Should Cameras be Allowed in Courtrooms

[mafiastudent]

This is something interesting to consider. Should cameras be allowed in courtrooms for full transparency? And this is regards for every type of case.

I mean, it might be a way to balance the scales of justice, no?

To change law to allow live audio and video in Federal Court rooms. This would allow ultimate transparency.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... ansparency

[DMC22]

They absolutely should be. Keeps everyone in check. The stuff that goes on in the federal courts is Insane. If you havent gone through it you have no idea. Another good podcast.

[Pogo The Clown]

They absolutely should be. Keeps everyone in check. The stuff that goes on in the federal courts is Insane. If you havent gone through it you have no idea. Another good podcast.

How's it going Maxi?


Pogo

[mafiastudent]

They absolutely should be. Keeps everyone in check. The stuff that goes on in the federal courts is Insane. If you havent gone through it you have no idea. Another good podcast.

How's it going Maxi?


Pogo

I think you should change your name to serial stalker because the only thing you seem to do is go through threads looking for people to attack.

Having said that, what's your expert opinion on cameras in the courtroom? At the very least it would leave you salivating at the thought of seeing an actual "mob" trial live as it happens.

[Pogo The Clown]

No just your boyfriends multiple accounts.


Pogo

[DMC22]

No just your boyfriends multiple accounts.


Pogo

You must be either an FBI agent or AUSA?? So how do you want to be addressed??? Or you were chased...either way u have a lot of hate for a certain type of person. How about trying to be open minded and have an intelligent discussion. Are you even capable?? Seems not. All you do is stalk and stalk and stalk. Grow up and let the smart , open minded men finish their discussion.

[DMC22]

They absolutely should be. Keeps everyone in check. The stuff that goes on in the federal courts is Insane. If you havent gone through it you have no idea. Another good podcast.

How's it going Maxi?


Pogo

I think you should change your name to serial stalker because the only thing you seem to do is go through threads looking for people to attack.

Having said that, what's your expert opinion on cameras in the courtroom? At the very least it would leave you salivating at the thought of seeing an actual "mob" trial live as it happens.

He has no opinion on this. It’s a way to complicated idea for him to even discuss, obviously. He’s exactly what Dom Crea mentioned in his podcast. Close minded individual.

[Amershire_Ed]

What’s the reason they’ve never been allowed in? I know it’s always been that way I just never knew why.

[mafiastudent]

What’s the reason they’ve never been allowed in? I know it’s always been that way I just never knew why.

I'm not really sure. I need to do some more research on it. It's a topic that came up in Dominick Crea's podcast today (I haven't listened to it all yet) and it was an intriguing question.

[DMC22]

What’s the reason they’ve never been allowed in? I know it’s always been that way I just never knew why.

It started during the Lindbergh trial in the 30’s. To much media. Ppl. Etc. but what Dominick was saying was no media. Just cameras for the attorneys on both sides as well as the judge to use. Keeps ppl in check. When you know you r being taped you are on your best behavior. A lot of these prosecutors are taking cues from the judge. Doesn’t read in the transcripts but it def reads on camera.

[moneyman]

I have no sympathy for folks like Steven Crea, Andy Campos, etc. The evidence is pretty convincing that these individuals are habitual criminals and are aware of the risks with law enforcement.

Somewhat related to this discussion is why doesn't the FBI videotape interviews?

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/12/20/t ... f-the-fbi/

…if the FBI believes that an interviewee has lied during the interview, he or she can be prosecuted for false statements to the government. The penalty for this is quite serious. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, making a false statement to the federal government in any matter within its jurisdiction is subject to a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. That is a long time.

How does the FBI prove the false statement? One might think that they would make a videotape of the interview, which would provide the best evidence of whether the interviewee made a false statement. But if one thought this, one would be wrong, very wrong.

The FBI does not make videotapes of interviews. Apparently, there are FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Instead, the FBI has a second agent listen to the interview and take notes on it. Then, the agent files a form—a 302 form—with his or her notes from the interview.

What is going on here? Why would the FBI prohibit videotaping the interviews and instead rely on summaries? The most obvious explanations do not cast a favorable light on the Bureau. If they don’t tape the interview, then the FBI agents can provide their own interpretation of what was said to argue that the interviewee made a false statement. Since the FBI agent is likely to be believed more than the defendant (assuming he even testifies), this provides an advantage to the FBI. By contrast, if there is a videotape, the judge and jury can decide for themselves.

