By: Joe Kafka, Associated Press Writer (AP) Judges and court observers say they hardly noticed Wednesday as South Dakota became the last state to permit photography in the courtroom. Even the additional media presence drawn by the occasion got little attention from participants at the state Supreme Court hearings.
"You just lose sight of the fact the cameras are even there," said Frank Geaghan, an assistant attorney general who initially thought the cameras would be a distraction.
Newspaper photographers and television cameramen were carefully positioned in the ornate court chamber, drawing little attention once legal arguments began.
Justice David Gilbertson cautioned that it would be premature to say the experiment went so well that the high court would consider allowing cameras and recorders in the state's trial courts. Unlike the Supreme Court, in which only justices and opposing lawyers participate, trials involve juries, witnesses and those who file lawsuits or face criminal charges, he noted.
"They are lay people that may find a camera more intimidating than a justice or a lawyer," Gilbertson said.
Circuit Judge Judith Meierhenry, who sat as a justice for one of the three hearings Wednesday, said she favors media photos and video in trial courts. "It's today's way of giving people access to the courts," she said.
The state Supreme Court will evaluate its experiment in one year, then decide whether to permanently allow cameras. All other states allow them in some instances.
Photography is not allowed in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, although some federal appeals courts allow cameras.
Tena Haraldson, bureau chief for The Associated Press in North Dakota and South Dakota, said the cameras and recorders appeared to pose no problems Wednesday. "I thought the proceeding went just the way it goes when there are no cameras," she said.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here