OKC TV stations won't appeal judge's order banning cameras on entire floor of courthouse

An attorney representing four Oklahoma City TV stations says they won't appeal a judge's order banning cameras from the same courthouse floor as criminal proceedings involving an Oklahoma County judge and her husband, The Associated Press reports.

Robert D. Nelon has said the order by Judge Paul Woodward is blatantly unconstitutional.

I'm told the decision not to appeal is about newsroom budgets, not the chances of winning. OKC stations spent a lot of money attempting to get cameras into the courtroom for the murder trial of pharmacist Jerome Ersland.

Coincidentally, it was Oklahoma County Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure who initially approved allowing cameras in the Ersland trial courtroom. Now it's her criminal trial in the Oklahoma County Courthouse that Judge Paul Woodward is keeping television cameras away from.

On Tuesday, Woodward refused to hear Nelon's motion challenging the judge's order that TV cameras be kept away "from the immediate vicinity" of his Oklahoma County courtroom during hearings for Bass-LeSure. Woodward threatened to have TV crews arrested for contempt and to confiscate their cameras if he sees them near the courtroom again.

Unfortunately, Oklahoma County voters -- in whose courthouse Woodward is hearing motions regarding criminal allegations against one of their elected officials -- won't have any say the next time Woodward's name is on the ballot.

Woodward is a Garfield County judge but is hearing this case because his Oklahoma County counterparts recused themselves.

On Wednesday, a FOX 25 reporter and videographer learned that television cameras aren't banned from the hallways of the Garfield County Courthouse.

When the news crew shot video of Woodward's office door from the hallway, one of the judge's staffers asked, "Have you gotten permission to do that?" The news crew replied, "It's a public hallway."

Chief Judge Dennis Hladik told the reporter that the news media has a right to be in the Garfield County Courthouse.

So what is Woodward's compelling reason for banning them from the Oklahoma County Courthouse floor? Don't know. He hasn't given one. And he won't if the news stations don't ask a higher court to overturn his order.

Woodward's order starts down a slippery slope. May he ban TV crews from the entire courthouse or even the sidewalk outside? That's no more farfetched than his banning them from an entire floor of the courthouse.

Before newspaper folks start rejoicing over the ban on TV cameras, they should ask whether Woodward's order applies to them as well. Won't they want to shoot videos of interviews outside the courtroom if an actual trial occurs? Seems to be the thing to do in an era of converged media.


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Judge threatens to arrest TV journalists, refuses to hear legal arguments against his ban on cameras in courthouse hallway

Judge Paul Woodward wouldn't hear legal arguments on Tuesday against his order banning TV cameras in the same courthouse hallway as a criminal hearing involving an Oklahoma County judge and her husband.

Woodward threatened to hold TV crews in contempt and confiscate cameras if he sees them again in the hallway outside the courtroom, KFOR and KOKH Fox 25 reported.

Woodward's order relies upon a judicial canon no longer in effect.

A Garfield County judge, Woodward was assigned the case after Oklahoma County judges recused themselves. Oklahoma County Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure and her husband are charged with perjury and making a fraudulent claim against the state for taking payments for children they adopted but who don't live with them.

On Wednesday, Woodward ruled against Bass-LeSure's motion to have District Attorney David Prater removed from the case.

In May, Woodward issued the order banning TV news cameras from the hallway near the courtroom.

Local TV stations hired media attorney Robert Nelon to fight the order.

But on Wednesday, Woodward refused to hear Nelon's arguments. (Ironically, when Woodward announced his candidacy for a district judgeship a year ago, he said, "You want someone you feel like you have a fair chance with, who’ll listen to both sides.")

Nelon said Woodward had apparently "only skimmed the motion and hadn't fully read it."

"He just told us to get out of the courthouse," Nelon said.

He believes Woodward's order is "blatantly unconstitutional."

"The judge has the right under the law to control access in terms of a camera inside the courtroom," Nelon told KOCO and KFOR. "And he can probably tell you not to shoot [video] through the window of the courtroom.

"But I don't think the judge has the constitutional power to tell you that you can't be in a public place," said Nelon.

Woodward cited a judicial canon that had been in effect since 1997. The canon required the trial judge's permission first before cameras could be used in the courtroom. The canon did not require a judge's permission for news cameras to be used in courthouse hallways.

Also, the judicial canon hasn't been in effect since April 15. The state Supreme Court in December adopted a new Code of Judicial Conduct that makes no mention of cameras in courtrooms.

