Archived content from original Court Watch LA website.
CWLA Letter to LASC
RE: Ensuring Public Access to Proceedings via Remote Audio Attendance
March 4, 2021
The Honorable Eric Taylor
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 N. Hill Street, Room 107
Los Angeles, CA 90012
publicinfo@lacourt.org
Via Email
Dear Presiding Judge Eric Taylor,
I am writing on behalf of Court Watch Los Angeles and our partner organizations Dignity and Power Now, La Defensa, From Gangs to Glory Opportunity Foundation, San Bernardino Free Them All, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Social Eco Education-LA, and Essie Justice Group. Court Watch Los Angeles is a volunteer driven organization dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in the criminal court system. We write to notify the Court of the numerous technical problems that Court Watch Los Angeles has experienced using the Remote Audio Attendance program that have prevented us and other members of the public from being able to listen to Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings. In addition, we write to urge the Court to ensure that the constitutional right to observe judicial proceedings is not infringed upon by taking appropriate steps to establish that the Remote Audio Attendance is working properly in all Los Angeles Superior Court courtrooms.
We have tried to listen to Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings across different courthouses and departments nine times, and have only been able to clearly listen to the proceedings one of these times. Below is a list of the various attempts we have made to use the Remote Audio Attendance program:
● On January 25th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department 48 at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:30 and the player said “streaming currently unavailable.” After refreshing multiple times, the same message continued to appear. We called the helpdesk at 9:10. The helpdesk staffer informed us that the department was having technical difficulties and that a ticket would be submitted for the issue to be fixed.
● On January 26th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department 60 at Metropolitan Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:30. It appeared that the player was streaming, but there was no sound. We called the helpdesk around 9:25 and were informed that the department was having technical difficulties and that a ticket would be submitted for the issue to be fixed.
● On January 28th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department W93 at the Airport Courthouse. We logged onto the streaming platform at 8:30. It appeared that the player was streaming. We could hear tone sounds but never any speaking. We called the helpdesk at 9:45 and were told that the audio was working properly. We were never able to hear any of the morning’s proceedings.
● On January 29th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department 2 at the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:30 and the player said “streaming currently unavailable.” After refreshing multiple times, the same message continued to appear. We called the helpdesk at 9:35. The helpdesk staffer told us that the department would not be turning on public streaming that day.
● On February 5th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department 5 at the Compton Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 9:00. We heard a tone noise that was repeating over and over again, like a button was being held down. We called the helpdesk around 9:10 and were informed that the department was having technical difficulties and that a ticket would be submitted for the issue to be fixed.
● On February 11th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department B at the Compton Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:45. It appeared that the audio was streaming, but there was no sound. Around 9:00, we heard some tone sounds. From then on, we could not hear any speaking but we could hear occasional tone sounds. We called the helpdesk as 10:20. The helpdesk staff informed us that the department was hearing confidential cases and would turn the streaming on when the confidential cases were over. We listened until 11:30 and the streaming was never turned on.
● On February 18th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department A4 at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:45. There was no sound. We heard some tone sounds around 9:00. We did not hear any speaking but continued to hear occasional tone sounds. We called the helpdesk at 10:00. We were informed that the volume was turned down in the department and that a technician would turn up the volume in approximately ten minutes. We were never able to hear any speaking. The stream ended at 10:30.
● On February 26th, we attempted to listen to proceedings in Department 48 at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:30 and the player said “streaming currently unavailable.” After refreshing multiple times, streaming started at 9:30 but there was no sound. At 9:45, we could hear an announcement that court resumed and could hear the cases being heard. The stream ended at 9:55. The stream turned back on at 10:25 then turned off again five minutes later at 10:30. In total, we could hear 15 minutes of proceedings in two hours.
● On March 3rd, we were able to listen to proceedings in Department A4 at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse. We logged on to the streaming platform at 8:30 and the player said “streaming currently unavailable.” After refreshing multiple times, streaming started at 10:00 and we could clearly listen to cases being heard.
In addition, members of the public have informed us that they have not been able to successfully listen to Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings via the Remote Audio Attendance platform. These instances include:
● February 5th, Department 2 at Inglewood Courthouse
● February 9th, Department 2 at Inglewood Courthouse
● February 9th, Department 8 at Compton Courthouse
As you know, the public and press have rights under both the First Amendment and the California Constitution to observe judicial proceedings. Openness in judicial hearings “enhances both the basic fairness of the [proceedings] and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system[.]” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984). These constitutional access rights apply to all stages of criminal proceedings including public preliminary hearings, see Penal Code § 868 (preliminary hearings are open and public); see also Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 13 (1986) (“We therefore conclude that the qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applies to preliminary hearings as they are conducted in California.”), as well as criminal trials, beginning with the examination of jurors. See Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. at 505. The right to attend trials is “implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment.” Richmond Newspapers Inc., v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 556-57 (1980). The California Supreme Court has ruled that these access rights extend to civil proceedings as well. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Super. Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1208-09 (1999) (“No case…of which we are aware suggests, much less holds, that the First Amendment right of access as articulated by the high court does not apply, as a general matter, to ordinary civil proceedings.”). The standard for closing proceedings to the public is stringent and must be met on a case-by-case basis; courts are required to demonstrate inter alia that “the proposed closure is narrowly tailored to serve [an] overriding interest; and [that ]there is no less restrictive means of achieving that overriding interest.” Id. at 1181-82.
We appreciate that in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court has taken the initiative to preserve this right through setting up the Remote Audio Attendance platform. However, if this system is not fully functioning, it cannot fulfill its purpose of granting the public, including the families of people who are incarcerated or facing charges, access to court proceedings. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Each day that passes, and each hearing that occurs, without the opportunity for public access works an irreparable injury on all Californians interested in this Court’s administration of justice.
We urge the Court to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Remote Audio Attendance program is properly functioning in each Los Angeles Superior Courthouse department. Such steps may include:
● Testing the Remote Audio Attendance program in each courtroom and making necessary repairs.
● Reminding judges and judicial assistants that the audio streaming must be turned on and the volume raised to a level sufficient to capture the proceedings every day.
● Ensuring judges and judicial assistants are not turning off the audio streaming system for nonconfidential cases.
● Promptly responding to and repairing any reports of technical difficulties.
We respectfully ask that by Friday, March 19 you confirm to us in writing how the Court is ensuring public access to its proceedings via Remote Audio Attendance. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Regards,
Rebecca Brown
Legal Fellow
National Lawyers Guild Los Angeles
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California
La Defensa
Dignity and Power Now
Essie Justice Group
From Gangs to Glory Opportunity Foundation
San Bernardino Free Them All
Social Eco Education-LA
CC: Sherri Carter, Clerk of Court
Click image below to watch video:
VIDEO: