From the Associated Press

Maryland court to launch Webcasting plan

Monday, November 27, 2006

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's highest court is launching a project for live Webcasting of its sessions, hoping to be ready in time to broadcast arguments set for Dec. 4 in a high-profile case involving gay marriage.

The first Webcast is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, giving the court a little time to solve problems that might develop before the gay marriage case is argued next week. The state is asking the high court to overturn a circuit court ruling that the Maryland law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

"It's all part of this outreach thing," Chief Judge Robert M. Bell of the Court of Appeals told The (Baltimore) Sun. "Other courts have done it. I don't see why we shouldn't do it."

The Court of Appeals and the Court of Special Appeals, the state's second highest court, allow news organizations to record hearings and to take still and television photographs. State law prohibits cameras and recorders in lower courts in criminal cases, and allows them to be used in civil cases only with the approval of both parties.

Bell has been a proponent of opening up Maryland courts to make them more accessible to the public. About half of the appellate state courts in the nation allow coverage of hearings on the Web or on cable channels.

Proponents say allowing cameras and recorders in court rooms helps give citizens a better idea of how the legal system works.

"The Court of Appeals providing greater access to its proceedings is a good thing," Donald F. Norris, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said.

Marylanders who take the time to check out Webcasts will find less than scintillating viewing in what is usually a dry appellate process. The proceedings follow a rigid structure and are usually restricted to two hours or less. There are no witnesses. Opposing lawyers are given a set amount of time to make their arguments with flashing lights telling them when it is time to sit down.

Occasionally, the proceedings liven-up when the seven crimson-robed judges interrupt lawyers to probe perceived weaknesses in their arguments, but generally the cases involve dry discussions about legal precedents.

"I don't think it will ever break the Nielsen ratings," said Carmen M. Shepard, a former assistant attorney general now in private practice who has argued a dozen cases in the Court of Appeals. "But I think it says something positive about our legal system to say that the highest court in our state is inviting the public to see how it works and watch."

Opponents of televised court proceedings argue that some lawyers will want to grandstand for the cameras, but Bell said he does not think that will happen, noting cameras have not affected previous hearings where they were allowed in the courtroom.

Craig Waters, spokesman for the Florida Supreme Court, said an estimated 50 million people watched part or all of the arguments before that court in the 2000 dispute over the presidential outcome in Florida.

Maryland Court of Appeals cases involving issues such as gay marriage and the death penalty might attract an audience, although it's doubtful few people would want to watch arguments about whether a state agency followed its own regulations, said William Reynolds, who teaches Internet law at the University of Maryland.