Televised High Court Hearings Backed : Public Understanding Would Be Enhanced, Stevens Believes

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that public understanding of the high court would be enhanced if proceedings in some of its major cases were televised.

“In my view, it’s worth a try,” Stevens said on the final day of the annual 9th Circuit Judicial Conference at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel.

Stevens said that several cases have prompted such great public interest that court-watchers have stood in line for hours hoping to gain admission to oral arguments inside the high court building in Washington. “I thought it was sad,” Stevens said, that the court had not allowed the proceedings to be televised.

Jesse Choper, dean of the law school at UC Berkeley, said that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has been considering the possibility of televising court proceedings.

Timothy Dyk, a Washington lawyer who represents a dozen news organizations, including ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC, said the networks conducted a demonstration at the Supreme Court last November. The goal was “to show the advances that have been made in technology and how it is possible to cover the court without disruption,” Dyk said.

Rehnquist and Associate Justices Byron R. White and Anthony M. Kennedy attended the demonstration, Dyk said, but did not express an opinion. Dyk said news reports have suggested that some justices are favorably disposed to the idea. And in a reply to a letter from journalists in April, 1986, Justices Stevens, Thurgood Marshall and William J. Brennan went on record in approval of televised hearings.

Rehnquist’s predecessor, Warren Burger, was unalterably opposed to allowing Supreme Court proceedings to be televised. Burger said the presence of cameras would have a negative effect in the courtroom.

Under questioning by two federal judges and a Los Angeles lawyer, Stevens avoided such controversial topics as the court’s recent decision upholding a Missouri law that bans abortion in public hospitals and forbids public employees from assisting in abortions. Stevens was one of four dissenters in that case.

He did respond, however, to a question from U.S. Judge Mary M. Schroeder of Arizona about fractious relations among the Supreme Court justices. Several justices have strongly criticized their colleagues in written opinions this term.

“I think it is unfortunate that we sometimes get carried away in our views of our colleagues,” Stevens responded.

“It’s poor advocacy in opinions. . . . It sets a bad example, and it does not reflect the true personal relations in the court,” Stevens added.

He noted that Brennan, one of the court’s most liberal members, and Justice Antonin Scalia, on the conservative side, “have disagreed strongly” in opinions. But “they’re the best of friends, they get along beautifully,” Stevens said.

Asked about what role the public should play in the judicial process, Stevens said he thought it had an “important function” in jury trials. However, Stevens expressed reservations about the need for federal judges to stand for reelection, as those on most state courts must do after their initial appointments. Federal judges have lifetime appointments from the President.

“I have strong feelings, that for the sake of the process itself . . . appointment and tenure have a value that far exceeds the value of election,” Stevens said.

During a panel discussion, Stevens said he thought that a judge who did not have to stand for reelection might have responded differently to Cincinnati Reds Manager Pete Rose’s suit challenging the impartiality of Baseball Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti.

A Cincinnati trial court judge, who faces reelection next year, has issued a temporary injunction barring Giamatti from holding a hearing on whether Rose violated major league baseball rules by gambling on games. Further hearings are scheduled later this month in an Ohio federal court.

In a matter of considerable interest to the 300 judges and lawyers gathered here, Stevens said that, for the present, he saw no need to split the 9th Circuit, the largest of all the federal circuits.

There has been a move afoot, spearheaded by Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), to split the circuit, which stretches from Guam to Montana and includes nine states. Senators from the Northwest have said the circuit is too large and excessively dominated by California judges.

At the conference, a resolution urging that the circuit not be split was overwhelmingly approved by judges.

“As of now, if it isn’t broke, you don’t need to fix anything,” Stevens said.

Times staff writer Ted Rohrlich contributed to this story.