On Sept. 15, Monica M. Márquez, the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, put out a directive temporarily pausing required livestreams of criminal court proceedings in state trial courts — a move in contradiction with state law, as well as previous court directives.
In her order, Marquez outlines several issues that have surfaced since the directive and law were put into place, writing, “Unfortunately, in the years since these two authorities took effect, the livestreaming technology that was intended to promote access to the courts has been subverted as a tool of disruption, disparagement, harassment, and private economic gain that is rapidly eroding the proper functioning of our system of justice.”
Marquez states that, despite the warnings to not record the proceedings in any way, the technology is being abused, with videos, sometimes altered, making their way to platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram, with the social media platforms unwilling to remove the content.
She also discusses bad actors who log directly into court proceedings using false names and credentials.
Those bad actors then disrupt the proceedings with any number of disgusting and inappropriate content.
Quickly after the Sept. 15 directive came out, most judicial districts dropped off the livestreaming platform, including our own 6th Judicial District.
It’s been a disappointing change.
We absolutely agree that fair and respectful court proceedings must occur — for the sakes of the accused, the victims, witnesses, court officers, jurors and others.
We absolutely agree that courts must maintain order and decorum, and and we know bad actors have disrupted that, drawing hearings to a halt for a period of time and, in some cases, traumatizing those subject to the inappropriately content displayed.
However, the jump to removing the livestream requirement altogether until something better can be found seems excessive.
Especially when it’s based on the actions of so few.
The Denver Post dug into the state’s records and determined that the people who misuse Colorado court livestreams make up less than 1 percent of all viewers.
But going against state law (a big concern) and taking drastic action based on so few isn’t where our concerns end.
We also have significant concerns over the drop in transparency and public information we’ve grown accustomed to and have learned to expect.
While courtrooms absolutely remain open to the public and anyone can go observe the proceedings, the addition of livestreaming during and following the COVID-19 pandemic undeniably made the proceedings much easier to access, and potentially less intimidating for many.
Livestreams are a way to learn more about how our judicial processes function, how our judges are performing and how attorneys — especially ones who go on to be considered for judgeships — practice their craft.
Livestreams offer newsrooms easier and better access to follow, observe and report on the cases that are meaningful to those communities, and to track trends. They also help small newsrooms that cover large areas that include multiple courthouses have better coverage, especially when last-minute changes may mean a hearing is moved an hour away with little to no notice to the public. To cover a hearing via livestream, media outlets have to file for extended media coverage, which involves multiple attorneys and the judge, among others and, understandably, takes time that last-minute changes make difficult.
Livestreams also allow media and other watchdogs better access to monitor and understand how both the judicial branch and law enforcement are functioning. For example, we recently learned of multiple cases being dismissed due to concerns with an officer via regularly watching court livestreams.
Marquez’s directive is for 90 days, but we hope to see the courts find a better path forward sooner than that — or opt to livestream in the interim despite the directive like some are doing — and to renew access to this critical part of our society.
Removing transparency is hardly a way to maintain or strengthen public confidence in the judicial process.
Randi Pierce
>