fresno elections 2008

The courts are intended as open institutions with the public looking on to ensure that the process is fair. I favor the greatest public access that can be permitted without prejudicing or endangering individuals. However, judges are precluded from discussing a case while it is pending. The parties, while generally well served by doing the same, often seek to disseminate information that aids their side rather than providing neutral information. And, we are wary of the media presenting excerpts from a case because jurors might gain access to information or opinions that will improperly affect their perception of the case.

We have settled upon a case by case judicial analysis of the extent to which media coverage is permitted. For safety and privacy reasons, jurors are generally not named or pictured. After all, the case is not about the jury but the litigants and issues. Unless there are legal concerns, this may not be the case for defendants, litigants, victims or witnesses. But security is always a consideration. I have handled many cases in which threats were made toward me or witnesses. In such cases the media’s interest will be subordinated to safety considerations. The degree to which media coverage will be constrained will depend upon the nature of the concern. Gag orders, limitations on images and, in rare instances, closed hearings are all tools that help a judge balance the interest in the media to cover proceedings and the need for those proceedings to be conducted without harm or prejudice to the participants.

Of course, the media is driven by immediate interest in present cases. This is a response to the public’s desire for the “scoop” on what is occurring and insight into the likely outcome. While it is not as glamorous, I would rather see ongoing coverage that discusses the courts in an effort to inform the public. The second guessing of decisions made by our courts would be less common if those decisions were understood and the context better explained. I have great regard for our system of justice and I am aware of the immense contributions it has made to our civil society. Similarly, I hold the media in high regard and I wish to see it report the tremendous role the courts play in balancing and protecting interests or at least report day to day coverage in the context of judicial and legal concepts that protect rights and foster justice. Ideally, I would like to see coverage of all aspects of our proceedings. However, the editing and selectivity of coverage necessitated by the duration of proceedings will, of necessity, alter the perception of the case. It may be better to limit coverage than to foster misperception of the proceedings. Unless one has seen and heard the same information as the finder of facts, one can not be in a position to second guess the findings.