MARSHAL: HEAR YE. HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COU RT OF T HEGREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSIO N.ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO P LEA , DRAW NEAR, AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE T HESE UNIT ED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDAAND THIS HONORA BLE COUR T. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HA VE AN EXCITING MORNING TO DAY . BEGINNING W ITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLO RIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT , JUDGE ISOM , YOU ARE GO ING TO INTRODUCE THE RULES AND THEN ALLOCATE YOUR TIME . THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MOR NING. THANK YOU AND MAY IT PLE ASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS CLAUDI A RICKER T ISOM. I AM HERE THIS MORNING I N MY CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF T HEFLORIDA BAR RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION . AND IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S NOTICE SETTING OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR O RAL ARGUMENT. I WILL BE ASSISTED TODAY BY DAVID RO LAND , WHO IS A L ONG TIME MEMBER OF O URCOMMITTEE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN OUR RE PORT ALSO INCLUDES EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION OF BACKGR OUND MATERIAL. THERE ARE S IX PROPOSAL S AND AN ADDITIONAL PRO POSAL W HICHHAS BEEN CARRIED OVER F ROM OUR 200 3 BY ANNUAL REPORT FOR YOUR CON SIDERATIONTODAY. THREE PROP OSALS WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF COMMENT OR REQUEST FOR ORAL AR GUMENT , AND THE COMMITTEE U RGES THEIR ADOP TION BY THE CO URT. THE OTHER PROPOSALS W HICHWILL BE THE SUBJEC T OF ORAL ARGUMENT, WILL BE PRESENTED AS FOLLOWS. FIRST , JUDGE BERN STEIN WILL BE SPEAKING IN SU ORT OF PROPOSAL 2.085 REGARDING THE FILING OF THE NO TICE O F RELATED CASES. MR. KANEY WILL THEN PRE SENT THE FIRST AMEN DMENT FOUNDATION'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE COURT SECURITY CAMERA PROPOSAL IN 2.170-C-5, THEN MR. TH OMAS WILL PRESENT MEDIA GE NERAL OPERATION SUORT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO 2.051, TO THOSE WHICH H AVE ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED BY T HECOMMITTEE, REGARDING REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO JUD ICIAL RECORDS.THIS WILL BE FOLLO WED BY MR . LoCICERO PRESE NTING COMM ENTS ON BE HALF OF THE EW SCRIS COMPANY, P OST "NEWSWEE K" STATION F LORIDA INCORPORATED AND SUN BEAM TELEVI SION CORPORATION, ABOUT THE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN RULE PROPOSAL 2.170-A -3-I AND 2.701-B PROPOSAL REGA RDING PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING , THE FACES O F PROSPECTIVE AND SEATED JURORS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE YOU , AGAIN, GOING TO RESPOND TO THE ME DI A GENERAL'S CONC ERNS ABOUT THOSE ISSU ES, A F TE R THEY PRESENTED THEIR
YE S, YOUR HO NOR.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, AND THIS IS JUST, THIS IS NOT A L IGHTTHAT YOU NEED TO WORRY GOOD . TWO MINUTES YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME. I WANTED TO ASK YOU BE FORE YOU SIT DOWN , ABOUT THE PROPOSED CH ANGE TO THE THREE-YEAR CY CLE . ARE YOU ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT?
YES. THAT IS ONE OF OUR PROPOSALS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I DON 'T THINK IT MET WITH ANY OOSITION. OF COURSE THE COURT IS PROBABLY MOST AF FECT ED WITH THE BAR AND THE BAR PERSONNEL , FOR , WITH THAT , AND MY CON CERN IS , ALTH OUGH MANY OF THE RULES CY CLES SUCH AS THE PROBATE RULES , CIVIL RULES , ARE THREE YE ARS IS PROBABLY MORE THAN OR ADEQUATE, THAT THERE ARE CHANGES EVERY YEAR IN THE AREA OF FAMILY ISSUES , JUVENILE ISSUES , AND I AM CONCERNED THAT, I F W E GO TO THREE-YEAR CYCLES FOR EVERYTHING, THAT W E MAY START TO HAVE MORE O F THE EMERGENCY PETI TIONS , WHICH WERE EXACTLY WHAT WE W ANTED TO AV OID. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT NOT HAVING EV ERY RULE BE ON THE THREE- YEAR , MAYBE HAVE SOME TWO -YEAR AND SOME FOUR-YEAR?IN OTHER WORDS SOME , RE ALLY , DIDN'T NEED EVEN THREE YEARS. THEY COULD GO BACK TO F OUR YEARS , BUT OTHERS SH OULD STAY AT TWO YEARS , OR WAS IT
ACTUALLY N O. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES ON OUR COMMITTEE FROM AL L OF THE RULES COMMITTEES, Y OUKNOW, T HERE IS SOMEBODY FROM EACH OF THOSE SUBSTANTIAL RULES COMMITTEES THAT WO ULD HAVE HAD AN OORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS, WHENEVER IT CAME UP, AND I BEL IEVE THAT THERE WAS PRE TTY MUCH UNANIMITY, THAT HAVING THIS TWO-YEAR CYCLE IS CREATING A BURDEN, BOTH ON THE VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE MEM BERSOF OUR COMMITTEES AND, ALS O, ON OUR FLORIDA BAR STAF F. AND THERE WAS NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS NEVER A PROPOSAL THAT WE DO SOMETHING DIFF ERENT FOR DIFFERENT RULES COMMIT TEES , AND THE STAG GER ED WAY THATWE HAVE IT SET UP NOW , WHERE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES REPORT AT DI FFERENT TI MES IS INTENDED TO RE LIEF THAT PRESSURE OF EVERYBODY HAVING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ON THIS CYCLE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT IS WHY I SUGG EST, BEING PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FAMILY AND JUVENILE , IT IS AL MOST INEVITABLE T HAT THERE ARE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ALMOST EVERY YEAR, IF NOT EVERY TW O YEARS , A NDCERTAINLY OUR STAFF KNOWSTHAT THAT IS THE CASE , AND SO THAT WAS , YOU KNOW , WE ARE SOMETIMES PRO ACTIVE , B UTIF THAT WASN'T CONSIDERED, I GUESS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT STILL CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
I DON'T RE CALL ANYBODY REQUESTING SP ECIAL CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY FELT THE TWO-YEAR CYCLE BETTER SERVED THE NEED S OF THEIR COMMITTEE. THANK YOU . ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT, ILL TURN THE PROGRAM OVER TO JUDGE BERNSTEIN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. SCOTT BERNSTEI N. I AM HIM SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE ST EERING COMMITTEE ON FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN THE COURTS. FOR THE BETTER PART OF T ENYEARS, THIS COURT HAS ENCOURAGED T RIAL JUDGE TO SAY COORDINATE RELATED CASES , AND JUST ABOUT EVERY CIR CUIT NOW HAS A PROCEDURE IN PLACE , FOR HOW TO HA NDLE RELATED FAMILY CASES, WHEN THEY KN OW THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. BUT THAT IS THE PROBLE M. WE DON'T ALWA YS KNOW W HAT CASES ARE RELATED TO WHAT OTHER CASES . THAT IS WHAT WE WILL ATTEMPTTO DO, A NOTICE OF BR OAD RELATED CASES IN FAMILY KOURLTS, WHICH WILL VERY SIMPLY ALLOW EACH NEW FAMILY CASE TO BE CONNE CTED TO EVERY OTHER EXIS TING CASE , SO THAT THE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS CAN, THEN, COORDINATE THEM PROPER LY. I WILL TELL YOU HOW I F IRSTBECAME INTERESTED IN T HIS ISSUE. ABOUT SE VEN YEARS AGO, W HEN I WAS SE TTING ON THE BE NCH IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURTROOM , I WAS CA LLED ON 24 HOURS AFTER A CHILD HAD BEEN AR RESTED, TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER TO KEEP HIM INSECURE DE TENTION OFFER LET HIM GO HOME WITH HIS MOTHER PENDING TRI AL. MOTHER STOOD UP IN THE COURTROOM AND SAID I HAVE GOT A PLAN IN PLACE. I WILL MAKE SU RE HE GOES T O SCHOOL AND MAKE SURE HE DOES HIS HOMEWO RK AND MAKE SURE HE STAYS AWAY FROM BAD FRIENDS AND FOLLOWS AN O CCUR FEW. A CURFEW. SOUNDED GREAT. THEY LET THE MOTHER TAKE HIM HOME. I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THE SAME MOTHER IN THE SAME COURTHOUSE, HAD HAD HER PARENTAL RIGHTS TER MINATED A YEAR EARLIER BECAUSE OF SEVERE PHYS ICAL A B USE ON THAT CHILD, AND THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR T HAT AND THIS NOTICE OF RELATED CASES WILL GO A LON G WAY TO ALLOWING US TO IMPLEMENT THE F ULL VISION OF UNIF IED FAMILY COURT .