…One might even argue this is unconstitutional under existing law. Under the Mathews v. Eldridge interpretation of the Due Process Clause, a procedure is unconstitutional if another procedure would yield more accurate decisions and is worth the added costs. Given the low costs of videotaping, it seems obvious that the benefits of such videotaping for accuracy outweigh the costs.

[DMC22]

I have no sympathy for folks like Steven Crea, Andy Campos, etc. The evidence is pretty convincing that these individuals are habitual criminals and are aware of the risks with law enforcement.

Somewhat related to this discussion is why doesn't the FBI videotape interviews?

https://www.lawliberty.org/2018/12/20/t ... f-the-fbi/

…if the FBI believes that an interviewee has lied during the interview, he or she can be prosecuted for false statements to the government. The penalty for this is quite serious. Under 18 U.S.C. 1001, making a false statement to the federal government in any matter within its jurisdiction is subject to a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. That is a long time.

How does the FBI prove the false statement? One might think that they would make a videotape of the interview, which would provide the best evidence of whether the interviewee made a false statement. But if one thought this, one would be wrong, very wrong.

The FBI does not make videotapes of interviews. Apparently, there are FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Instead, the FBI has a second agent listen to the interview and take notes on it. Then, the agent files a form—a 302 form—with his or her notes from the interview.

What is going on here? Why would the FBI prohibit videotaping the interviews and instead rely on summaries? The most obvious explanations do not cast a favorable light on the Bureau. If they don’t tape the interview, then the FBI agents can provide their own interpretation of what was said to argue that the interviewee made a false statement. Since the FBI agent is likely to be believed more than the defendant (assuming he even testifies), this provides an advantage to the FBI. By contrast, if there is a videotape, the judge and jury can decide for themselves.

…One might even argue this is unconstitutional under existing law. Under the Mathews v. Eldridge interpretation of the Due Process Clause, a procedure is unconstitutional if another procedure would yield more accurate decisions and is worth the added costs. Given the low costs of videotaping, it seems obvious that the benefits of such videotaping for accuracy outweigh the costs.

I agree. Good post.

[mafiastudent]

You forgot to add this part from the article:

"Interestingly, it may be that the FBI changed the policy not to promote fairness and accuracy, but to promote convictions. One of the justifications for changing the policy was that jurors were not being supplied a strong piece of evidence against the defendants – a videotaped confession from the defendant. This was particularly a problem in certain cases, such as sexual abuse and violent crime cases. If the justification for the policy change was to promote convictions, then one might wonder how often interrogations are actually being recorded and whether it is only in cases when the FBI believes it will help with conviction."

[DMC22]

You forgot to add this part from the article:

"Interestingly, it may be that the FBI changed the policy not to promote fairness and accuracy, but to promote convictions. One of the justifications for changing the policy was that jurors were not being supplied a strong piece of evidence against the defendants – a videotaped confession from the defendant. This was particularly a problem in certain cases, such as sexual abuse and violent crime cases. If the justification for the policy change was to promote convictions, then one might wonder how often interrogations are actually being recorded and whether it is only in cases when the FBI believes it will help with conviction."

Noteworthy to mention... the FBI star witness in numerous cases, Al Darco was caught many times contradicting his own FBI 302’s. And had said the FBI always gets it wrong and messes up the interview information. If it were videotaped we could have seen if it was Darco or FBI lying.

[mafiastudent]

You forgot to add this part from the article:

"Interestingly, it may be that the FBI changed the policy not to promote fairness and accuracy, but to promote convictions. One of the justifications for changing the policy was that jurors were not being supplied a strong piece of evidence against the defendants – a videotaped confession from the defendant. This was particularly a problem in certain cases, such as sexual abuse and violent crime cases. If the justification for the policy change was to promote convictions, then one might wonder how often interrogations are actually being recorded and whether it is only in cases when the FBI believes it will help with conviction."

Noteworthy to mention... the FBI star witness in numerous cases, Al Darco was caught many times contradicting his own FBI 302’s. And had said the FBI always gets it wrong and messes up the interview information. If it were videotaped we could have seen if it was Darco or FBI lying.

And also, now that I'm listening more to Dominick's podcast, putting in cameras isn't for media purposes but as a part of court record, not for the media to broadcast.