Banning Cameras in Court Won’t Cure What’s Wrong : Revisions would harm public’s right to open proceedings : A state task force’s recommendations would do nothing to address more fundamental problems with gathering evidence, police work and prosecutorial strategy.

It is no surprise that a state task force has recommended that cameras be banned from all criminal pretrial proceedings and from most sessions where a jury is not present. But the group’s decision is nonetheless lamentable and without justification.

The task force originated after the O.J. Simpson verdicts, at the direction of Gov. Pete Wilson. Its charge was to review the state’s Rule 980, adopted in 1984, which already gives judges wide discretion to ban or permit cameras in their courtrooms when they determine their presence would impair trial fairness.

The presumption, of course, was that in the Simpson case the presence of cameras influenced trial proceedings and the jury’s decision to acquit the former football star of murder charges, and polarized the public’s reaction to those verdicts. That presumption is unproved and ignores jurors’ conclusions that the prosecution’s case contained substantial weaknesses.

Nonetheless, prosecution losses in the Simpson trial, the first trial of the Menendez brothers and those involving other high-profile defendants have generated frustration among state and local officials and broad segments of the public. The reasons for those losses are perhaps most accurately traced to weaknesses within local law enforcement agencies as well as to the strength and skills of the defense lawyers in these cases.

Fixing the institutional problems in local police and sheriff’s departments requires time and substantial public funds. Banning cameras from the courtroom is an easy, “feel good” response. But it will do nothing to address more fundamental problems with evidence-gathering, police work and prosecutorial strategy.

The new proposal to revise Rule 980 was presented to the California Judicial Council, the policymaking arm of the state courts. The council will vote on the recommendation in May after the public has time to comment.

The task force, appointed by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, consists of nine judges, two court administrators, a public defender and a district attorney. While the task force did not recommend a complete blackout, the proposal is a significant departure from the current rule. In addition to barring cameras from all criminal pretrial proceedings and from sessions where a jury is not present, the panel also recommended a ban on broadcasting pictures of courtroom spectators and urged judges to consider a variety of new conditions, including whether both sides in a case want cameras, before allowing electronic coverage of trials.

The proposed ban on pretrial proceedings would bar electronic coverage of arraignments, bail hearings, preliminary hearings, jury selection and pretrial motions in criminal cases. (The current rule already prohibits camera shots that identify individual jurors.) The task force would bar cameras from criminal and civil trial proceedings when a jury is not present, except for matters heard after a verdict is reached. Spectators, including family members of the victims or defendants, could not be photographed. The proposed limitations would apply to radio and television broadcasts and might include newspaper photography. California judges, voting earlier this month, declined to support such a comprehensive ban, and 46 other states allow cameras in the courtrooms.

The proposed restrictions would come on the heels of a new state bar rule, now in effect, that severely limits the statements that attorneys may make about ongoing trials outside the courthouse. Individually, these changes are chilling. Their cumulative effect raises serious concerns about the public’s right to open court proceedings. And rather than ensuring fair trials, we fear that these changes will increase ignorance of the criminal justice system and enhance suspicions about the government.