CHIEF JUSTICE: IN THAT CASE, JUDGE BERN STEIN , WHO WOULD HAVE THE BU RDEN , I KNOW IN YOUR CIRCUI T YOU SEARCH FOR THE SE CASES NOW, BUT SINCE THIS IS INT ENDED TO PUT SOME BUR DEN ON THE PARTIES, IN THAT SITUATION , WHO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE THAT NOTIC E? WOULD WILL BE THE DEPA RTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ?
NO. THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE. THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN , WHOEVER FILINGS A PET ITION IN A DELINQUENCY CASE, WOULD FILE A PET ITION.THEY WOULD FILL OUT A FORM .
DO YOU ANTICI PATE T HAT THIS WOULD BE A UNIFORM FORM THAT WOULD BE USED THROUGHOUT THE STATE, OR DOES EVERYONE GET TO M AKE THEIR OWN FORM?
WELL , WE HAD DE CIDED IN THE RULES COMMITTEE, T O LEAVE IT UP TO EACH CIRCUIT , TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN FORMS. AT THE TIME THAT THIS W ASDISCUSSED IN THE RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE , THOSE PARTICULAR RULES HAD NO FORMS ATT ACHED TO THEM ANYWHERE. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE ICE HAS SORT OF BEEN BRO KEN AND NOW THERE ARE SOME FORMS , AND I AM CERTAINLY HA Y TO WORK WITH THEM AND DEVELOP A FORM IF THEY W ANT.WE HAVE ONE IN MIAMI- DADE COU NT Y.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING PHONE A FORM ATTACHED WITH THIS A FORM ATTACHED WITH THIS .
THE COMMITTEE DID NOT WANT TO ARO VE A FORM A NDWANTED TO LEAVE IT UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CIRCUIT TO DO, BU T I AM MORE THAN HAP PY TO WORK WITH THE BAR AND GET A FORM TOGET HER.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IT S EEMSTO MAKE IT SIMPLER FOR THE CLERK AND THE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS, WE WANT TO HAVE EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION
I AGREE WITH YOU , WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE ON E IN MI AMI.
DO WE HAVE THE STATE ATTORNEY CLERKS, ARE THERE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN THE LO OP ON THIS?
EVERYBODY, PARTICULARLY ON THE ST EERING COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE WAS COM POSED OF JUST ABOUT EVERY DISCIPLINE YOU CAN IM AGINE , SO , YES , EVERYONE HAD INPUT. THE STATE ATTORN EYS, PR IVATE BAR, PUBLIC DEFEND ERS, D JJ , EVERYONE.
WE JUST HAD A JU DGE HERE YESTERDAY IN ANOTHER RULES CASE, SAYING JUDGES AREN'T AWARE OF THESE MODIFICATION TO SAY RULES, NOT THIS ONE BUT ANOTHER ONE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE HAS BEEN COMMUN ICATION WITH THE CHIEF JUDGES IN THE OTHER CIRCUITS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CHIEF JUDGES WHO ARE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE, A NDTHERE ARE SEVERAL TRIAL JUDGES WHO AREN'T ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES , WHO ARE, ALSO , ON THE STE ERING COMMITTEE.
THIS IS ALSO FULFILLING THE COURT'S MA NDATE FROM THE 2001 OPINION.
THAT I S EXACTLY RIGHT. FROM THE 2 001 OP INION.
DID THE COURT OR THE COMMITTEE CONSIDER A MORE EXPANSIVE REQUIREMENT , THAT IS THAT YOU ARE MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE ATTORNEY.
ANY PETITIONER, AND IN A DELINQUENCY EXAMPLE , ITWOULD BE THE STATE ATTORNEY N DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE CASE, IT WOULD BE THE PETITIONER. IN A DOME STIC VIOL ENCE C ASE,IT WOULD BE THE PE RSON REQUESTING THE INJUNCTION. WE DID CONSIDER MORE EXPANSIVE LANG UAGE. THERE WERE CERTAIN LEGAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS THAT CAMEUP WITH MORE EX PANSIVE LANGUAGE, AND WE REALIZED THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTSOLUTION TO ANY OF THEM , BUT WE DEC IDED TO , THIS WOULD CAPTURE THE V AS T MAJORITY OF THE CASES. WE ARE NOT UNDER ANY ILLUSIONS.I DON'T THINK IT WILL CA TCH EVERY SI NGLE CASE. IT WILL CATCH ALMOST ALL OF THEM AND WE FIGU RED T HAT THAT WAS A VERY ST RONG START .
CHIEF JUSTICE: I JUST WANT TO, AGAIN, MAYBE YOU CONSIDERED THIS, YOUR HYPOTHETICAL WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE STATE TO FILE, BECAUSE IN YOUR CASE , THE RIGHTS HAD ALMOST BEEN TERMINATED, AND THIS SAYS ITMUST BE PENDING AT THE TIME THAT THE PARTY FILES A FAMILY CASE. THE WAY THE RULE READS.
BUT IF, ALSO , SAYS BUT IT, ALSO, SAYS IF IT AFFECTSTHE COURT'S JURISDICTION, AND WHAT CONCERNS ME HERE IS , ALTHOUGH IT ISN'T NECESSARILY JURISDICT IONAL , IF A MOTHER STANDS UP ANDSAYS I WANT TO TAKE CUSTODYOF THIS CHILD, THEN , I THIN K THE STATE ATTORNEY IS OBLIGATED TO SAY , NO, T HAT MOTHER CAN'T TAKE THAT CHILD.
THAT MAY BE WHAT JUSTICE ANSTEAD SUGG ESTING I S WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE LANGUAGE THAT ANY TIME A PAR TY KNOWS OF A RELATED CASE , THAT A NOTICE SH OULD BE FILED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS OBLIGATORY, BUT IT TAKES IT OUT OF , WELL , I DIDN'T REALLY THINK IT FIT I NTO,THIS AND WE SE LF SIZE IN THE WE EMPHASIZE IN THE COMMENT HOW STRONG THAT SHOULD BE.
IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION 5 , EACH PARTY HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO INFORM THE COURT OF ANY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS OR ANY OTHER S TATETHAT COULD AF FECT THE CURRENT PROCEEDINGS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I SEE Y OUR TIME IS UP. JUDGE BERNSTEIN , I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING UP HERE , AND I , ALSO, WANT TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO THANK YOU, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT EVERY TIME THERE IS A ISSUE INVOLVING CHILDREN A NDFAMILIES, YOU HAVE COME TO TALLAHASSEE. YOU HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE EX TENSIVE LY , AND I KNOW THAT , HO W MU CH TIME AND EFFORT YOU HAVE PUT INTO IT AND FOR THAT THE CO URT IS VERY GRAT EFUL.
THANK YOU. IT IS A PLEASURE. THANK YOU ALL, VERY MUCH .
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM JO HN K ANEY ON BE HALF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, AND I HAVE THE EASIEST JO B OF THE DAY A NDTHE SHORTEST T IME. WE ARE HERE TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL , WHICH READS THE COURT SE CURITY CAMERASSHALL BE USED FOR SEC URITY PURPOSES ONLY. WE REVIEWE D THE MATERIAL RELATING TO THAT , AND IT SEEMS THAT THIS E ITHER IS HARDLY, ME ANS HARDLY ANYTHING AT ALL , OR IT ATTEMPTS TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION OF A PUBLIC RECORD , AND THE , IF A COURT ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SECU RITY CAM ERAS EXEMPT, THEN WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM, BECAUSE UNDER THE SUNS HINE AMENDMENT, THAT PO WER F ORBETTER OR FOR WORS E, HAS BEEN G IVEN EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LEGISLATURE , AND SO IF THE COURT ADOP TS THE RULE THAT SAYS "IT SHALL BE USED FOR", THEN THE NEXT QUE STION IS WHAT HA ENS IF SOMEONEREQUESTS A COPY O F THE TAPE FOR SOME OTHER U SE.
HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONSWITH THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE OUTCOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS?
WE HAD BR YNE COMMENTS WITH BOTH THIS COMMITTEE A NDTHERE WAS A PREVI OUS COMMITTEE THAT, ALSO , LOOKED AT THIS. I BELIEVE JUDGE ISOM 'S COMMENT WAS THAT THE COMMITTEE BLANCHED AT THE THOUGHT THAT THE COURT SECURITY CAMERAS, RE CORDS O F THOSE PICTURES WOULD BE RECORDS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. WELL, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THE COURT COULD , STILL , SAY WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT PUBLIC FROM AMONG ITS RECORDS , BUT SECTION 24-A OF THE CONSTITUTION , IS SELF EXECUTING, AND IT SAYS ANY PUBLIC RECORD THAT IS NOT EXEMPT BY LAW , IS AVAILABLE ON DE MAND .
NOW, WHY , GIVE ME THE REQUIREMENT OR DUTY OF AN OFFICIAL TO K EEP THESE PUBLIC RECORDS AS PART OF THE FUNCTION, LIKE THIS COURT, WE HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS TO PROTECT US INTERNALLY, FROM THREATS AND OTHERWISE. BUT HOW IS IT PART OF THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS OF THIS COURT , TO HAVE SECURITY CAMERA TAPE?
WELL , YOUR HO NOR , I WOULD BEGIN BY SAYING THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC RECORD, IT DOES NOT RE QUIRE THAT IT BE MADE AS A DISCHARGE OF A DUTY .
I REALIZE THAT.
OKAY.AND I WOULD SAY, NO , THAT IF THE COURT DID NOT C H OOSE TO MAKE, TO HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS OR TO REC ORD WHATEVER THEY SHOWED, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T CHOOSE TO DO. THAT IN WHICH CASE THERE WOULD BE NO RECORD , AND THIS WOULD BE , THA T WOULD BE ONE WAY TO INTERPRET THIS. THE CAMERA SHALL BE USED FOR SECURITY PURPOSES ONLY, WHICH MEANS YOU WOULD HAVE A BANK OF CAMERAS AND A BANK OF VIDEO SCRE ENS AND YOU WOULDN'T TAPE THEM. THAT HARDLY SEEMS PRACTICAL, FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT , BUT THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO LIVE WITH THIS RULE , W ITHOUT COLLIDING WITH THE CONSTITUTION ON THE PUBLIC RECORD EXEMPT ION. ANOTHER WAY WOULD BE TO K ICK IT ACROS S THE PARK AND ASK THE LEGISL ATURE TO HE LP YOU OUT , BUT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THE LEGISLATURE, YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET !
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE INTENT OF THAT SECTION WAS THAT SECURITY CAMERAS WOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BROADCASTING GENERA LLY WHAT IS GOING ON, IN THE COURT PROCEEDI NGS, AS OOSED TO JUST A REGU LAR CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM , S O IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU READ I N THIS PARTICULAR INSPECTION?
I READ THAT IN THE COMMENTARY. THAT IS CERTAINLY THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BR ANCH THAT COMMENTED IN THE MAT ERIALSTHAT WE HAVE . AND WHAT I SEE THERE , I S SOMETHING THAT , A CONCERNWITH I AM SO RR Y .
WELL , IF THAT IS T RUE AND THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY IN THE COMMENTARY, THEN DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSED LANG UAGE THAT WOULD BE SUBSTITUTED THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CARR Y OUT THAT INTENT , AS OP POSED TO WHAT YOU SEE , I THINK , A S A MORE BROAD INTENT?
YOUR HONOR , I WOULD NOT PROPOSE THAT THE COURT A DOPT A RULE OUT OF A CONCERN LABELED PRIV AC Y , W HICH , REALLY, IS A CONC ERN , THE RIGHT TO BE ONLY A LIT TLE BIT PUBLIC. THE WHOLE DRIFT OF THE COMMITTEE'S THINKING I S,HERE IS A PUBLIC COURTROO M. IT IS NOT CLOSED FOR ANY VALID REASON , AND ANY BODYCAN WALK IN HERE AND WATCH, IT BUT WE DON'T WANT IT ON THE INTE RNET BE CAUSE THAT IS TOO PUBLIC, SO IF IT GETS TOO PUBLIC, THEN IT INVA DE S A RIGH T, NOT OF PRIVACY , BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC COURTROOM. IT, WE ARE TRY ING TO WORK ON A RI GHT NOT TO BE ALL THAT PUBLIC.
SO IS YOUR CONCERN ONLY THE SECURITY CAMERAS RELATEDTO ACTIVITY GOING ON IN THE PUBLIC COURTROOM, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SECURITY IN SECURED HALLWAYS , AND THE SECURED CAMERAS THAT SECURE THE WHOLE FACILI TY?
YOUR HONOR, I CAN SEE A CLEAR DISTINCTION, AND I COULD RATIONALIZE DRAWING THE LINE BET WEEN THE COURTROOM 'S PROCEEDINGS AND THE SECURITY CAMERA IN THE MEN'S ROOM , FOR EXAMPLE, O R WHATEVER.
OUR JUDGE 'S CHAMBERS OR WHATEVER, THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS OPEN.
THAT'S RIGHT. AND I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD SUORT A LEGIS LATIVE DISTINCTION THAT WE SAY THE RECORDS OF SECURITY CAMERASTHAT ARE OUTS IDE THE PUBLIC COURTROOM , ARE EXEMP T. AND I COULD SEE A PUBLIC NECESSITY FOR THAT. MY PROBLEM IS , AND I WAS N'T AROUND IN ' 92 SO I CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR THIS ONE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE COURT SEEMS TO LACK THE POWER TO FASHION THAT KIND OF DIST INCTION AMONG PUBLIC RECORDS, UNTHE WAY THE CONS TITUTION READS TODAY.
DIDN'T WE HAVE AT ONE TIME, SOME LANGUAGE BUILT IN THAT TALKED IN TERMS OF THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE NOT PUBLIC BEFORE. SOME CONCEPT SU CH AS THAT , AS WHEN SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS WERE PASSED?
WE HAVE, IN 2.051-C -8 , AN ABSORPTION OR AT LE AST C AROLAND I HAVE BEEN DE BATING THAT, BUT A RULE THAT SAYS ANYTHING THAT IS E XEMPT BY LAW, CONTINUES TO BE EXEMPT BY THIS RULE , AS WE RO LLED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
RIGHT. THAT KIND OF THI NG. WAS THERE NOTHING EXISTING IN THE PA ST WITH REG AR D TO SECURITY MEASURES, SUCH AS WRITTEN SECURITY PL ANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES , THAT IS IN THIS AREA AT AL L? ARE WE JUST TOTALLY BLANK I N THE SECURITY AREA?
YOU KNOW , THAT IS A GOOD POINT , JUSTICE LEWI S. NOT ONLY THOS E THAT WERE THERE IN '92 BUT S INCE '92 , THE LEGISLATURE HAS ARTICULATED EXEMPTIONS AS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL, AND IT MIGHT VERY WELL BE , IN PARTICULARLY SOME OF THE POST 9/ 11 LEGISLATION , T HAT ONE COULD FIND FO OTING FOR AN EXEMPTION IN THE STAT UTE. I HAVEN'T DONE THAT WORK , BUT I WOULDN'T BE SURP RISED IF, AMONG THE 1,000 EXEMPTIONS, YOU MIGHT FIND ONE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: MR. KANEY, YOU SAID YOU HAD THE EAS IEST AND SHORTEST JOB , BUT , OF COURSE, I THINK THIS RA ISES LOTS OF VE RY, VERY INTERESTING SIDE ISS UES A ND CONCERNS, AND I AM SURE THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT TO SHIELD THE COURT PROCEEDINGS FROM PUBLIC V IEW , SINCE THAT I S DEFINITELY CONTRARY TO EVERY THING THAT THIS COURT HAS ST OOD FOR. THA NK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK THE COURT V ERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
IN 200 3, THIS COURT THE MEDIA CONVER GENCE CASE AND LEFT A COUPLE OF ISSUES OPEN. THE COMMITTEE, AND WE HAVE ALAUDED THEIR EF FORTS , HAVE ARTICULATED WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES TO THE REVI SION OF RULE 2.05 1. THAT IS A REQUEST TO A J UDGEAND THE DOCUMENTS , WILL BE IN CAMERA , REV IEWED IN CAMERA, AND THERE WILL BE THE ART ICULATION O F EXEMPTION. OUR CONCER N WITH THE RULE , IS THAT IT DO ESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH. LET ME GIVE YOU A CLAS SIC EXAMPLE. THERE IS AN EXEMPTION WITH REGARD TO SEARCH WARRANTS. IT AE AR S THAT 2.051-C -6 , SAYS CO PIES OF AR REST WARRANTS AND SU ORTING AFFIDAVITS RETA INED BY JUDGES, CLE RKS OR OTHER COURT PERSONNEL , ARE EXEMPT.WELL, IF I ASK A COURT CLERK FOR THE RECORD, AND I AM DENIED ACCESS , I FILE IN CIRCUIT COURT AND HAVE F ULL ACCESS TO THE C IVILPROCEDURES THAT ARE THERE. IF ON THE OTHER HA ND, I A SK A JUDGE FOR THE SAME SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS IN HIS HANDS, THEN I HAVE TO GO TO THE D CA AND FILE A PE TITION FOR MAND AMUS . I DO NOT HAVE , AVAIL ABLE , THE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES THAT I WOULD HAVE , IF I WAS IN CIRCUIT COURT. SO OUR ONLY RE QUEST IS EITHER THE RULE OR COMMENTARY ACKNOWLEDGE, THAT WHEN I GO TO A DCA ON A COURT RECORD, THAT I HAVE THE OORTUN ITY FOR ASPECIAL MA STER TO SUPERVISEDISCOVERY AND I HAVE LIM ITEDDISCOVERY.WHILE THIS MIGHT NOT HA EN IN EVERY CASE , CERTAIN LY IN THE MEDIA GENE RAL CONVERGENCE CASE, HAD THOSE DISCOVERY PROCEDURES B EEN AVAILABLE , THEY WOULD HAVE EXPEDITED THE CASE AND PRESENT ADD RECORD FOR T HEDISTRICT COURT OF AP PEAL TO ADDRESS .
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE SUGGESTING IN YOUR PROPOSAL , THAT IT REALLY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A MATTER OF RIGHT , IT WOULD BE UP TO THE A ELLATE COURT TO PERMIT PARTIES TO ENG AGE
ABSOLUTELY , YOUR HONOR , AND SUPERVISED BY THE AELLATE COURT. THERE MAY BE NO REASONS FOR DISCOVERY.ON THE FACE OF IT AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE DCA , IT MAY B E AVAILABLE, BUT THE OP TION OF HAVING THOSE AVAILABLE AND SUPERVISED BY THE SPECIALMASTER OR DCA, I THINK , WOULD BE BENEFI CIAL.
CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW , THE COMMENT IS THAT THIS IS INHERENT IN THE COURT'S AUTHORITY, BUT HAVE YOU FOUND IN DO ING THIS , THAT AELLATE COURTS HAVE BEEN SORT OF AROACHING THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS , MAYBE NOT BEING ASSURE ABOUT WHAT THEIR INHERENT AUTHORITY IS?
YOUR HON OR, CERTAINLY THE ONLY REAL TANG IBLE EXA MPLEWE HAVE IS MEDIA CONVERGEES . CONVER GENCE . THE COURT DE NIED A SP ECIAL MASTER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CASE. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
IF THEY HAVE AN ABIL ITY TO DENY IT.
WE JUST N EED TO KNOW THAT IT IS AVAI LABLE. THAT AL ONE AND THE COMMENTARY FOR US THAT T HEPROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE, NOT THAT THEY ARE MANDATORY BY ANY NATURE. THE ONLY OTHER S MALL I SSUEWE HAVE, IS, AND JUSTICE , CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THIS IN THE MEDIA GENERAL CONVER GENCE CASE, THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE A JUDGE REVIEWS VI EWS A REVIEWS A COMPLAINT ABOUT ANOTHER JUDGE AND THEN CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. THE COURT REQUIRES THAT, WHEN A COMPLAINT COME I N,THAT IT GO TO THE JCC WHERE WE HAVE A DETERMINATION O F PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE IS M A DE, T HEN THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC I N THE STATE OF FL ORIDA HAVE ACCESS TO IT . WE THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME REVIEW OF THAT PROCEDURE.THAT IS , WHEN A JUDGE RECEIVES A COMPLAINT , IT NEEDS TO BE FOR WARDED TO THE JQC.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PROCEDURES THATHAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THECIRCUIT COURTS, THRO UGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER?
YES, YOUR HONOR, I AM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT WAS DONE EXPR ESSLY IN RESPONSE. I SEE YOUR T IME IS U P. YOU THINK THERE SHOULD B E SOMETHING IN THE RULE.
