah & Utah’s CW30

     
  9. Mehul Asher

    Members of the Judicial Council,
    I support the proposed changes for this rule.
    The presumption of electronic media coverage only applies to any hearing that is already open to the public. If any party has privacy concerns then they should ask the judge to close the hearing, otherwise let’s always keep all of Utah’s courtrooms open and accessible to more than just the people that can appear in person.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Mehul Asher
    Assignment Editor
    KUTV Channel 2 News

     
  10. Christine

    My comment is made with the deepest desire that the legal system have the necessary checks and balances in place to bring about justice for all, as our constitution states. I believe allowing electronic coverage of what the judges and commissioners are doing, currently behind closed doors, will bring that balance back into the court room.
    My comment is made as one who has experienced blatant violation of civil rights by a commissioner and judge. Federal statute states, witnesses to crimes are to be protected from harm, namely retaliation. However, in Utah a wife cannot testify against her husband. I reported my husband for illegal distribution of drugs. The sheriff’s detective told me that it is like the Susan Powell case; that the word of a wife cannot be used against her husband. I gave evidence to help Dr. Dewey MacKay’s sentence be reduced.
    Now, my husband is prosecuting me. I fully believe if what he has done in “family” court were made public the commissioner and judge would hide their heads in shame. Yet legal abuse is a common place thing in Utah. Justice is doled out to the rich. I actually had an attorney, who has the reputation to be one of the very best tell me women and children are not mentioned in the constitution. This is wrong.
    We need accountability for what our judges and commissioners are doing. At this point, there is none. They do whatever they feel and there is no possibility of appealing, except for the wealthy. I whole heartedly support this change and pray cameras and reporters be allowed into the courtrooms for the sake of justice for all.

     
  11. Mike Cavender

    As the largest national professional organization exclusively representing electronic journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) wholeheartedly supports this revision to the electronic media coverage rules in the Utah Code of Judicial Administration.
    Approval of this change, which would reopen domestic case court hearings to electronic news coverage, would mark a return to the original intent of the Utah “cameras in the courtroom” rule in effect for the last two years. RTDNA believes there should be a presumption of openness in all court proceedings, including those involving family law and electronic media coverage should be allowed unless one or more of the parties can successfully argue otherwise to the Court.
    At all levels, full transparency is critical in our judicial system. RTDNA has long-argued for such provisions in local, state and federal courts. Utah took an important step in 2013 when it became the 38th state to allow electronic news coverage of its courts. Unfortunately, it took a step backward a year later when it modified the rule so as to exclude that coverage in family court cases. We believe the citizenry of every state has a right to observe its government—including the judicial branch—conducting its business and making its decisions. By returning the Utah cameras rule to its original intent, the state courts will move one step closer to that goal. RTDNA strongly urges adoption of the proposed change to Rule 4-401.01.
    Respectfully,
    Mike Cavender
    Executive Director
    Radio Television Digital News Association

     
  12. Don Kauffman

    I support and appreciate the change to restore openness. Allowing the opportunity for the public, via the press, to view and better understand the court system in action improves civic understanding, and trust in the judicial system.
    This is a necessary and important change.

     
  13. Sheryl Worsley

    I would like to applaud the Judicial Council for drafting a rule that would restore the presumption of open to family hearings and renew the opportunity for electronic media coverage. I encourage those who have a vote to cast their ballot in favor of the proposed change.
    Domestic court cases are the hearings with which most people are likely to interact. Closing these hearings sets a dangerous precedent and says to our citizens the work of our judicial system and government can and should be conducted behind closed doors. Blocking EMC also erodes the spirit of the original rule, which affirmed our courts are open- until there is a good reason for closure. If there are privacy or other concerns in a family hearing, each judge has the opportunity under the original or restored rule, to decline the request for video or other electronic coverage for good reason.
    Shutting off the opportunity for video and other electronic coverage is a signal in the minds of some that they can’t be confident in what the judicial system is doing because they can’t see it in action. Closure limits accountability.
    Utah was recognized two years ago for taking the important and historic step into the light of transparency by allowing EMC. Please remove the cloud the court created by closing family cases. The proposed change to 4-401.01 is a good one. I applaud you for drafting it and urge you to vote in favor.
    Sheryl Worsley, News Director, KSL Newsradio

