Access denied

Access to Torrez sentencing limited to TV camera

Journal photographer barred from hearing

A Journal photographer said he was forced to shoot a high-profile hearing through a courtroom window Thursday morning after staff at the 2nd Judicial District court said the judge would allow only a single television camera inside — a decision court officials defended as within the judge’s discretion.

The Journal disagreed. Newspaper attorney Greg Williams said Supreme Court rule 23-107 governing cameras in the courtroom allows one video camera and not more than two still photographers.

“So our starting point is that in New Mexico courts, photography is specifically allowed,” Williams said.

There is a provision within the rule that lets judges “modify” it, “if there’s good cause,” he said, but he was not aware of any good cause in the case that would permit the court to keep still photographers out.

“And so it’s our position that, because there was not good cause, the camera should have been permitted,” he said.

The Journal submitted a request to photograph Tony Torrez’s plea and sentencing hearing at 3 p.m. Wednesday, about 30 minutes after learning about that hearing.

But at 4:41 p.m., Liz Garcia, the court’s general counsel, said court administration had been informed by Judge Charles Brown’s chambers that “one camera will be allowed inside the courtroom. Channel 13 KRQE was granted that camera access.”

Although Brown could not be reached for comment Thursday afternoon, a member of his staff said the judge’s policy is that the first media outlet to make a request becomes the pool photographer.

KRQE provided multiple images to the Journal for possible publication, however video captures are not ideal for print purposes.

Court executive officer Jim Noel, who said he had not spoken with Brown, defended the judge’s decision.

“One of the many responsibilities the judge has during a proceeding is to make sure that there are no distractions from the proceeding itself,” he said. “In this particular case, the judge must have made a determination that more than one camera in the courtroom was going to be a distraction.”

Noel said it’s possible that if the Journal had contacted the court with a photo request first, the still camera would have been the only one in the hearing.

“This is a discretionary call on the part of the judge,” he said.

Brown previously has allowed a still camera as well as a television camera to record hearings in his courtroom — a Journal photographer was present along with a television camera during hearings on Oct. 7 and Oct. 14.

Photographer Adolphe PierreLouis said he showed up to the hearing with his equipment but was told that the judge would only permit one TV camera. Instead, he took photos through a window on a courtroom door and in the hallway as Lilly’s family and court observers flooded out.