The LuLac Edition #4,108, July 10th, 2019

WRITE ON WEDNESDAY

Our “Write On Wednesday” logo

Open court hearings? Judge Ito during the O.J. trial pretty much gave them a bad name but sometimes, especially in local affairs involving political corruption they might be useful if not downright necessary. Here’s this week’s “Write On Wednesday”. From the Citizens’ Voice.

‘OPEN’ COURT IN TV BLACKOUT

Former Scranton mayor and newly minted felon Bill Courtright pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that constitute a betrayal of his duty to the people of Scranton.
To say that his case was of public interest is an understatement. Scrantonians had anticipated an indictment or plea ever since the FBI raided Courtright’s City Hall office and his house in January.
But when Courtright entered the federal courthouse in Williamsport to enter a plea before President Judge Christopher C. Conner, he retreated into the land of the visual blackout. Federal and Pennsylvania state courts continue to maintain a senseless, archaic policy that precludes even proceedings of utmost public interest from being photographed or televised. Technology has eliminated the original objections to photographed and televised proceedings.
There is no longer a valid argument that the equipment would distract jurors, lawyers or witnesses, as demonstrated regularly in state jurisdictions where photography and television in court are now part of the routine. The other major objection traditionally has been that some lawyers would play to the cameras rather than to the court to influence the court of public opinion. But that’s what judges are for; allowing cameras would not dilute judges’ powers to control their courtrooms. The courts, like the two other branches of government, conduct public business.
To reject the use of technology that enables the public to better experience the judicial branch’s operation is contrary to the public interest. It severely limits public access and perpetuates public ignorance about crucial civic institutions. That is doubly unfortunate when a corruption case like Courtright’s gets to court — a sadly frequent occurrence in Northeast Pennsylvania.
The United States has open courts primarily to prevent the government from railroading anyone by exposing cases to public scrutiny. The federal and Pennsylvania courts should more fully embrace the opportunity to meet that goal by opening the proceedings to the full degree that modern technology easily allows