New Superior Court rules might hinder transparency

Changes to a uniform Superior Court rule were approved last week by the Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia that are designed to adjust for how advances in technology could jeopardize the fairness of court proceedings.

Instead, as we see it, the changes could make court proceedings less transparent.

Uniform Superior Court Rule 22 provides statewide guidance on how recording and other electronic devices are allowed to be used in court. The rule amendment as approved last week provides updates to include rules about the use of smartphones, laptops and other mobile devices. The original rule was put in place in 1985 in an effort to make court proceedings more open to the public, so we agree updates are needed.

The Georgia Supreme Court still must approve the proposed amendment for it to take effect, something we hope the justices will consider carefully.

Court proceedings should be open to the public and as transparent as possible, with the exception of certain discussions of cases that require confidentiality so as not to sour due process.

We understand the desire to ensure someone who gets permission to bring a smartphone or iPad into a courtroom does not create a distraction. However, general rules of conduct in a courtroom already provide the necessary leeway for judges and bailiffs to handle such situations.

Local courthouse rules in Glynn County already prohibit bringing in any such device, or recording equipment, without prior permission from a judge, so locally, not much will change.

The problem with the proposed rule is when it comes to media access. Under the new rules, folks with permission to have such devices would have more restrictions on how and when they can use them, even if they remain silent and distraction free.

As the Georgia First Amendment Foundation put it in a recent column, “What would change for journalists — and citizens — is the ability to use an electronic device to take notes, send updates or even look at emails without first obtaining judicial permission.”

The foundation has rightfully come out against the amendments, and even suggested breaking up the rule into two parts, one to govern recordings and another mobile devices.

Although it only happens in select cases, reporters both locally and around the state rely on the very modern devices the rule could limit use of to communicate details to the public. These are cases like high-profile murder trials and others in which the public interest is high.

With rules that hinder their jobs, journalists covering court proceedings are limited in their ability to ensure courts are operating in appropriate and open manner.

We hope the Supreme Court will consider the First Amendment Foundation’s alternative proposal before approving a rule we feel is lacking.