Hamilton v. Accu-Tek

8 Citing cases

  1. Hollingsworth v. Perry

    558 U.S. 183 (2010)   Cited 420 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a district court's local rules have "the force of law"

    If Local Rule 77–3 had been validly revised, questions would still remain about the District Court's decision to allow broadcasting of this particular trial, in which several of the witnesses have stated concerns for their own security. Even districts that allow trials to be broadcast, see Civ. Rule 1.8 (SDNY 2009); Civ. Rule 1.8 (E.D.N.Y.2009), recognize that a district judge's discretion to broadcast a trial is limited, see, e.g., Hamilton v. Accu–Tek, 942 F.Supp. 136, 138 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (broadcast forbidden unless “there is no interference with the due process, the dignity of litigants, jurors and witnesses, or with other appropriate aspects of the administration of justice”). Consequently, courts in those districts have allowed the broadcast of their proceedings on the basis that those cases were not high profile, E*Trade Financial Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F.Supp.2d 528, 535 (S.D.N.Y.2008), or did not involve witnesses, Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 929 F.Supp. 660, 661 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Katzmanv.

  2. In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment

    564 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting writ of advisory mandamus

    Actually seeing and hearing court proceedings, combined with commentary of informed members of the press and academia, provides a powerful device for monitoring the courts." Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F.Supp. 136, 138 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). Moreover, webcasting the legal arguments of counsel in a civil motions hearing does not implicate the concerns raised by televised trials.

  3. United States v. Crusius

    EP-20-CR-00389-DCG (W.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    28 U.S.C. § 331; Slone, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 834 ("While entitled to 'respectful consideration,' [the Judicial Conference's] policy conclusions generally are not binding on courts." (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 193 (2010)); Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F. Supp. 136, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). And second, just as the Death Penalty Protocol, the CJA Guidelines create "no enforceable rights because they were not adopted pursuant to an enabling statute authorizing the Judicial Conference to act with the force of law."

  4. United States v. Munir

    953 F. Supp. 2d 470 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining and applying that distinction

    See In re Sentencing, 219 F.R.D. 262, 264–65 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (describing the court's practice to video record all sentencing proceedings in order to capture “[t]he defendant's words, his facial expressions and body language, the severity of any infirmity, the depth of his family's reliance, or the feebleness of his build....”). Cf. Hamilton v. Accu–Tek, 942 F.Supp. 136, 138 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (granting application to broadcast argument on ground that “ [a]ctually seeing and hearing court proceedings, combined with commentary of informed members of the press and academia, provides a powerful device for monitoring the courts” (emphasis added)). On January 9, 2013, the court published a detailed Statement of Reasons explaining the rationale for defendant's sentence.

  5. Capitol Records, Inc. v. Alaujan

    593 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D. Mass. 2009)   Cited 2 times
    Limiting the applicability of the Order in this case permitting narrowcasting to a motion hearing that would have "involve[d] only legal argument"

    Pursuant to their own local rules, a number of individual district court judges in the Eastern and Southern District of New York have allowed specific hearings in civil cases to be recorded and broadcast since at least 1996. See E.D.N.Y. S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 1.8; Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 929 F.Supp. 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Ward, J.); Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau Klimpl, 937 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Leisure, J.); Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, 923 F.Supp. 580 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Sweet, J.); Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F.Supp. 136 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (Weinstein, J.); GVA Market Neutral Master Limited v. Veras Capital Partners, No. 07-cv-00519 (S.D.N.Y.); CCM Pathfinder Pompano Bay, LLC v. Compass Financial Partners LLC, et. al., No. 08-cv-05258 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 2008 WL 1809659 (E.D.N.Y.) (Weinstein, J.).

  6. Smolowitz v. Sherwin-Williams Company

    02-CV-5940 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008)

    E.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 1.8. The Court has full discretion to grant or deny CVN's request.See Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F.Supp. 136, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ("Decisions interpreting [former Local General Rule 7] affirm the authority of each judge to permit with conditions, or deny, television recording or broadcasting from the courtroom over which she or he presides."); see also Williams v. New York City Police Dept., No. 94 Civ. 6234, 1997 WL 361974, *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1997) (recognizing that under Local Rule 1.8 the Court has "full discretion to permit or reject television coverage"). The Court has reviewed CVN's letter and chooses to exercise its discretion to deny CVN's application.

  7. U.S. v. Gigante

    971 F. Supp. 755 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 20 times
    Allowing a witness' testimony through closed circuit television would not violate criminal defendant's constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation

    The video tape may not be released to the media. See Fed.R.Crim.P.53 (broadcasting from courtroom in criminal trial not permitted); cf., Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F. Supp. 136 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (broadcasting in civil case permitted). Any reading back of testimony requested by the jury during its deliberations will be from the court reporter's transcript; use of the video tape recording for this purpose might result in evaluating this testimony differently from other testimony taken in open court.

  8. Orena v. U.S.

    973 F. Supp. 1091 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

    Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bans broadcast from the courtroom in criminal matters. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 53; Katzman v. Victoria's Secret Catalogue, 923 F. Supp. 580, 583, n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); cf. E.D.N.Y.Gen.R. 7 (discretion of individual judges to permit television recording in civil cases); Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F. Supp. 136 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (broadcast of civil hearing permitted). Second, the subject matter (and possibly witnesses) in the February 28 hearing is likely to come before juries in pending criminal trials in this district.