It may be that reporting via Twitter from the courtroom is the fastest-growing trend in the coverage of the United States justice system.

Judge J. Thomas Marten of the U.S. District Court in Wichita, KS has decided to allow a reporter from a local newspaper to provide the public (at least the tweeting public) updates on a racketeering gang trial that is taking place in his courtroom this week. Although it is not the first time that Twitter has been allowed in courtrooms,  the practice of online news streaming is still rare in the federal system, and almost unheard of in criminal cases.

Attorneys in the case had voiced concern that a juror might visit the Twitter online site (or even use his or her mobile smart-phone) to read the posts being done by Ron Sylvester, a reporter for the Wichita Eagle, but Judge Marten said jurors have always been told to avoid newspaper, broadcast and online reports. Judge Marten said, “You either trust your jurors to live with the admonishment, or you don’t.”

Posts to Twitter (“tweets”) are often used to provide coverage of events, either public or personal, to other Twitter users, of which there are millions. Increasingly, the service is being used by professional news reporters on the scene, according to an AP story. Courtroom posts on Twitter have recently been allowed by judges in high profile cases being tried in Massachusetts, Iowa, New York, and in Washington, D.C.

Sylvester has been reporting via Twitter for over a year, but from newsworthy courtroom hearings to high profile Kansas state court trials. This is the first time that he has ever provided live streaming posts from a trial in a Federal court. This particular trial, dealing with gang racketeering allegations against a half dozen Crips gang members, has broad reader appeal.

In courts across the country, technical-minded judges are becoming increasingly receptive to live courtroom media coverage using emerging technologies. Coverage of this type has been common in state courts for some years. The federal judiciary has historically been less willing to use such reporting technology in criminal trials, with some U.S. Supreme Court justices adamantly opposed to cameras or other similar devices being used in their courtrooms.

Federal judges, however, have broad discretion on the technologies used in their courtrooms. Judge Marten said, “The more we can do to open the process to the public, the greater the public understanding — the more legitimacy the public system will have in the eyes of the public. This is so far removed from cameras and, frankly, cameras are coming too.”

This would seem to be a fairly unobtrusive use of technology and an excellent way to keep members of the public informed on the courtroom deliberations that interest them. It is one more way to help make our government more open and transparent, and we cannot afford to pass up any opportunity to do that.

Related:

Entry was posted on Saturday, March 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pm under Crime, Internet, Legal, Social Media.

Read more entries by Michael W. Jones.
Stumble It!