From: James Wheaton <wheaton@well.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 14:15:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Cindy Cohn <kwalker@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Court TV
In-Reply-To: <199712092314.PAA16202@gw.quake.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971209170118.006b8c7c@mail.well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:09 PM 12/9/97 -0800, Cindy Cohn wrote:
>Court TV informs me that they will hold the tape of the argument until a
>decision is reached and will only show it afterwards.  Also, they won't send
>us the whole thing, even after they've aired the segment, only the parts
>that make it into their program.

Any unaired portions are covered by California's shield law (Cal Const. Art
I, section 2(b), and Evidence Code section 1070, as unpublished
information.  Its production cannot even be compelled, save in limited
circumstances to criminal defendants or where the media entity is itself a
party to the action.

Seems odd, particularly where the footage is of something that occurred in
a public building and was open to the public, but defending the right of
reporters *not* to be partners with any other person or party, litigant or
government, is a principle they hold dear.

Personally, I was shocked (and embarrassed to be shocked) to see a camera
in federal courtroom.  Thought that had been done away with the Judicial
Conference terminated the trial program here in California and elsewhere.
Didn't occur to me that each Court of Appeals can make up its *own* damn
rules, thank you very much.

--jim