     
  14. Eric Johnson

    What Commissioner Casey wrote (in his post of March 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM) is neither completely true nor truly complete, as he either knows or should know. I respond to his comments below. I mean the Commissioner no disrespect in differing with him or in correcting his misstatements.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: The exception for private cases is justified. It is impossible for the Court to police how information is used and disseminated outside the courtroom, and the privacy interests of parties and children in those proceedings are more important than the claimed interest, asserted by a certain operator of a private website, in being able to make and publish recordings of court hearings for “educational purposes.”
    THE FACTS: Virtually all news media outlets are “private.” Free countries with free presses thankfully do not limit the news to state-owned and run outlets. Their private ownership status does not constitute a threat to the integrity of public court proceedings. Utah Family Law TV is not a private website, it’s a YouTube channel and it does not promote any law firm. It does, obviously, feature a lot of content produced by the channel’s owner and operator, but that should come as no surprise. Eric Johnson owns and operates the Utah Family Law TV (UFLTV) channel, but he does not advertise for his law firm on it, even though he could without that constituting a violation of UCJA 4-401.01.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: In the event a particular hearing or case is in fact newsworthy, it may be appropriate to conduct a hearing to determine whether the privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in news.
    THE FACTS: 1) With rare (but reasonable) exception, determining what is newsworthy is not the province of the very subject of the news, i.e., the judges and commissioners whose public proceedings are the subject of the electronic media coverage requests.
    2) Commissioner Casey argues for hearings to determine whether electronic media coverage request should be granted, but then complains in the same breath that such would constitute an unfair burden on the courts. UCJA was written such that it does not require a hearing as a precondition to granting an electronic media coverage request. The reason for this should be obvious. UCJA 4-401.01 was intended to make news coverage of public proceedings easy, not an additional procedural burden to the courts.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: As it is, we are inundated by requests by this one website operator, who happens to also be a practicing family lawyer, with requests to record proceedings that on their face have no general newsworthiness.
    THE FACTS: The courts are hardly “inundated” (besides, if they would allow some coverage, they wouldn’t receive so many requests). I have asked Commissioner Casey and other judges and commissioners who have denied UFLTV’s electronic media coverage requests to give me their definition, their elements of “newsworthy.” None of them do, none of them will. Judges and commissioner (to which I will collectively refer as “courts”) refuse to do it because courts know that as soon as they try to articulate a written definition or set of elements (a definition that will clearly and self-servingly be as narrowly and restrictively defined so as to prevent as much electronic news media coverage as possible), they will realize that 90% of what the news media broadcast now wouldn’t meet the court’s definition of newsworthy, and the court would be exposed in its scheme. When the courts, who are themselves the subject of the electronic media coverage request, also take upon themselves the role of determining what is newsworthy, is it any wonder that they will end up “finding” and “concluding” that that virtually all public proceedings are not newsworthy? This is one of the reasons why UCJA 4-401.01 was broadly, not narrowly drafted. The express purpose of UCJA 4-401.01 was to make public proceedings more open to the news media, not less.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: His position is that he is no different than any other media outlet, and that he does not have to prove that a case is newsworthy because of the presumption provided by the rule (even though the rule as now written excepts domestic and other private cases from the presumption).
    THE FACTS: Nowhere in UCJA 4-401.01 is there a requirement that a news media outlet must “be no different than any other media outlet” to be considered a news reporter. Nowhere in UCJA 4-401.01 is there a requirement that a request for electronic media coverage prove that a case is newsworthy as a condition of the request being granted. And as the Commissioner and his colleagues well know, even when UFLTV asks courts (and we have asked repeatedly) to articulate the standard of proof (the extralegal standard of proof that UCJA 4-401.01 does not contain but that many courts nonetheless seemingly feel free to impose) “required” to prove newsworthiness, my request for that clarification and guidance is utterly ignored.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: I have determined that, although the rule presently allows an ex parte request, I would not consider allowing such a request except after notice to all parties and counsel and an opportunity to be heard on the subject.
    THE FACTS: Again, UCJA 4-401.01 contains no such requirement, and arguably the court cannot impose additional restrictions on electronic news media requests that are not provided for in the rule. But reasonable minds can differ, and if the court wants to require a hearing to determine newsworthiness before an electronic media coverage request is granted, I would be willing to oblige, at least on an experimental basis. The courts, however, would be in no position to complain about the extra time and effort hearings on electronic media coverage requests would consume. UCJA 4-401.01 was drafted—for obviously good reason—such that a hearing on every electronic media request would not be necessary.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: This puts the requesting party in the position of being able to, if nothing else, subject the parties to unnecessary expense, and possibly a delay of a hearing so the issue of whether to allow recording can be heard (these requests are generally made on just a few days’ notice). It also puts a potentially significant additional burden on the court and staff. I do not know how else I could possibly make the necessary findings in a fair way. And frankly, I do not know how I can make findings about what the “purpose” of the request is, at least not without, again, taking evidence and allowing all parties and counsel to be heard on the issue.
