Judges Can’t Bar Airing of Filmed Court Proceedings

Television reporters have the right to broadcast court proceedings they film without limitations by the judge hearing the case, a state court of appeal in San Diego has ruled.

In a case that grew out of the slaying last fall of prominent San Diego lawyer Daniel T. Broderick III and his new wife, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that a San Diego judge was wrong to have told TV reporters they could film a hearing but not actually broadcast it without his permission.

In its unanimous opinion issued Monday, the three-judge panel did not go so far as to find that the U.S. Constitution guarantees access to TV crews. But it said that California court rules, which guide state judges and permit a judge to allow access, do not allow a judge to authorize filming but then bar on-air use of what was filmed.

Broderick, 44, a prominent medical malpractice lawyer and former county bar president, and his new wife, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, were killed Nov. 5 as they slept in their Marston Hills house.

Broderick’s first wife, Elisabeth Anne (Betty) Broderick, 42, has been charged with two counts of murder and is awaiting trial in September. She is being held without bail in County Jail at Las Colinas.

At Betty Broderick’s preliminary examination in March, all three major San Diego TV stations--KFMB (Channel 8), KGTV (Channel 10) and KNSD (Channel 39)--asked San Diego Municipal Judge E. Mac Amos for permission to cover the hearing.

Under the California court rules, television crews must secure approval from a judge to bring the cameras into court. The judge is supposed to decide whether the cameras--and the public’s right to scrutinize court proceedings--outweigh the rights to privacy and a fair trial that can be asserted by a person charged with a crime.

Amos told each of the three stations that they had his permission to film the hearing. But he also said he was not authorizing them to actually broadcast anything they filmed.

Although each of the stations protested, Amos refused to change his order. He conducted the hearing and, at its end, concluded that Betty Broderick should stand trial for the slayings.

Meanwhile, the stations took their protests directly to the appellate court. In its opinion, written by Judge Howard Wiener, the 4th District panel said Amos had erred.

“Once the proceedings have been recorded, there is nothing in the rule authorizing (a judge) to refuse, limit or terminate the later broadcasting of such proceedings,” Wiener said.

“In short, the rule does not authorize a judge to become the editor of a television station’s news broadcasts,” he said.

Wiener also urged any judge who decides initially to deny access to explain the ruling. The court rule allowing camera access does not require that sort of explanation, but, in light of the “important role the electronic media play in disseminating public information,” it would “be helpful” so that “any later challenge” could be analyzed, he said.

Judges Donald J. Kremer and Richard D. Huffman concurred in the opinion.

Amos could not be reached Tuesday for comment.