The change came at the recommendation of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

An OBA committee "discussed this issue at length but eventually decided that such rules did not belong in a Code of Judicial Conduct. These rules, if they are to be kept, would be better placed in the Rules for the District Courts or some other set of rules," according to the final report presented to the OBA membership for approval in November.

An attorney for the Oklahoma Press Association said judges should not construe the deletion of the regulations "as a direction that cameras in the courtroom are not allowed."

"Judges will hereafter have to decide on their own whether to allow cameras in the courtroom and, if so, will have to create their own ad hoc guidelines," wrote Michael Minnis.

Prior to formally opposing Woodward's order, the stations tried to meet with the presiding judge but got no response, reported FOX 25.

The station also reported that county commissioners are divided over whether they have the authority to require the judge to allow cameras in the courthouse hallway. Commissioner Brian Maughan said he would seek an opinion from Prater on the issue.

For now, Nelon points out, Woodward's order prohibits TV crews from a public area of the courthouse while allowing print journalists to "roam freely, to interview people, to stand where they want to, but the electronic media can't do the same thing."


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.

Judge allows TV and newspaper Web site cameras in courtroom for pharmacist's murder trial

Oklahoma television stations and a newspaper's Web site will be allowed to have cameras in the courtroom during the trial of a pharmacist charged with killing a would-be robber, an Oklahoma County district judge ruled today.

Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure granted a request from KWTV and KFOR in Oklahoma City and KOTV in Tulsa to televise Jerome Jay Erlsand's murder trial after the jury is selected.

The Oklahoman and NewsOK.com also will be allowed to take photos inside the courtroom and to show the trial on the newspaper's Web site, the judge said.

No trial date has been set.

"Permitting news coverage with the assistance of video and audio recording will provide citizens far and wide the chance to observe with their own eyes and ears the proper conduct of an important judicial proceeding which they would be entitled to attend and observe in person, but for the limitations of space and work schedules," the news organizations contended in their motion to the judge.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense objected to televising the trial, according to the motion filed by the news outlets.

Under Oklahoma law, the initial decision to allow the cameras into the courtroom rested with Bass-LeSure, who is presiding over the trial.

In 1958, some 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the same philosophy, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the mere presence of cameras in a courtroom does not inherently interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Lyles v. State, 1958 OK CR 79, ¶¶ 21-23, 330 P.2d 734, 742)

Noting that it had allowed television cameras in its courtroom, the state court said, “Our experience is that when properly supervised by the court, there is neither disturbance, distraction, nor lack of dignity or decorum.”

The court contended that television cameras educate the public about the judicial system, explaining:

“There is no field of government about which the people know so little as they do about the courts. There is no field of government about which they should know as much, as about their courts. Those institutions of justice engaged in construing constitutional rights and interpreting legislative acts which will determine our enjoyment of life and liberty and our pursuit of happiness. What is more vital to the people? Many members of the legal profession who advocate the dissemination of knowledge for every purpose in all other fields rebel at the thought of the people being informed concerning the operations of the lawyers’ legal preserve. The courts do not belong to the lawyers but are institutions by, of, and for the people. In this modern age, it is well that the veil of mysticism surrounding our courts be removed and the people be confronted with reality. We are not afraid or ashamed and we must be consistent.”

However, the current standard for permitting cameras in Oklahoma courtrooms came about in 1997 when the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted Judicial Canon 3(B)(10), which states:

“Except as permitted by the individual judge, the use of cameras, television or other recording or broadcasting equipment is prohibited in a courtroom or in the immediate vicinity of a courtroom.”

Even if the judge allows cameras, Canon 3(B)(10) permits the defendant to nix their use in the courtroom. As recently as 2000, Oklahoma and Alabama were the only states that required the consent of criminal defendants to televise their trials.

Oklahoma law also prohibits the photographing or broadcasting of any witness or juror who objects to the judge in advance.

Here is the rest of Canon 3(B)(10)’s wording:

• Before cameras, television or other recordings or broadcasting equipment are used, express permission of the judge must be obtained.
• The judge shall prescribe the conditions and specific rules under which such equipment may be used.
• Media personnel shall not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings.
• No witness, juror or party who expresses any objection to the judge shall be photographed nor shall the testimony of such a witness, juror or party be broadcast or telecast.
• There shall be no photographing or broadcasting of:
(1) any proceeding which under the laws of this State are required to be held in private; or
(2) any portion of any criminal proceedings until the issues have been submitted to the jury for determination unless all accused persons who are then on trial shall have affirmatively, on the record, given their consent to the photographing or broadcasting.
• No media representative shall offer, nor shall any party, witness or juror accept, consideration in exchange for consent to telecast, broadcast or photograph the judicial proceeding.
• Representatives of the news media shall conduct themselves at all times in a professional manner consistent with the spirit and intent of this rule. In order to insure such conduct, if such conduct of the news media which violates any of these rules is brought to the attention of any judge, the offending person shall be notified to immediately cease and desist such activity. If the offending party refuses to comply with the order, the judge may act to end such activity, including the seizure of the equipment of such person. Any offender may be dealt with for contempt of court.
(Canon 3(B)(10) of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, OKLA. STAT. tit. 5, Ch. 1, App. 4)


Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism

TV stations ask judge to allow cameras in courtroom for pharmacist's murder trial

Television stations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa asked a trial judge Tuesday to permit cameras in the courtroom during the trial of a pharmacist charged with killing a would-be robber.

The motion was filed on behalf of KWTV and KFOR in Oklahoma City and KOTV in Tulsa.

"This is a story that carries with it an enormous amount of public interest," KWTV NEWS 9 P.M. Content Director Jenny Monroe said. "It is our job as journalists to serve the public and do whatever possible to provide the information to the people of Oklahoma. We believe allowing Oklahomans to see firsthand what is being said and decided in this case is in the best interest of everyone."

Under Oklahoma law, the initial decision to allow the cameras into the courtroom rests with Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure, who is presiding over the trial of Jerome Ersland in Oklahoma City.

In 1958, some 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the same philosophy, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that the mere presence of cameras in a courtroom does not inherently interfere with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Lyles v. State, 1958 OK CR 79, ¶¶ 21-23, 330 P.2d 734, 742)

Noting that it had allowed television cameras in its courtroom, the state court said, “Our experience is that when properly supervised by the court, there is neither disturbance, distraction, nor lack of dignity or decorum.”

The court contended that television cameras educate the public about the judicial system, explaining:

“There is no field of government about which the people know so little as they do about the courts. There is no field of government about which they should know as much, as about their courts. Those institutions of justice engaged in construing constitutional rights and interpreting legislative acts which will determine our enjoyment of life and liberty and our pursuit of happiness. What is more vital to the people? Many members of the legal profession who advocate the dissemination of knowledge for every purpose in all other fields rebel at the thought of the people being informed concerning the operations of the lawyers’ legal preserve. The courts do not belong to the lawyers but are institutions by, of, and for the people. In this modern age, it is well that the veil of mysticism surrounding our courts be removed and the people be confronted with reality. We are not afraid or ashamed and we must be consistent.”

However, the current standard for permitting cameras in Oklahoma courtrooms came about in 1997 when the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted Judicial Canon 3(B)(9), which states:

“Except as permitted by the individual judge, the use of cameras, television or other recording or broadcasting equipment is prohibited in a courtroom or in the immediate vicinity of a courtroom.”

Even if the judge allows cameras, Canon 3(B)(9) permits the defendant to nix their use in the courtroom. As recently as 2000, Oklahoma and Alabama were the only states that required the consent of criminal defendants to televise their trials.

Oklahoma law also prohibits the photographing or broadcasting of any witness or juror who objects to the judge in advance.

Here is the rest of Canon 3(B)(9)’s wording:

• Before cameras, television or other recordings or broadcasting equipment are used, express permission of the judge must be obtained.
• The judge shall prescribe the conditions and specific rules under which such equipment may be used.
• Media personnel shall not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings.
• No witness, juror or party who expresses any objection to the judge shall be photographed nor shall the testimony of such a witness, juror or party be broadcast or telecast.
• There shall be no photographing or broadcasting of:
(1) any proceeding which under the laws of this State are required to be held in private; or
(2) any portion of any criminal proceedings until the issues have been submitted to the jury for determination unless all accused persons who are then on trial shall have affirmatively, on the record, given their consent to the photographing or broadcasting.
• No media representative shall offer, nor shall any party, witness or juror accept, consideration in exchange for consent to telecast, broadcast or photograph the judicial proceeding.
• Representatives of the news media shall conduct themselves at all times in a professional manner consistent with the spirit and intent of this rule. In order to insure such conduct, if such conduct of the news media which violates any of these rules is brought to the attention of any judge, the offending person shall be notified to immediately cease and desist such activity. If the offending party refuses to comply with the order, the judge may act to end such activity, including the seizure of the equipment of such person. Any offender may be dealt with for contempt of court.
(Canon 3(B) (9) of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, OKLA. STAT. tit. 5, Ch. 1, App. 4)

Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Journalism