First, it is currently illegal to do so, and only the Supreme Court could overrule that.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Also, it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court unless the approval or denial of cameras was appealed up to the Supreme Court level based on one side disagreeing with the ruling of the lower courts D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
For example, what is currently happening is that Judge Chutkan asked both parties to submit a brief on why cameras should or should not be allowed bases on the litigation introduced by corporate media stakeholders requesting the trial be televised. She can then take their opinions into consideration before making a formal request to the Magistrate Judge to allow cameras.
I think it is incredibly unlikely that this happens, but I could be wrong. I generally agree with everything else you said about cameras inviting all kinds of other issues into the proceeding. I have seriously mixed feelings about the entire thing.
There is a difference between laws and policies/procedural rules. The court does not have the ability to make laws. There is an important distinction to be made here I think, which is why I brought it up. If it was illegal then the court would have no ability to even consider allowing cameras per the second part of my comment.
What’s the superior court?
In this case it is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It isn’t illegal per se, but rather barred by the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Also, it doesn’t necessarily require the approval of the Supreme Court unless the approval or denial of cameras was appealed up to the Supreme Court level based on one side disagreeing with the ruling of the
lower courtsD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.For example, what is currently happening is that Judge Chutkan asked both parties to submit a brief on why cameras should or should not be allowed bases on the litigation introduced by corporate media stakeholders requesting the trial be televised. She can then take their opinions into consideration before making a formal request to the Magistrate Judge to allow cameras.
I think it is incredibly unlikely that this happens, but I could be wrong. I generally agree with everything else you said about cameras inviting all kinds of other issues into the proceeding. I have seriously mixed feelings about the entire thing.
And what happens if you break a rule? Can you be charged? Would it therefore be illegal?
It takes a superior court to Choutican. What’s the superior court?
There is a difference between laws and policies/procedural rules. The court does not have the ability to make laws. There is an important distinction to be made here I think, which is why I brought it up. If it was illegal then the court would have no ability to even consider allowing cameras per the second part of my comment.
In this case it is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thought you might know. Though my questions weren’t answered, perhaps they weren’t salient or something.
It was my impression that the Court of Appeals only rules on matters of law and not case facts.
True, but I don’t understand what that has to do with the camera question?