Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Health Care
CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists

PHOENIX — Arizonans who can't get enough courtroom drama from television's "Law & Order" may soon find some new options on the small screen.

And they'll be local.

A Phoenix TV station is leading a charge to make it harder for judges to keep TV, newspaper and magazine photographers out of courtrooms.

The proposal, which has gained the backing of the Arizona Broadcasters Association and some newspapers, would revise the rule that now gives a judge the "sole discretion" to decide whether to allow cameras.

That rule says a judge should consider a variety of factors, ranging from how it would affect someone's ability to get a fair trial to whether it would distract participants or "detract from the dignity of the proceedings." Nothing requires a judge who bars cameras to explain his or her reasons.

Station KPNX wants a new requirement that any judge seeking to keep out the cameras must make "specific on-the-record findings that there is a substantial likelihood of harm" from one of the factors considered.

The proposal received a cautious endorsement of sorts from Barbara Mundell, the presiding judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, once the station agreed to make some changes.

It also has the endorsement of The Arizona Republic and the Tucson Citizen, which, like KPNX, are owned by the Gannett media chain.

But some in the legal community have told the state Supreme Court that they believe the proposal goes too far.

"The judicial system was not created to ensure a continuing supply of video content for local news programs, cable news networks, reality television shows, or YouTube," wrote Wallace Hogatt, presiding judge of Cochise County.

And Jan Kearney, presiding judge of Pima County Superior Court, cautioned against making the change.

Cameras were first allowed in Arizona courts in 1993. But the rule that dates from that time still gives the final say to judges.

"Camera-coverage requests have been denied with increasing frequency in recent years, often without explanation or hearing — and often in cases of acute public interest and concern," KPNX attorney David Bodney argued to the Supreme Court. As a result, he said, the current rule "easily permits such summary denials, limiting the quality, quantity and accuracy of news that the public receives about the administration of justice."

But Kearney said there is a reason for judges' camera restrictions.

"The perception of many judges is that extensive television coverage makes the proceedings last much longer than they would without the coverage; changes the behavior of the participants in the proceedings; has the potential to distort the outcome; intimidates parties, witnesses and juries; and, in short, has a negative impact on the fairness and efficiency of the proceeding itself," she said in her comments to the high court.

Kearney was not impressed by arguments by Bodney that more TV coverage makes for better public understanding of the courts.

"The perception of the more-usual coverage consisting of five- to 15-second sound and video clips is that such coverage does not accurately portray court proceedings, focuses on celebrity and sensational cases, and provides a minimum of useful public education concerning the courts," she said.

Judge Paul Katz, of Maricopa County Superior Court, said he has no problem with requiring judges to make specific written findings when deciding whether to allow TV cameras in the courtroom.

But he said the proposal being advanced by KPNX creates a presumption that TV will be allowed, essentially putting the judge in the position of having to justify otherwise. Katz said the rule should simply say that a judge, faced with a media request for coverage, must spell out in writing why it was granted or denied.

Dee-Dee Samet, writing on behalf of the Pima County Bar Association, expressed similar concerns about creating a presumption that cameras are OK.

Bodney, however, argued that the proposed requirement properly balances all of the needs.

"While the value of public access to court proceedings is weighty in itself, the public interest in camera access may weigh even more heavily in cases involving a public official accused of corruption, a murder prosecution that attracts widespread public attention, or a case of child abuse or neglect that raises questions about whether public agencies took steps to protect the victim," he said.

Bodney has assembled a number of allies in his bid to push the proposal through.

One is state Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, who echoed many of the comments submitted by Bodney about the strong public interest in monitoring cases. Paton also said TV and the Internet — where much of the video could end up — are becoming the prime source of news for many.