The Vital Relationship Between the Courts and the Press
Lawrence K. Marks, Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Unified Court System, writes: Because understanding and knowledge of the workings of the courts is critical to achieving public trust and confidence in our justice system, we rely heavily on news media to educate the public about what we do and how we operate. Thus, ensuring transparency in the operation of the courts requires cooperation between the courts and the news media.
April 30, 2019 at 03:50 PM
5 minute read
The Unified Court System is a large and complex government institution that impacts the lives of New Yorkers in countless ways. Despite that, relatively few New Yorkers have direct involvement with the courts or the legal process on a regular basis. Most who directly interact with the court system are those summoned for jury service, few of whom actually end up serving on a jury. A much smaller number interact with courts as participants in litigation.
Because there is such limited opportunity for the great majority of New Yorkers to directly interact with our justice system, much of what they learn about the courts comes from the media—newspapers, television, radio and, increasingly, social media. Because understanding and knowledge of the workings of the courts is critical to achieving public trust and confidence in our justice system, we rely heavily on news media to educate the public about what we do and how we operate. Thus, ensuring transparency in the operation of the courts requires cooperation between the courts and the news media.
To further that goal, the court system's Public Information Office works on a daily basis to provide information about the Unified Court System to both internal and external audiences, especially members of the press. The Office is responsible for preparing and distributing to local and statewide media outlets press releases and media advisories concerning court initiatives, programs and events, administrative appointments and other official announcements, and maintains the court system's social media accounts. The Office regularly fields questions about court cases, and often assists reporters in gaining physical access to court proceedings. It also assists the press in obtaining access to court files, caseload data and other relevant information about the courts. We fully recognize the vitally important role of the news media, and we strive to assist them in gaining access to the information they need.
Of course, the press is welcome and, indeed, have a constitutional right to attend and report on court proceedings. Notably, however, in contrast to many other jurisdictions, New York prohibits the broadcasting of witness testimony from trial courtrooms (see Civil Rights Law §52). Although several decades ago New York experimented with audio/visual coverage, including witness testimony, of most trial court proceedings subject to certain limitations, that legislation lapsed in 1997. For trial court proceedings that do not involve witness testimony, still photography and audio/video coverage are permitted at the discretion of the judge. The Court of Appeals and the four Appellate Division Departments are not subject to this prohibition because appellate proceedings do not involve testimony, and so each court live streams and archives appellate arguments on their respective webpages for public viewing. Additionally, in New York City and many courts outside of the City, photography and audio/video recording by accredited members of the media are allowed in common, non-courtroom areas of the courthouse, as long as such coverage does not undermine the safety and security of the public, the litigants or court staff.
In addition to the work of our Public Information Office, we seek to promote transparency through events such as the Chief Judge's annual State of Our Judiciary address. The State of Our Judiciary is our primary opportunity to provide the public with an accounting of the —what we are working on, what we have accomplished and where we need to improve. In addition, the annual report on the Chief Judge's Excellence Initiative and the Annual Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts further detail programs, initiatives and services we offer to provide the highest quality of justice. We owe the public a fair and accurate reporting of what we do, and these publications better ensure that goal is achieved.
Complementing its reporting on the operations of the courts, the news media have an important role in promoting improvement and reform of the justice system. The press can be an invaluable vehicle for court leaders to speak directly to the public, explaining new ideas and programs and innovations we are implementing, or considering implementing, to improve the delivery of justice.
Of course, the court system can also take inspiration from the press. The press has been instrumental in identifying problems in the justice system, motivating the courts to develop new approaches and methods to adjudicate cases. Examples include: reporting on the ravages of the opioid epidemic, which spurred establishment of specialized courts to help address this crisis; highlighting that New York was one of only two states in the nation that set the age of criminal responsibility at 16, which resulted in the Unified Court System taking a lead role in promoting legislation to remedy this problematic anomaly; coverage of the plight of veterans in the justice system, which led to creation of veterans' courts that provide greater sensitivity to veterans' problems and provide services and programs; and, attention to the inequities of our bail system, which has led to the courts' greater use of alternatives to monetary bail, better ensuring that those who stand accused of a crime are not detained pretrial due to a lack of economic means.
These are just a few examples of how the press has helped to prod the Unified Court System to strive for excellence and provide a higher quality of justice. With the utmost regard to our obligation of transparency to the public, we recognize that an active and aggressive press helps to ensure a better system of justice. Fully cognizant of that, the Unified Court System is committed to assisting the press in all ways possible—even when it is critical of our operations—and to achieving the highest level of transparency.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250