Summary
A coalition of 18 national and state news organizations is asking the Maryland Supreme Court to reject an “emergency” proposal that would sharply limit press and public access to criminal court proceedings.
The Upshot
- Ballard Spahr attorneys are representing the coalition at a public hearing tomorrow, January 6, before the Court, to press the importance of preserving Maryland’s role as a leader in judicial transparency.
- The Supreme Court of Maryland’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in December proposed a new “emergency” rule that would prohibit Maryland state trial courts from releasing recordings of any proceedings in criminal cases, including proceedings held in open court.
- The proposed rule comes in response to a recent ruling in Maryland federal court that found unconstitutional Maryland’s “Broadcast Ban.”
The Bottom Line
The Court has scheduled a public hearing on Friday, January 6, 2023, to hear comments on the matter. The coalition will urge the Court then to maintain the current rules to allow for maximum transparency in the state judicial system to maintain effective journalism, a better-informed public, and greater faith in the courts.
On behalf of a coalition of 18 national and state news organizations, Ballard Spahr attorneys are asking the Maryland Supreme Court to reject an “emergency” proposal to sharply limit press and public access to criminal court proceedings. Ballard Spahr counsel, at a public hearing tomorrow, January 6, before the Court, will press the importance of preserving Maryland’s role as a leader in judicial transparency.
Maryland trial courts currently provide audio-recordings of civil and criminal proceedings, on request, to the press and public. Court rules already allow narrow sealing of criminal cases where a party can meet the high burden, and the rules also ensure that recordings of any sealed hearings remain shielded. That procedure, which all court systems have in one form or another, strikes a careful balance between facilitating transparency and safeguarding sealed information.
On December 14, 2022, however, the Supreme Court of Maryland’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure proposed a new “emergency” rule that would prohibit Maryland state trial courts from releasing recordings of any proceedings in criminal cases, including proceedings held in open court. Members of the press and public instead would be required to come to the courthouse to listen to recordings under the watchful supervision of court staff.
The proposed rule comes in response to a recent ruling in Maryland federal court that found unconstitutional Maryland’s “Broadcast Ban,” which prohibited anyone who lawfully obtained a recording of criminal court proceedings from broadcasting that audio. Soderberg v. Carrión, F. Supp. 3d, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222645 (D. Md. Dec. 9, 2022). Prior to that decision, journalists and others could be held in contempt of court if they published audio of public criminal proceedings that they had obtained lawfully and directly from the court. The previous year, National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR), represented by Ballard Spahr, successfully brought a narrower challenge to the same provision that Soderberg later invalidated. NPR, Inc. v. Klavans, 560 F. Supp. 3d 916 (D. Md. Sept. 15, 2021).
On behalf of a coalition of 18 news organizations—including the producers of Serial, the acclaimed podcast in which recordings of criminal proceedings in Maryland against Adnan Syed played a significant role—Ballard Spahr submitted written comments this week calling on the state’s Supreme Court to reject the proposed change and will speak on the issue at the Court’s upcoming open meeting.
As the comments explain, the proposed change in the rules would roll back the judiciary’s efforts at transparency, reduce the public’s awareness and understanding of activity in Maryland courts, and erode public confidence. Maintaining the current rules will result in more effective journalism, a better-informed public, and greater faith in the court system—and will not negatively impact the integrity of criminal trials or witnesses’ willingness to testify.
The Court has scheduled a public hearing on Friday, January 6, 2023, to hear comments on the matter. The coalition will urge the Court then to maintain the current rule to allow for maximum transparency in the state judicial system.
The attorneys in Ballard Spahr’s Media and Entertainment Law Group help clients across platforms navigate some of the most challenging legal issues that arise in a healthy, functioning democracy—in the newsroom and in court. Our clients range from global news, entertainment, and advertising companies to local newspapers, news startups, freelance journalists, and internet companies. We also represent studios, directors and producers, sports teams, universities, authors, filmmakers, nonprofits, and government watchdog organizations—anyone who creates or disseminates content. Please contact us for more information.
Subscribe to Ballard Spahr Mailing Lists
Get the latest significant legal alerts, news, webinars, and insights that affect your industry.
Subscribe Copyright © 2024 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.