    THE FACTS: Commissioner Casey cannot advocate for requiring hearings and then complain about the burdens of a hearings in the same breath. If a court is going unilaterally going to compel news reporters to request a hearing and then unilaterally compel the reporters, the litigants, the court to participate in a hearing process (which UCJA 4-401.01 does not require), then it is indisputably the COURT, not the news reporter, that subjects the parties to unnecessary expense and delay. I have never asked that my electronic media coverage requests be granted if and only if they are first the subject of notice and a hearing. UCJA does not require hearings.
    COMMISSIONER CASEY WROTE: I do not think changing the rule to limit the presumption to genuine journalistic and news-gathering activities is going to do anything other than shift the focus of the inquiry.
    THE TRUTH: With due respect, is it so difficult to conceive of a “genuine journalistic and news-gathering activity” including the coverage of public domestic relations proceedings? First, it’s already happening in many other jurisdictions without the judiciary in those jurisdictions collapsing. Second (and this is something the courts appear to prefer no one know, UFLTV’s electronic media requests hold themselves to a higher standard than what is articulated in UCJA 4-401.01 itself. Until the Administrative Office of the Courts media liaison office forbid us to include this information in each of our electronic media requests, this is what each of UFLTV’s media requests voluntarily offered to in covering and publishing news of public court proceedings:
    Please allow us some kind of coverage. Please see the next page for the voluntary restrictions we are willing to impose on ourselves to ensure that electronic media coverage more than reasonably safeguards the proceedings and their participants.
    PLEASE NOTE: This reporter is more than willing to report subject to any reasonable restriction(s) the court deems necessary to protect against real (not merely feared/imagined) prejudice or any other harm articulated in 4-401.01.
    NO REQUEST IS MADE TO COVER ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOLLOWING ACTION(S). NO REQUEST IS MADE TO COVER ANY IN-CAMERA, OFF THE RECORD PORTION, OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS THAT RULE 4-401.01 PROHIBITS FROM BEING REPORTED.
    PLEASE NOTE: Electronic media coverage and protection of privacy and other interests of litigants and witnesses is not an all or nothing proposition. Rule 4-401.01 provides that a court may prohibit or restrict electronic media coverage of public court proceedings. Accordingly, if the court has concerns over privacy or other real dangers that electronic media coverage actually creates (as opposed to concern arising from rumored or conjectural “risks” of “possible” and/or “potential” harm, which are limited only by the power of one’s imagination), UFLTV and this reporter are willing to submit to reasonable, good faith restrictions on media coverage, and to those ends:
    • have the ability—and is willing—to blot out faces and/or to “bleep out” key words and information on particular subjects designated by the court, if the court in good faith concludes that it is truly necessary to do so under Rule 4-401.01;
    • will not identify parties or witnesses by names, images, or case number;
    • will not publish our report until after the period for filing an appeal had expired, if the court so requires;
    • will give the court, participants, and their counsel (if any) upon request the opportunity to review the report we intend to publish before we publish it to ensure the report complies with the court’s orders pertaining to protection of privacy;
    • are willing to cooperate with the court fully in any and all other ways necessary to ensure that electronic media coverage of proceedings takes place in compliance with the policy, intent, and express substance of Rule 4-401.01.
    If these assurances are not deemed more than reasonable and sufficient to assuage concerns, we submit that nothing will or can be, thus rendering the purpose of UCJA 4-401.01 illusory and its implementation meaningless.
    PLEASE NOTE FURTHER: We desire nothing other than to gather, record, photograph, report, and publish information for the purpose of disseminating news to the public about divorce and family law and family law-related matters in Utah. We have neither the intention nor desire to: prejudice the proceedings; jeopardize the safety or well-being of any individual; commit an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; create adverse effects greater than those caused by electronic media coverage; tax the adequacy of the court’s physical facilities; or otherwise adversely affect the fair administration of justice.
    A far greater percentage of the public seek personal knowledge and understanding of the workings of domestic relations law in the district courts than of virtually any other civil action. This public interest in divorce and other domestic relations proceedings makes them newsworthy in their own right. Despite the public nature of family law proceedings in the district courts, few members of the public can or know how to come to a courthouse in person during the day to see what is happening in their courts, even though the courts are wide open to the public. It is a good thing for people to know what is happening in the courts; they are their courts. The benefits outweigh negatives, especially in creating a better understanding of and appreciation domestic relations and other matters for the public.

