Opinion
No. CR-1769-24
04-19-2024
The People of the State of New York, v. Sean Reyes, Defendant.
Michael DeMatteo Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Schenectady County, on behalf of the People. Morgan Welling Esq., Assistant Public Defender, Schenectady County, on behalf of the Defendant.
Michael DeMatteo Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Schenectady County, on behalf of the People.
Morgan Welling Esq., Assistant Public Defender, Schenectady County, on behalf of the Defendant.
Carl G. Falotico, J.
On April 1, 2024, Defendant was charged with Trespass in violation of Penal Law § 140.05 and issued a ticket to appear in Schenectady City Court on. Before the Court is Defendant's request, filed on April 11, 2024 pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR part 131), for leave to video record his criminal proceedings. Defendant asserts that he is an independent journalist, and that recording would promote transparency in the proceedings.
"In New York, the rights of the press to report on judicial proceedings is extensive" (Matter of People v Solomon, 138 Misc.2d 587, 589 [Suffolk County Ct, 1988, Vaughn, J.], citing Judiciary Law § 4; Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 [1980]; Matter of Associated Press v Bell, 70 N.Y.2d 32 [1987]; see generally U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment). Further, "[i]n order to maintain the broadest scope of public access to the courts, to preserve public confidence in the Judiciary, and to foster public understanding of the role of the Judicial Branch in civil society, it is the policy of the Unified Court System [is] to facilitate the audio-visual coverage of court proceedings to the fullest extent permitted" by statute and the orderly administration of justice (22 NYCRR 131.1 [a]). Notably, the extent of press access continues to be a discussion for the state Legislature (see e.g. 2023 NY Senate Bill S160A)
While First Amendment principles apply to considerations of press coverage, the right to cover judicial proceeding must be balanced with the Court's duty to ensure the orderly administration of justice (see generally Chandler v Florida, 449 U.S. 560 [1981] [Constitution does not prohibit nor require allowing cameras in the courtroom]; Courtroom Tel. Network LLC v State of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 222 [2005] [Holding the neither the federal nor state constitution provides right to record trials]). In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, the Supreme Court held that that while there was a general right to access, this "does not mean that the First Amendment rights of the public and representatives of the press are absolute. Just as a government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions upon the use of its streets in the interest of such objectives as the free flow of traffic, so may a trial judge, in the interest of the fair administration of justice, impose reasonable limitations on access to a trial," (448 U.S. at 581 [internal citation omitted]; see also Matter of People v Santiago, 185 Misc.2d 138, 160 [Monroe County Ct, 2000, Bristol, J.] [Decisions recognizing a right to access should not "be read to stand for the proposition that the press' right to enter the courtroom with their cameras and recording equipment is unfettered."]). Indeed, even the United States Supreme Court does not provide video coverage of its arguments. New York courts have acknowledged that cameras in the courtroom can potentially impede on the right to a fair trial, with possible prejudices "including whether jurors will be unwilling to serve, witnesses reticent to testify, or attorneys prone to grandstanding" (Matter of Heckstall v McGrath, 15 A.D.3d 824, 826 [3d Dept 2005]; see generally Civil Rights Law § 52; Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 [1966] [Due process rights implicated by extensive media coverage]; Estes v Texas, 381 U.S. 532 [1965] [Recording so distracted trial participants as to deprive defendant of a fair trial]).
Defendant's characterization of himself as an "independent journalist" raises certain legal and factual questions. The Rules of the Chief Judge define news media as "any news reporting or news gathering agency and any employee or agent associated with such agency, including television, radio, radio and television networks, news services, newspapers, magazines, trade papers, in-house publications, professional journals, or any other news reporting or news gathering agency, the function of which is to inform the public or some segment thereof" (22 NYCRR 131.2 [c]). While there is a legitimate question about whether a "Constitutional activist who conducts 1st Amendment Audits and public employee accountability checks" qualifies as "news media" under the definition, Courts should be hesitant of any system that arbitrarily restrains First Amendment rights (see http://longislandaudit.com.)
For a host of reasons, attempts to define "the press" presents both fact issue challenges and constitutional dangers (see generally First Nat. Bank of Boston v Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 799 [1978, Burger, C.J., concurring] ["the Framers did not intend to limit the freedom of the press to one select group... In short, the First Amendment does not 'belong' to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms."]; Matter of Daily News, L.P. v Wiley, 126 A.D.3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2015] ["The press is not imbued with any special right of access, and while it possesses 'the same right of access as the public,' it has no right to information about a trial that is 'greater' or 'superior' to that of the general public"]; Rupert v Sellers, 65 A.D.2d 473, 483 [4th Dept 1978] [Cardamone, J., concurring] ["Absent any suggestion to the contrary by the Court of Appeals" courts should not afford greater rights to the media than private individuals]). "[T]he traditional doctrine [is] that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods. Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right" (Branzburg v Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 [1972] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]).
As applicable here, the Rules of the Chief Judge set forth a list of relevant factors for the Court to consider (see 22 NYCRR 131.3 [d]). As relevant here, the Court must consider the "type of case involved [and]... whether the coverage would interfere with the fair administration of justice, the advancement of a fair trial, or the rights of the parties" (id.). Here, Defendant's case arises, at least in part, out of the very activity he seeks to carry out in court. Further, as noted above, courts have an obligation to minimize distraction during proceedings, particularly criminal proceedings, and to ensure the orderly administration of justice. To allow any defendant to record a proceeding could possibly open the door to distraction and disruption. Where recording itself is an issue in the case, such concerns are amplified. "As the Federal Judiciary Committee concluded, when weighing the First Amendment benefits of audio visual coverage against fair trial concerns, any negative impact may be sufficient to tip the scales against" allowing recording (Courtroom Tel. Network, LLC v State, 1 Misc.3d 328, 369-370 [Sup Ct, New York County 2003, Kornreich, J.], aff, 8 A.D.3d 164 [1st Dept 2004], affd 5 N.Y.3d 222 [2005]). "The primary governmental interest, both state and federal, is guaranteeing that the defendant receives a fair trial. Consistent with that interest, the court must be concerned with the defendant, jurors, witnesses, attorneys and the public at large" (Courtroom Tel. Network LLC v State of New York, 5 N.Y.3d at 232 [2005]).
Based on the above, the Court is denying Defendant's request to video record his own criminal proceedings. The Court finds that video recording of Defendant's criminal proceeding would interfere with the fair administration of justice.
The foregoing constitutes a Decision and Order of this Court.