YES, YOUR HONOR , BECAUSE I THINK A COMPLAINT CAN COME IN AND THEN A JUDGE C ANDECIDE NOT TO DO ANYTHING O N IT AT ALL AND IT NEVER GOES INTO THE PROCESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM HERE SO SPE AK ON BEHA LF OF 13 TELEVISION STATION S TO SPEAK ON 2.IS 70 , THE 2.170 , THE ADDRESSING OF CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM. WE ARE ADDRESSING THE PARAGRAPH THAT DEALS WITH BROADER PRIVACY CONCERNS, AS WELL AS THE NEW SUBPARAG RAPH B , THAT DEA LS WITH JURORS SPECIFICALLY. SO IF I COULD, FI RST , TURN TO THE PRIVACY PROV ISION A NDQUOTE THAT FOR YOU , CAMERA CLOSURES WOULD BE JUSTIFIED QUOTE TO PROTECT RIGH TS OF PRIVACY AND PRE VENT DISCLOSURE OF PRIV ILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MA TTERS . OUR CONCERN IS THAT THAT AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN INTHE RULE FOR 25 YEARS. AND THAT , BY ADDING THAT AMENDMENT , IT WOULD JUSTIFY ADDITIONAL, NOT JUSTIFY BUT IT MIGHT SP UR AN ADDIT IONAL CLOSURES, THAT IT WOULD INJECT UNCERTAINTY INTO A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN WORKING FOR 25 YEARS, AND THAT IT IS JUST NOT NEED ED, BE CAUSE THIS COURT'S DECI SION INS POST "NEWSWEEK" AND P OST "NEWSWEEK"'S PROGENY , LAY OUT THE TESTS TO DETERMINING WHETHER A CAMERA CL OSURE IS JUSTIFIED FOR PRIVACY REASONS OR ALL SORTS O F DIFFERENT CONCERNS, AND THOSE DECISION, ALSO , SPECIFY THE PROCEDURE. IF, A FTER 25 YEARS OF A WORKING SYSTEM, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS AND CERTAINLY NO SYSTEMIC ISSUES THAT AREDRIVING THIS AMENDMENT , B UTTHAT IT IS AFTER 25 Y EARSAFTER WORKING SYSTEM , YOU , NOW , A DD A PROVISION L I KE THIS, WE ARE CONCER NED ABOUT ADDITIONAL CLOSURES , AND THAT TRIAL JUDGES WILL REACT TO THIS AS SOM EWHAT OF A MANDATE BY THE COURT.
WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMITTEE'S MOTIVATION TO BRING THIS MAT TER?
IF YOU READ THE SIDE-BY-SIDE .
IF YOU WILL READ IT , I T IS TH E SAME JUSTIFICATIONFOR SECURITY CAMERAS . IT IS OUR YOU UNDERSTANDINGTHAT THE SECURITY CAMERA IS A VERY NA RROW AND LEGAL ISSUE AS MR . K ANEY DISCUS SED , BUT THAT CAN BE BROAD ENED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING I N THIS RULE THAT L I MITS CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY. IT WOULD ALY ON ITS F ACE, TO ALL POTE NTIAL PROCEEDINGSIN WH ICH CAMERAS ARE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM. SO THERE WAS NO, FOR EX AMPLE , THERE WAS NO PRO BLEM IN W EST PALM BE ACH THAT SPAWNED THE COMMITTEE TO SAY, B OY , WE NEED TO PUT PRIVACY IN HERE, BECAU SE A CHILD WAS DAMA GED. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. THERE IS CERTAINLY NO STU DY OR ANY FACT FI NDING THAT SAYS THERE IS A SYS TEMIC ISSUE WITH NOT PROT ECTING PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT BE LEGITIMATE. THAT DROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE R ULE.IT IS , REA LLY , JUST SORT O F WHAT I CHARACTERIZE AS THE POLITICAL DISPUTE IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT , ABOUT SECURITY CAMERAS.
BUT IS PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS SOMETHINGTHAT TRIAL JUDGES ARE ALREADY USE AS A PART OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY A REGOING TO, IN FACT , CLOSE OR HAVE SOME KIND OF CLOSURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS?
THEY DO, AND SOME TIMES LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERNS JUSTIFY CAMERA CLOSURES , AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE PRIVACY FEARS THAT ARE PRES ENTED TO TRIAL COURTS, THAT DO N'T JUSTIFY CAMERA CLOSURES .
I GUESS I AM TRY ING TO GET TO, WHAT DOES THIS RULE ADD THAT ISN'T ALREADY PRESENT IN WHAT TRIAL JUDGES DO?
IT DOESN'T , IN MY OP INION , IT DOESN'T ADD ANY THING. TRIAL JUDGE S ALREADY HAVE THE ABIL ITY TO DENY CAMERA CLOSURE, WHEN THE QUALITATIVE LY DIFF ERENT TEST INS POST "NEWSWEEK" IS SATISFIED , AND AND PART OF OUR CONCERN IS THAT THE PROPOSED AM ENDMENT DOESN'T GIVE TRIAL JUDGES THAT ENTIRE CONTEXT. I ME AN, YOU HAVE TO SA TISFY A TES T. YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTIC E TO THE MEDIA.YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HEAR ING. IT DOESN'T DIS RUPT THETRIAL.I MEAN, WE S HOW UP AT LUNCHTIME AND ON BREAKS A LLTHE TIME , TO AR GUE ISSUES WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED. AND THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF EVID ENCE, NOT NECESSARILY A FULL-B LOWN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH WITNESSES, BUT SOME SORT O F EVIDENCE THAT SUORTS A CAMERA CLOSURE, AND THEN ON-THE-RECORD FINDIN GS.
YOUR CONCERN THA T THISWILL BE CITED AS S OURCE OF AUTHORITY AS IF IT WAS A N EWSOURCE OF AUTHORITY , DIFFERENT FROM THE EX ISTING LAW ON THE ISSUE. IS THAT
YOU PUT IT BE RNIE DID.
THAT WILL BE CI TED , THEN , BY THE PARTIES THAT SEEK TO INVOKE ITS PROVISION INS SAYING, WELL, I DON'T K NOW WHAT AUTHORIT Y YOU HAD BEFORE OR RESTRA INTS , B UTTHE SUPREME COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU N OWTHAT YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
EXACTLY AND SINGLED OUT THAT PARTICULAR INTEREST .
BEFORE YOUR TIME IS UP
CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE BELL HAD A
YOU ME NTION THE T RIALWHICH WAS SET IN TIME AHEAD OF TIME. WHAT IF YOU HAD A H IGH PROFILE DWOME STIC VIO LENCE CASE D O MESTIC VIOLENCE CASE AND THE JUDGE I S HEARING THO SE, AND THERE IS NOT TIME T O PUT IT ALL OFF AND HAVE THE MEDIA LAWY ERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED , GATHER AND DO THE WITNES SES , ET CETERA, SO ARE YOU SAYING , LET'S SAY IT IS A HIGH PROFILE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE AND IT IS SET ON A REGULAR ROUT INE BASIS, T HAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE M EDIAAND THE JUDGE F EELS O R BELIEVES IN IT IN HIS O R HER DISCRETION THAT THAT PROCEEDING SHOULD BE CLOSED , THAT THE JUDGE HAS TO HAVE THIS HEARING OR OPEN IT. WHAT IS YOUR , IT IS DIFFERENT THAN A NORMAL TRIAL SITUATION.
WE MAY BE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES . UNDERSTAND THAT THE CAMERAS ARE ONLY PRESENT I N PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE OPEN TO START WITH. SO IT IS JUST AN ADDITI ONAL WAY TO KIND OF BRING INFORMATION ABOUT A TRIAL TO THE PUBLIC .
DOME STIC VIO LENCE HEARINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT , YOURHONOR, BUT WHAT THE , WE DEAL WITH THOSE ISSUES IN A VARIETY OF WA YS. IF THERE IS A PROBLEM IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE, IT IS BEING HEARD ON AN EMERGENCY BA SIS , SOMETIMES UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE TAL KING ABOUT ACCESS AFTER A PARTICULAR HEARING HAS OCCURRED, BUT W E SET PRECEDENT FOR HOW FU TURE HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IF A PARTICULAR CASE, AND SOMETIMES, AND IT IS R ARE, THERE IS NOT AN OORT UNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE , BUT W E ARE HEARD BY TELEP HONE , WE TALK TO JUD ICIAL ASSISTANTS AND FAX LE TTERS O VER TO JUDGES. I MEAN , THERE ARE A L OT OF WAYS THAT WE TRY TO ACCOMMODATE.
I REALIZE, THE MEDIA AND I ALWAYS HAD A G REAT RELATIONSHIP AND WE WORKEDON THIS BASIS ALL THE T IME,BUT IT WAS, REALLY , A GENTLEMAN'S TYPE ARRANG EMENT AND DISCRETION WITH T HECOURT , AND THE MEDIA WAS ALWAYS GOOD AT WORKIN G ON IT. MY CONCERN IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS A RULE THA T SAYS THAT THE JUDGE CANNOT EXERCISE THAT DISC RETION WITHOUT HAVING THIS PROCEDURAL PROCESS OF HEARING, NOTI CE AND ALL OF THIS IN EVERY CASE.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A RULE. WE ARE JUST ASKING YOU TO LEAVE 2.07-1 AS IT HAS BEEN FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS. THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGESBUT WE ARE NOT AS KING FOR ANY CHANGES. WHEN I CITE NOTIC E AND A HEARING ARE REQUIRED, THAT IS BASED ON THE DE CISION OF LAW OUT OF THIS COURT. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO ADD ANYTHING TO IT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOUR T IM E IS UP BUT JUSTICE WELLS HAD A QUESTION.
I AM INTERESTED IN YOUR COMMENT CONCERNING THE JUROR. TELL US WHAT YOUR PRO BLEM IS HERE.
SOME OF THE COMM ENTS ARE SIMILAR. WHAT IS M ORE , OF GRE ATERCONCERN WITH THE J URORPROVISION, IS THAT ESSENTIALLY , THAT PROVISION IN OUR READING , OVERRULES THE ADJUDICA TORY CASE LAW OUT OF THIS COURT AND DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY NOTICE OR ANY HEARINGS OR ANY ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING WHERE THE INTERESTS ARE FLES HED OUT BEFORE A JUROR CLOSUREOCCURS, SO WE WOULD , A GAIN , ASK THAT THE COURT L E AVE THE RULE AS IT IS. SOMETIMES WE GET ACCESS TO JURORS. SOMETIMES WE DON'T. STIPULATIONS CAMERAS ARE PROHIBITED F ROM PHOTOGRAPHING JURORS, BUT IN 2002, THIS COURT DECI DED THAT JIMMY R YCE M URDER CASE AND IN THAT CASE, SPECIFIED THAT NOTE N IECE A HEARING BEFORE JUROR CLOSURES WAS REQUIRED . SO, AGAIN , WE ARE ASKING , REALLY, WE ARE ASKING THAT 2.071 JUST STAY AS IT IS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU.
MAY I FOLLOW-UP WITH JUST ONE QUESTION ON THE J URORSITUATION. CERTAINLY THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE IN A CRISIS , IN FLO RIDA , WITH REGARD TO HAVING CITIZENS RES POND FOR J URY SERVICE , AND DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO OR COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH ANY STU DIES THAT ADDRESS THE CONCE PT O F JUROR PARTICIPATION AND CONCERN FOR PRIVACY , W ITH REGARD TO, MAYBE , HIGH PROFILE CASES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? BECAUSE WE ARE FINDING THAT , IN SOME AREAS , IF IT IS AS LOW AS BE LOW 30 PERCENTRESPONSE, TO THE SU MMONS TO AEAR FOR JURY DUT Y.
RIGHT. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR , IS THAT T HOSECONCERNS THAT WERE, THAT THE COURT IS RAISING TODAY, W ERE SIMILAR TO THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED WHEN THE P OST "NEWSWEEK" DECISION WAS BEING DECI DED. AND THAT OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT THERE , THAT THE ADDITIONAL KIND OF INCREMENT ALEX POST YOUR THAT YOU GET WITH CAMERAS I N HIGH PROFILE CASES, HAS NOT BEEN REPEATEDLY CITED AS PROVIDING PROBLEMS WITH SEATING JUR IES IN HIGHER PROFILE CASES.THAT HAS NOT BEEN AN INTEREST, AN ISSUE I AM AWARE, THAT HAS BEEN AT EARTHED TO JUSTIFY ASSERTED TO JUSTIFY CAMERA CLOSURE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. WHAT NORMALLY COMES UP ARE THINGS LI KE JUROR TA MPERING AND CONCERNS LIKE THAT ABOUT JURORS.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK THAT THE ABA IS PRESENTLY DOING ON JUROR PARTICIPATION?
I AM NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THAT .
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, AS JUSTICE LE WIS SAYS , ONLY 14 PERCENT OF PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE RESPONDING TO JURY SUMMONS. ACCORDING TO WHAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE. WE HAVE GOT A REAL PROBLEM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT , BUT I DON'T, YOU ASKED FOR SURVEYS. I AM NOT A WARE OF ANY SURVEYS THAT FACTOR IN THE CAMERA ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THAT PROBLEM. BUT I AM , ALSO , NOT AWARE OF ANY TRIAL JUDGES THAT HAVE BEEN CITING TO US THAT , IN HIGH PUBLICITY CASES WITH CAMERA COVERAGE , THAT THEY HAVE DE NIED CAMERA COVERAG E BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET ENOUGH JUROR PARTICIPATION TO SEAT A JURY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT W OULD BE, YOU JUST WA NT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A HEARING BEFORE THERE IS ANY DECI SION MADE.
WE JUST WANT IT TO STAY THE SAME. THANK YOU.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MU CH . JUDGE ISOM.
MY 18 MINUTES ME LTED LIKE SNOW IN THE ROC KIES .
SHE HAS 8 MINUTES , YOURHONOR.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE PROBABLY USED.
I HAD EIGHT AND THEN A N ADDITIONAL TEN TO TA LK ABOUT ARTERIOAMENDMENT. I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF. I AM A 14- YEAR TRIAL COURT JUDGE. I HAVE S E RVED IN E VERYDIVISION, INC LUDING DIVISIONS WITH THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, SO I COME TO YOU NOT JUST AS CHAI R OF THIS COMMITTEE BUT FROM THE FRONT LINE S OF OUR JUD ICIAL SYSTEM. I HAVE BEEN INVOL VED IN HIGH PROFILE CASES.I HAVE NEVER HAD A CAMERA MAN INSIST ON FIL MING MY JURY OR MY PROSPECTIVE JURORS. TALK ABOUT GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.THEY DO N'T DO IT. OKAY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE RULE? IF THERE IS NO PROBLEM , WHAT
EVIDENTLY NOT EVERYBODY IS A GENTLEMAN .
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THE LAW AS IT EXIS TS, PROTECTS , ALLOWS THAT TO BE , ALL OWS THE JUDGE TO NOT HAVE JURORS FILMED, AS LONG AS THEY H AVE HAD A HEARING FI RST.
EVIDENTIARY HEARING. IN THE FRENC HES , I HAVE HAD TRIAL IN THE TREN CHES , I HAVE HAD TRIAL WEE KS WHERE I HAVE HAD N INE CASES SET FOR TRIAL IN THE FEL ONY DIVISION. OF COURSE IT IS IMPRO BABLE POSSIBLE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRY NINE CASES. I HAVE WORKED A LOT OF LUNCHES AND IN A DEPENDENCY CASE WHERE I HAD TO STOP EVERYTHING BECAUSE I HAD A HIGH PROFILE CASE INVOLVING A CHILD AND A MOTHER , THERE WERE JUDICIAL REVIEWS THAT HAD TO BE BACKED UP. I HAD A BU SY DOCKET. THIS IS NOT , WE DO NOT HAVE ACRES OF TIME AS TRIAL COURT JUDGES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE WE SUGGESTING THAT THERE SHOULDN'T
I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT, IN ORDER TO CLOSE AN E NTIRE PROCEEDING TO THE MEDIA THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING A NDSTATE A FACT UAL BASIS FOR CLOSING IT , BUT I AM SAYING THAT, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOT FILM ING PROSPECTIVE JURORS, NOT FILMING SEATED JURORS , T HAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN EVID ENTIARY HEARING, I F WE ARE ST ILL ALLO WING THE MEDIA TO BE IN THE COURTR OOM AND USE OTHER - -
CHIEF JUSTICE: A GAIN, YOU MENTIONED, BE CAUSE THIS , THE DEPENDENCY DOESN'T HAVE JURORS, SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
I WAS RESP ONDING TO MS. Le CYST TO MS. LoCICERO SAYI NG IT IS NOT A BIG D E AL. IT IS A BIG DEAL. IT IS A CONVERSATIONAL ISSUE. JUST IN THE TAMPA TRI BUNE TODAY , WE HAD A F E DERAL TRIAL WHERE AN ARTI ST'S RENDERING OF THE PARTICIPANTS WAS USED BECAUSE CAMERAS ARE NOT ALLOW IN THE COURTROOM. THIS IS PUBLIC POLI CY. WHAT IS PUBLIC POLICY GOING TO BE, AND BEF ORE I GET COMPLETELY SIDETRACKED, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THRO UGH SOME OF THE OT HE R THING TH ATIS ARE BEFO RE THE C OURTTODAY. OUR COMMITTEE IS A MICROCAUSE YOU MEAN OF THE LEGAL COMMUN ITY C RIKE MOOIK ROW A MICROCAUSM OF ALL OF THE COMMIT TEES. WE HAVE GOT TRIAL COURT JUDGE S AND MR . THOMA S , W E THANK HIM FOR HIS SUORT OF OUR TWO PROPOS ALS TO AMEND THIS RULE AND URGE TO YOU ADOPT THEM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION THAT HE HAS TO D-1 , UPON MOTION LIE A PARTY, THE AELLATE COURT M AYPERMIT THE PARTIES TO EN GAGE IN EXPE DITED DISC OVERY TO DEVELOP THE FACTUAL RECO RD. I MEAN , THAT WAS EXAC TLY WHAT WAS M I SSING IN MEDI A GENERAL AND FRUSTRATED US IN OUR REVIEW. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY RECORD. SO I AM TRYING TO SEE WHEREIS THE DOWN SIDE OF THIS , IF IT IS INHERENT AUTHORITY , AT LEAST WE SHOULD SAY THAT IN THE COMMENT , THAT THEY HAVE GOT THE INHERENT AUTHORITYTO DO THAT.
AS I SAID, WE HAVE TEL L AT JUDGES ON OUR COMMITTEE AND I CONFER RED WITH THEM PRIOR TO TO DAY'S ORAL ARGUMENT, AND THEY ASSU RE D ME THAT THEY DO HAVE THE INHERENT AUTHORIT Y TO DO THAT ALREADY AND DO SO WITH CRIMINAL CASES, WHENEVERTHEY NEED TO AOINT A SPECIAL MADGEIES ST RAIGHT AND TAKE MAGISTRATE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RUSE OF CI VIL PROCEDURE. IT IS NOT NECESS ARY TO H AVE IT IN THERE AND IT IS A FIELD OF DREA MS ARGU MENT. IF YOU PUT IT IN THERE , IT WILL PROBABLY BE USED A LOT MORE OFTEN THAN IN THE H ERNTAUTHORITY THAT THE COURT H ASNOW TO USE THIS PROVISION , SO WE DON'T THINK IT I S - -
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THERE A CASE THAT SAYS THAT? THAT IT IS INHERENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE RE IS A CASE THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS, BUT A ELLATE COURTS ALL OVER THE STATE OF FLO RIDA USE THAT INHERENT AUTHORITY, WHENEVER THEY NEED FACT FINDING DONE, TO ASSIST THEM , SAY IT IS A ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THAT , THEY NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE IN TE RMS OF ATTORNEYS FEES. THEY CAN'T HAVE THE SCHOOL BOARD HAVE AN ATTORNEYS F EEHEARING.HAD HE AOINT A S PECIAL MAGISTRATE IN THE CASE OF BELATED CRIMINAL AE ALS, THEY RE MAND IT FOR AN EVIDENTIARY PRO CEEDING.THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY, THE SECOND DCA DIDN'T SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS BUT WE HAVE N O INHERENT AUTHORITY. THEY SUBPOENAED JUDGE ALVAREZ, THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF AEAL , QUAS HED THAT SUBPOENA, NOT BECAUSE THE RULES OF SQLU DICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T PERMIT IT, BEC AUSE THEY OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T PERMIT IT, BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WAS NECESSARY. WITH THIS NEW PROP OSAL , THERE WILL BE MORE AF TER WRITTEN RECORD CI TING T HEREASONS AND THE COURT WI LL BE ABLE TO IF THEY WANT , TO HAVE AN IN CAMERA PROCEE DINGAND THE ACT UAL RECORDSREQUESTED FOR INSPECTION. IF THE REVIEWING OR AELLATE COURT FEE LS T HEY NEED MORE AF TER RECORD , THEYHAVE THIS INHERENT AUTHORITY ALREADY, ANNUL NOTE IN RULE 9.00, IN THE S P ECIAL W RITS PROVISION, THERE IS NOTHING THERE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN USE THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IF YOU WANT DISCOVERY, YET I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY MY AE LLATE COLLEAGUES THAT YOU HAVE THAT INHERENT AUTHORITY. THE SECOND THING THAT IS PROPOSED TO CLOSE THE G IANT LOOPHOLE THAT MR . THOMAS IS CONCERNED ABOUT, I THINK I T WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO ENACT ANYTHING THAT WOULD CONTRADICT OR SUP PLEMENT OR PARALLEL OR PERHAPS EVEN INTERSECT THE JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT CANON 3 -D , WH ICH ALREADY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES WHEN A CH IEF JUDGE OR ANY JUDGE NEED S TO FORWARD COMPLAINTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT TO THE JQC , THIS CLEARLY PROVIDES EVEN A V ALID COMPLAINT CAN BE HANDLED ON A LO CAL L EVEL , BY DI RECT COMMUN ICATION WITH THE JUDGE, IF THE JUDGE THINKS THAT THAT IS AROPRIATE.AND IT DEFI NES IN THE COMMENTARY, WHAT IS AROPRIATE ACTION . MR. THOMAS WOULD SUGGEST THAT, IF A JUDGE REVIEWED A COMPLAINT AND FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS THAT , IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE J QC. WE THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD SULEMENT OR CONTRADICT THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT CAN ON 3 -D. MOVE CANON 3-D MO VING ALONG TO 3.071, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THIS CARRIED OVER FROM THE L AS T BIE NNIAL REPORT THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD PERMIT V I DEO DE TENTION HEARINGS IN JUVE NILE DELINQUENCY CASES.THAT IS NOT IN THE R ULE.IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE. IF YOUR HONOR S FEEL THAT THAT IS A P O SSIBLE PROBLE M, THEN PLEASE JUST ADD TO T HEPROVISION THAT THIS IN NO WAY MEANS TO ALLOW OR PERMIT AEARANCE B Y AU DIO V I SUAL EQUIPMENT AT JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DETENTION HEARINGS. IT IS V ERY , VERY S IMPLE AMENDMENT.IT ADDS IN, IN STEAD OF SAYING DELINQUENCY, WE ADD IN THE WORD JUVENILE, IT TO THE TYPE OF CASES WHERE THE JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE TO ALLOW SOMEBODY TO AEAR TELEPHONIC, A PARTY TO AEAR TELEPHONICALLY , AT A MOTION HEARING OF 15 MINUTESOR LESS, SO IT I S INCREASING THE PROTECTI ON. IN THE SECOND PART, IT IS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY. MY TIME I S GO NE. I , THIS IS THE 2.071, USE OF COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, THEONE THAT WAS ADDED ON FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN MINUTES.
