I. Overview of the pilot program on cameras in courtrooms
A. The pilot program
At its September 2010 session, the Judicial Conference authorized a three-year pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in district court courtrooms, video recordings of proceedings, and publication of such video recordings. The pilot was limited to civil cases only. Proceedings could be recorded only with the approval of the presiding judge, and parties had to consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. Unless the presiding judge decided not to make the recordings publicly available, they would subsequently be posted on www.uscourts.gov, as well as on local participating court websites at the court’s discretion. The pilot would be studied by the Federal Judicial Center.
Fourteen courts participated in the pilot, which began June 18, 2011, and ended July 18, 2015. The courts were: Middle District of Alabama; Northern District of California; Southern District of Florida; District of Guam; Northern District of Illinois; Southern District of Iowa; District of Kansas; District of Massachusetts; Eastern District of Missouri; District of Nebraska; Northern District of Ohio; Southern District of Ohio; Western District of Tennessee; and Western District of Washington.
At its March 15, 2016 session, the Judicial Conference received the report of its Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM), which agreed not to recommend any changes to the Conference policy at that time. The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council (in cooperation with the Judicial Conference), however, authorized the three districts in the Ninth Circuit that participated in the cameras pilot (California Northern, Washington Western, and Guam) to continue the pilot program under the same terms and conditions to provide longer-term data and information to CACM.
B. The links on this page
Included on this page are links to a handful of excerpts of jury trials that were videotaped as part of the pilot program on cameras in courtrooms. Some of these links are to portions of proceedings where judges are making notable general comments about the importance of the jury system. The majority of the below links are to portions of proceedings where the judge is employing some of the innovations promoted by the Civil Jury Project. The videotapes of all proceedings videotaped as part of the pilot program are available on the uscourts website at the following link: (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/case-video-archive). Thirty of these proceedings are (civil) jury trials.
II. Video clips
A. General
Novogroder v. NOM Lima Shawnee LLC (N.D. Ohio)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/novogroder-v-nom-lima-shawnee-llc
Part 22 of 24:
0:02:00-0:06:00
The judge gives a speech to the jurors about why he thinks that the jury system is important.
B. Clips of some of our jury innovations in action
- Final jury instructions before closing arguments
Novogroder v. NOM Lima Shawnee LLC (N.D. Ohio)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/novogroder-v-nom-lima-shawnee-llc
Part 22 of 24:
0:38:00-0:38:30
In this clip, the judge explains why he gives the final jury instructions before the attorneys’ closing arguments even though this is atypical.
- Opening statements before voir dire
In the following case, the judge has the attorneys provide their opening statements to the entire venire—before voir dire. In addition to doing this, he tells the jurors a bit about why he does this, despite—as he tells the jurors—it not being a typical practice among judges to have opening statements given before voir dire.
773, LLC vs. Scottsdale Insurance Company (D. Kan.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/773-llc-vs-scottsdale-insurance-company
Part 1 of 1:
0:04:30
The judge tells the attorneys that they will be doing their openings to the entire venire panel.
773, LLC vs. Scottsdale Insurance Company (D. Kan.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/773-llc-vs-scottsdale-insurance-company
Part 1 of 1:
0:10:10-0:11:15
The judge tells the venire that opening statements will be given to the entire venire, and the judge says that this is not the typical practice in trials, but he explains that he prefers this practice and he says a bit about why.
- Juror questions of witnesses during trial
Eurys Gamez v. ACE America Insurance Company (S.D. Fla.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/eurys-gamez-v-ace-america-insurance-company
Part 1 of 4:
0:00:00 – 0:01:00
The judge states that she will allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses. (And the judge states that note-taking by jurors is allowed.)
Eurys Gamez v. ACE America Insurance Company (S.D. Fla.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/eurys-gamez-v-ace-america-insurance-company
Part 3 of 4:
8:14:15-8:23:30
The judge asks the jurors for questions they have of the witness, and then the judge proceeds to ask the witness these questions.
Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp. (S.D. Fla.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/lawrence-v-ms-re-kesef-corp
Part 3 of 5:
0:45:50-0:46:00
The judge asks the jurors if they have any questions for the witness. The jurors in this instance have no questions.
Lawrence v. MS & RE Kesef Corp. (S.D. Fla.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/lawrence-v-ms-re-kesef-corp
Part 3 of 5:
1:42:00-1:50:50
The judge asks the jurors if they have any questions for the witness, and the judge then asks the witness the jurors’ questions.
- Note-taking by jurors
Manning v. Jones (S.D. Iowa)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/manning-v-jones
Part 1 of 18:
0:11:30-0:12:50
The judge tells the jurors that they are allowed to take notes, and he makes comments regarding the procedures of note-taking.
Coder et al v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (D. Kan.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/coder-et-al-v-american-bankers-insurance-company-florida
Part 1 of 1:
6:02:00-6:03:30
The judge tells the jurors that the notes that they were allowed to take are only aids, and that they should trust their memory, that the notes are not evidence, and that they should not be unduly influenced by the notes of the other jurors.
Tracy Thomas vs. Louisville Ladder Inc. (D. Kan.)
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/tracy-thomas-vs-louisville-ladder-inc
17:13:00-17:13:20
The judge reminds the jurors that the notes that they took are only aids for their memories and that they are not more important than their memories.