news-record.com

BLOGS

The Editor's Log

Cellphones in the courtroom

The message on the signs on the outside of the courtrooms at the Guilford County Courthouse are clear: By order of the judge, turn off your cellphone. Makes sense, too. No one wants a phone to start ringing in the middle of a trial. (Given some of the ringtones I've heard, I can just imagine spectators being tossed into jail for contempt of court.)

But given what smart phones can do these days, is the judge's order too restrictive? I think so.

Today, Grayson Dawson was sentenced after pleading guilty to felony hit and run. It was a high profile case, and a lot of people were paying attention. People want to know what's happening, and news organizations want to get the news out as quickly as possible.

The judge allowed video and still cameras in the courtroom. Professional journalists were there, taking notes with pencil and paper.

One person — not with the News & Record — tweeted updates throughout the three-hour sentencing hearing. I asked the person about that and was told that the cellphone was on silent. Still, I think it's fortunate the bailiff didn't notice the phone was on and in use.

But it raises the question of whether the courts need to catch up with technology. Again. A reporter — or anyone — tweeting about a case on a silent cellphone is not less disruptive than someone taking notes on a pad. Anyone interested in a case, but not able to be there, could keep up by reading Twitter posts, Facebook posts or web posts done by someone in the courtroom with a quiet smart phone. In the Dawson case, the person tweeting did a good job; the tweets were descriptive and, all told, provided a decent narrative of the hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if others in the courtroom today were stealth texting on their phones.My observation is that prohibiting people from using technology to communicate doesn't work. The courts might as well address it head on.

Permalink
Tags: Open government, technology

Posted by John Robinson on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at 4:14 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

donegill

August 24, 2010 - 5:48 pm EDT

Cellphone rings generally don't subject the flustered malefactor to jail but some judges have found the person in contempt and set a fine of $50.00 to purge the contempt and ransom the phone.
In a supercharged courtroom even the buzz of a silenced phone bounces off the hard acoustics and pulls the actors out of the train of thought. In any roomful of citizens there will always be someone who flounders through a huge handbag or slaps various jacket pockets looking for a ringing phone. Turn them off.

Jennifer Fernandez

August 24, 2010 - 5:58 pm EDT

I see using the phone in that manner the same as using a computer. Judges have allowed computers in the courtroom, although I always asked ahead of time to make sure. Tweeting by cellphone is much less cumbersome! As long as the ringer is off and you're not disrupting the courtroom, why not allow it?

SueP

August 24, 2010 - 6:00 pm EDT

I believe some federal courts do not allow smartphones with cameras (try to buy a smartphone without one!) and can get testy if the lawyers don't have their calendars to schedule dates. Methinks a legal update needs implementing.

Mark Binker

August 24, 2010 - 11:01 pm EDT

At the federal courthouse in Raleigh you have to surrender your phone (smart, dumb or otherwise) as well as any recording equipment. I believe the situation is much the elsewhere. This is a case where the federal judiciary is bound and determined to shove its head where the sun don't shine.

State courthouses are more permissive, although it depends on the temperament of the judge and the courthouse officials around them. Of course, that's a problem in and of itself: disparate rules for the rule of law depending on your current geography and how observant the bailiffs are.

lexalexander

August 24, 2010 - 7:08 pm EDT

Smart phones are computers, period. This has ramifications for everything from courtroom procedure to the Google-Verizon deal. And some judges need to be brought up short on this. Requiring phone muting is logical, as is banning phone conversations. But further restricting use? No, sorry, Judge, but we pay for that court and we will use it as WE see fit, thank you.

Doug

August 25, 2010 - 8:57 am EDT

I'd love to hear you say that in court, Lex. Just make sure you don't have any pressing appointments coming up in the next 30 days.

lexalexander

September 1, 2010 - 10:13 pm EDT

True, Doug, and that's the problem: Many judges think they OWN the courts. In fact, they are merely hired for pre-set terms to administer them. There's a difference.

020460

August 24, 2010 - 8:40 pm EDT

John, I heard an anecdote this weekend on this topic. Apparently, a woman present in one of our local courtrooms defied a judge's order to stop speaking on her cell phone. She defied his order and continued. The judge apparently sent her to jail for 30 days because of it. I think that is a good thing.

Joe Guarino

John Robinson

August 24, 2010 - 9:12 pm EDT

I don't disagree. Some people are just dense. But I was thinking more about usages that aren't distracting or disturbing to the court. Texting can be done surreptitiously.

Thanks for visiting, Doc. What an interesting sign on. Is there a story behind that?

Joe Guarino

August 25, 2010 - 9:37 am EDT

John, there is no real story other than the fact that I made a mistake when creating my account with the N&R site.:)

jerseyfreeze

August 24, 2010 - 10:13 pm EDT

I suspect the sign is simply antiquated and the court system hasn't addressed the shift in technology that has taken place over the past few years. It seems crazy that a reporter could tweet from an iPad but not an iPhone. Perhaps the court wants to distinguish between devices that can make/receive calls and those that can't, but Skype has blurred that line. I find it funny that the notoriously technophobic airline industry seems to have figured out how to handle smartphones (I rarely have been questioned about using my iPhone on a plane), but the courts haven't. Then again, we're talking about the government here.