Judge defends decision allowing filming of deliberations

HOUSTON (AP) - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would be acting prematurely if it blocked the filming of jury deliberations in a 17-year-old's capital murder trial, a state district judge told the appeals court late Monday.

Last week, the appeals court halted the trial of Cedric Harrison and ordered State District Judge Ted Poe to respond by Monday to issues raised by Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

"Any request for ... relief is premature because the defendant has not been convicted and an appeal filed," Poe's attorney, Chip Babcock, said in the judge's response to the court Monday. "If there is an acquittal, the state is not harmed or injured because no retrial is possible."

On Nov. 11, Poe decided to allow PBS' public affairs series "Frontline," to film Harrison's capital murder trial in its entirety, including jury selection and traditionally secret deliberations.

Allowing a camera in the jury room violates the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, according to Rosenthal, who said the code requires that "jurors be left alone, unobserved and unheard by others, during their deliberations."

He asked the appeals court to direct Poe to vacate the portion of his order allowing deliberations to be recorded.

Rosenthal said deliberations are "plainly intended to permit the jurors to deliberate in confidence, and thereby encourage a free and unencumbered exchange of thoughts and opinions, without concern regarding possible retaliation or public approbation as a consequence of the expression of unpopular ideas."

Babcock said the statute Rosenthal cites in his appeal to the court only prohibits anyone other than a juror from being present during deliberations and doesn't address a camera's presence.

He said there is no Texas statute or law prohibiting cameras in jury deliberation rooms.

"The camera is not a person, nor is it capable of interacting or conversing with jurors about any subject, much less the case on trial," Babcock wrote on behalf of Poe. "An unattended camera, placed in an unobtrusive location will simply record the proceedings."

Rosenthal said Poe's ruling flies in the face of how the justice system has operated in Texas for centuries.

"Why have we for more than the past 200 years had jury deliberation rooms where people can meet?" Rosenthal asked. "It goes back to some fundamental ideas about human nature. There are certain things individuals ought to be able to do in private without having their views scrutinized by others."

Babcock said Poe was trying to shine light on a process which Rosenthal is trying to keep in the dark.

"As twenty-first century America moves toward a more transparent system of governance, (Rosenthal) sounds an alarmist call for a retreat into opacity," Babcock wrote.

In his response to the appeals court, Babcock, like attorneys for "Frontline," request that the court hold oral arguments and refrain from acting on Rosenthal's request to "safeguard the traditional sanctity of the jury room."

"We remain mystified at what actually lies beneath the district attorney's highly emotional protests," said Michael Sullivan, an executive producer with "Frontline." "Does he believe the administration of the death penalty in Texas will be somehow undermined by this kind of scrutiny?"

Rosenthal says it's not the scrutiny that concerns him, but jurors reaction to a recording device's presence.

"The chance that someone will use this as an opportunity (to push forward an agenda) greatly outweighs any educational value that they would gain from access to the jury room," Rosenthal said.

Harrison could face the death penalty if convicted of fatally shooting a man during a carjacking in June. He has consented to the filming and agreed to waive appeals based on the tape made of jury deliberations in his case.

While Babcock and attorneys for "Frontline" point to Harrison's waiver as a reason not to be concerned the case will "launch into near-permanent appellate orbit," as alleged by Rosenthal, the district attorney says the waiver won't hold up.

"To deny the defendant the right to (appeal) would be a travesty of justice," he said. "I think that as well-meaning as defense attorneys and the defendant may have been, their actions don't have the force of law."

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals general counsel Richard Wetzel said Poe's response to Rosenthal's complaint will be considered by the court, as well as a brief filed by attorneys for "Frontline."

"This is an appellate court and things don't move with quite the speed that they might move in Judge Poe's court or a trial court," he said.

"The process that led to Judge Poe's decision to allow this filming was long, complicated and maticulously thorough," said Sullivan, whose producers first came to Harris County in 2000 to pursue the project. "An inside view of a capital murder trial would be very illuminating."

"Any request for ... relief is premature because the defendant has not been convicted and an appeal filed," Poe's attorney, Chip Babcock, said in the judge's response to the court Monday. "If there is an acquittal, the state is not harmed or injured because no retrial is possible."

Huh? It seems to me this is not about the accused in the first place. It's more about protecting the jurors and the jury system we have in place. If I'M on a jury, I don't want a camera in my face. Some folks would be intimidated and some would be emboldened with the camera. How is justice served then? The point of having the jury deliberate privately is to enable a free interface amongst the jurors. Sticking a camera in the jury room would detract from that it seems to me. Leave the cameras out, imho.....

Anyone who doesn't believe that the presence of a television camera affects the behavior of people is totally divorced from reality.

TV cameras affect the judicial process which above all else must be concerned with justice, not publicity. They should be banned from all courtrooms.

To allow a TV camera in a jury room is a travesty of justice. Anyone who wants to know what goes on in a jury room should just serve on a jury and not work overtime to get out of it.

I'd like to see that smart-aleck defense attorney try this line of reasoning on his wife. "But, honey, our bedroom is private --- there is no one here, just a camera hooked up to the internet." I'm sure THAT would land with a thud!

This trial judge is so out of phase with reality, he almost makes sense... almost.

The appellate court will take this case because the prosecutor has filed the motion and in a criminal trial, ONLY THE DEFENDANT can appeal a verdict. The DA has to live with it. The District Attorney represents the people of Texas and the judge clearly hasn't considered their interest in seeking justice at all.

The "the camera is not a person" argument is beneath contempt. This judge is so dumb I just know he's waiting for a Democrat president to appoint him to the federal bench.

Great post, thanks !

I'd like to see that smart-aleck defense attorney try this line of reasoning on his wife. "But, honey, our bedroom is private --- there is no one here, just a camera hooked up to the internet." I'm sure THAT would land with a thud!

LOL !

I can see it now....book deals, movie deals and of course that long trail of talk shows. I think this could be very dangerous in influencing the "Politically Correct Verdict"! Those who's intentions to do the right thing could be persuaded otherwise for fear of a backlash. Let's leave the camera's out!!!

As a juror, I am happy to do my civic duty. I've enjoyed doing it. But, I did not hire on to participate in some one's profit making activity. If he is going to make money showing/broadcasting the results, I want a cut. You know the tape will eventually be edited to oppose the death penalty or to meet whatever leftist, social end the photographer espouses.

Texas judges are elected, not appointed. Voters should let this judge know how they feel. There is no public good that can be served by this taping. It can only serve to support some liberal objective or as a promotional piece for the judge's next election.

). Juries need to be free to discuss the case without concern of sanction or appearance. Then judge is very wrong on this one.

Concur. I cannot imagine being frank and open in expressing my opinions if a camera were watching. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.