Democratizing Court-Watching in the Digital Age: Exploring Individual Court Policies Regarding Access to Audio/Video Recordings in Michigan

Background: Social workers have long shared purview with the justice system in addressing various social issues. There has been an increasing awareness that these issues can be exacerbated in the justice system due to punitive practices and disparities in enforcement. Social workers have an ethical obligation to be aware of and advocate for reform in their communities, and court-watching is one important tool for engaging in judicial oversight. While rights of access grounded in the first amendment grant individuals the right to attend court proceedings in person, in practice, barriers such as employment and transportation prevent widespread attendance and impede judicial oversight. Policies granting access to copies of audio/video recordings of proceedings can mitigate these barriers, but they vary across states and localities. In the State of Michigan, where judges are elected, the Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a policy of permitting individual trial courts to exercise discretion regarding whether to share audio/video recordings with the public, which results in some voters in the state having more access to information regarding their elected judges than others. The purpose of this study is to describe the variation and frequency in court policies regarding access to audio/video recordings and describe the implications for individuals to be informed in their voting for judges.

Methods: Data were collected from written policies from 156 courts regarding public access to copies of audio/video recordings of court proceedings. Each court’s policy was scored based on a cumulative point system on three aspects of public access including (a) whether audio/video recordings were accessible for viewing/listening on site (1 point), (b) whether copies could be obtained (2 points) and (c) whether copies could be disseminated (3 points). Total scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more access.

Results: More than half (58%) of courts had a score of 0 (they allow no public access to audio/video recordings of public court proceedings), 14% had a score of 1 (they allow viewing/listening on site, but no copies or dissemination), 8% had a score of 2 (they allow copies but forbid dissemination and no viewing/listening on site), 10% had a score of 3 (they allow viewing/listening on site and they allow copies, but forbid dissemination), 3% had a score of 5 (they allow copies and dissemination but no viewing/listening on site), and 7% had a score of 6 (they allow viewing/listening on site, copies and dissemination).

Implications: The ability for the public to obtain and disseminate copies of audio/video recordings of court proceedings is the gold standard for ensuring that voters can access information about their elected judges, and yet only 10% of Michigan courts allow this. A proposed standardized statewide policy this author co-developed with the ACLU of Michigan and the State Bar of Michigan that gives unfettered access is shared, and a call for social workers to advocate for this policy to be adopted in Michigan and other states that forbid access is emphasized.