Judges Work for the People

Those institutions whose authority and integrity depend most on openness and fairness--our courts and prisons--now appear engaged in a dogged effort to dodge the press and hence scrutiny by the very public they are sworn to serve.

Individually, new curbs on where reporters can stand, with whom they may speak and what they may observe or photograph are unwarranted. Taken together, the new limits suggest an ominous new attitude among judges and prison officials: that these institutions operate for their own convenience rather than on behalf of the public.

* In a hearing last week, federal appellate judges appeared sympathetic to arguments by California’s attorney general that would overturn a lower court ruling recognizing the media’s 1st Amendment right to observe, as the eyes of the public, execution by lethal injection from beginning to end.

* Earlier this month, Los Angeles Superior Court judges banned the use of cameras and tape recorders except in one downtown courthouse pressroom and areas “approved by the presiding judge or district supervising judge.” That means if witnesses or any others involved in a trial want to speak to the public through the press, even public hallways are now off limits to reporters and their tape recorders and cameras.

* Last year, California prison officials imposed rules forbidding reporters to do one-on-one interviews with inmates. Officials claimed interviews can glamorize criminals and traumatize victims. By that token, so can reporting testimony in criminal trials. Will barring reporters from the courtroom be next?

What prompted this wave of skittishness? The televised O.J. Simpson trial is the short answer. The circus surrounding Judge Lance Ito’s courtroom and the endless second-guessing of his decisions that TV coverage encouraged struck fear in the hearts of judges. Although most judges recognize that Simpson’s criminal trial was unusual by virtually every measure, they seem determined to ensure that nothing like it happens again.

Judges who regularly lament the public’s unwillingness to show up for jury duty or vote in local judicial elections should relish this attention, and many do. For all its excesses, the Simpson trial was an unparalleled public tutorial in criminal procedure. Intense nationwide debates were also generated by this year’s trials of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and a British au pair found guilty of killing a child. These debates are a good sign that our justice system is alive and well.

But the recent curbs on the press--and therefore public access--push us all in the other direction. The message from judges and prison officials is an ominous one: Stay out, we’ll handle what happens here, it’s our business. That message is not tolerable in a democracy.