     
  15. McKenzie Romero

    On behalf of the Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and as a reporter myself, I applaud the Utah State Courts for moving toward restoring a presumption of access for media in family court hearings.
    It is important to note that the access granted by Rule 4-401.01 would be in force whenever a hearing is already open to the public, illustrating that media access and public access are, and should be, the same.
    I would like to thank the Utah State Courts for providing the public access to their justice system and urge that the amendment to Rule 4-401.01 be accepted.
    Thank you,
    McKenzie Romero
    President – SPJ Utah Headliners Chapter
    Reporter – Deseret News

     
  16. Ben Winslow

    I write in support of the proposed modification to 04-0401.01.
    The courts took a bold leap forward into the next era by allowing cameras and other electronic devices in the courtroom for news-gathering/disseminating purposes. I believe it has proven to be a success and provided greater knowledge of the role of the judiciary, as well as education about how the law functions in our society.
    This modification to the rule restores access to all aspects of the court system, while providing some safeguards for concerns.
    I urge members of the Judicial Council to vote in favor of it.
    Regards,
    -Ben Winslow
    Reporter, FOX 13 News

     
  17. David Reymann

    As co-chair of the Bench-Media Subcommittee where these changes originated, and as someone who has worked closely on these issues over the past two years, I commend the Judicial Council for responding to the prior public comments and proposing these changes to Rule 4-401.01. The changes wisely restore the presumption of electronic media coverage for public hearings in domestic cases. Categorically exempting all domestic hearings from the bedrock presumption of EMC was a slippery slope that was contrary to the entire purpose of the rule — establishing a presumptive right of access to all public hearings, while granting judges the discretion to make individual determinations on a hearing-by-hearing basis. While domestic cases have their fair share of privacy issues, those cases have no monopoly on sensitive issues in litigation. Where the hearings at issue are already open to the public, there is no justification for categorically excluding all EMC from all domestic hearings without any case-specific determinations. The proposed changes restore the proper balance to the rule and should be adopted.
    With respect to the two changes that do not deal with the presumption of access — the clarification that EMC is allowed where “the predominant purpose of the electronic media coverage request is journalism or dissemination of news to the public,” and the changes to the pooling provision that require all EMC to be pool-capable — are fine as written. But I would underscore that I hope these provisions are not used in practice to exclude non-traditional media. Bloggers, student journalists, and other legitimate non-institutional reporters should not be presumed to be acting as non-journalists simply because they do not work for a major news outlet. Nor should the pooling requirement that video be capable of sharing in a “generally accepted format” be interpreted to require expensive equipment unavailable to non-traditional media, thus excluding them from every EMC request. As the Judicial Council recognized in its comments when it adopted Rule 509 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, “[w]hile there are not many ‘lone pamphleteers’ still functioning, they may have modern-day counterparts on the internet.” I would encourage the Council and the judiciary to recognize the flexible nature of journalists as our sources of news continue to evolve. Whether the requirements of the rule are met in this respect is, again, best left to the sound discretion of judges in each particular case.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these changes.