WHY ARE YOU CHANGING IT FROM DELINQUENCY TO JUVENILE ? ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS T HAT YOU HAVE IN DHINING U ANCYPROCEEDINGS, ALSO , IN OTHER IN DELINQ UENCY PROCEEDINGS, ALSO IN OTHER KINDS OF JUVENILE CASES?
WELL , I THINK THIS , AG AI N , IS A CARRY OVER FROM THE LAST BIEN NIAL RE PORT , A ND I THINK THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO THE FAMILY LAW SECTION THAT THEY FELT THAT THIS WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE IT FROM DELINQUENCY TO DEPENDENCY . I AM SO RRY . MY RED LIGHT IS VERY RED.
YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO EXTEND THIS FLEXIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE PRE SIDING JUDGE.
PARTY.
IF THEY CAN COND UCT HEARINGS OVER THE TELEPHONE, THAT EVERYBODY AG REES TO , FOR FOR INSTANCE - -
THIS ACTUALLY, IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBSECTION, IT SAYS THAT A JUDGE HAS TO ALLOW A PARTY TO AEAR TELEPHONECALLY, IF IT IS A MOTION HEARING OF 15 MIN UTES OR LESS, UN LESS IT IS CRIMINAL, DELINQUENCY AND AELLATE. AND THIS HANG CHANGES THE WORD DELINQ AND THIS CHANGES THE WORD DELINQUENCY TO JUVENILE, IN REF LENS REFERENCE THAT JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASES, THE JUDGE MIGHT ALSO WANT TO HAVE THAT PARTY IN FRONT OF THEM FOR A DEPENDENCY MOTION HEARING.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I DON'T HAVE THE PROPOSED RULE I N FRONT OF ME , BUT IT IS ONLY INTENDED, THEN, FOR MOT ION HEARINGS THAT ARE 15 MINUTES OR LESS.
THAT IS THE FI RST PART. THE SECOND PART IS TO ALLOW TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY OVE R THE OBJ ECTION AF TER PARTY. THAT IS THE PART I THINK THAT THEY WERE CONCERN EDTHAT IT MIGHT B E INTERPRETED TO ALY TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY DETE NTION HEARINGS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I A M CONCERNED , WHAT , DOES I T MEAN THAT, IN A TRIAL , A FAMILY CASE , OF SE VERAL DAYS' DURATION , THAT ANYBODY CAN AEAR BY TELE PHONE ?
IF THE JUDGE AND THE JUDGE, IN THE EXERCI SE OF HER OR HIS SOUND DIS CRETION THINKS THAT THAT IS WHAT I S FAIR, YES. I JUST HAD A CASE THE OTHER DAY, BECAUS E I A M B ACK DOING FAMILY LAW NO W, WHERE WE HAD A WITNESS OUT-OF-STATE . THE PARTIES WER E NOT RIC H. THEY COULDN'T AFFORD TO SEND THEIR ATTORNEYS UP THERE TO DO A DEPO SITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, B UTONE OF THE PARTIES OBJE CTED TO THAT WITNESS WHO WAS N OTRELATED TO ANYBODY , TESTIFYING BY PHONE . I HAD NO
SO FOR OUT-OF-STATE , BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THIS AS BEING ANY LIMIT ON WHERE THEY WOULD, COU LD IT BE SOMEBODY IN TOWN, T OO?
SU RE. AND , AG AIN, HARING ANY THING BACK TO WHEN I WAS A PROSECUTOR, I HAD A DRO UGHT AT USF TELL ME ONE TIME THAT, IF I MADE HIM COME TO COU RT , I WOULDN'T LIK E WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, BUT IF I COULD HAVE HAD THAT EX PERT ME DICAL DOCTOR WITNESS TESTIFY BY PHONE, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO MISS ALL OF HIS POINTS.
BUT HE IS AN EXPERT WITNESS.YOU CAN USE A DEPOSITION THERE.
WELL , I COULD HAVE , I F I WOULD HAVE K NOWN SUFFICIENTLY IN AD VANCE TO
I THINK
CHIEF JUSTICE: I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT TRIA LS ARE CONDUCTED , AND I THINK THAT IS WHY THE COURT HAS PUT IT ON FOR O RAL ARGUMENT , BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE CONCERNS.
WELL, AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THIS IS ONLY IN AN INST ANCE WHERE THE JUDGE THINKS THAT IT WOULD C REATE FAIRNESS IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION.
BUT YOU HAVE ALL K INDS OF CONFRONTATION CL AUSE BE LLS AND WH ISTLES GOING OFF , WHEN YOU SUGGEST ANYTHING LIKE THIS, AND OBVIOU SLY W E C AN'TCHANGE THE LAW . BY PROVIDING FOR SOMETHINGLIKE THIS IN A RULE, S O WAS THERE A DEB ATE IN THE COMMITTEE , ABOUT , WELL , W HAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? YOU HAVE SAID AS A PROSECUTOR, THAT YOU HAD THE ISSUE , YOU K NOW, WITH THE DOCTOR. AND NOW THE DO CTOR TESTIFY ING IN A CRIM INAL CASE, AND THE IDEA THAT A DOCTOR COULD GIVE HIS TESTIMONY BY TELEPHONE , AND THE DEF ENDANTDOESN'T HAVE ANY OORTUNITYTO HAVE A DI RECT CONFRONTATION WITH WHAT THAT DOCTOR MAY HAVE T O SAY , YOU ARE SENDING OFF ALL KI NDS OF ALARM BELLS AND WHISTLES KIND OF THING , SO WAS THERE A DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE , ABOUT THE CONFRONTATION ISSUES?
LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR. THAT I DIDN 'T MEAN TO SET OFF ANYAL ERLY BELLS. ANY ALARM BELLS. BACK WHEN I WAS A PRO SECUTOR , THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPRESENTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN A DEP ENDENCY ACTION, AND THAT WAS A FAILURE TO TRY CASE, SO IT WAS NOT ONE THAT INVOLVED THE RIGHT OF CONF RONTATION , AND THIS PROPOSAL WAS I N RESPONSE TO THE FAMILY L AWBAR. AND IF YOU L OOK IN SUBSECTION 4, IT SAYS IN JUVENILE AND CRI MINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE DEF ENDANT MUST A MAKE A N INF ORMED WAIVER OF ANY CONFRONTATIONRIGHTS THAT MAY BE A NDBRIDGED BY THE USE O F COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, SO , CERTAINLY, WE ARE NOT MEANING TO CHANGE THE LAW OR DEPRIVE ANYBODY OF THEIR RIGHT TO CONFRO NTATION . WE ARE RESPONDING TO A NEED , AND WE WANT TO HE LP EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THOSE FINANCIALLY LESS CAPA BLE PARTIES, IN ORDER TO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE COURT THAT THEY NEED, IN ORDER TO MAK E AN INFORMED DECISION ON ANY PARTICULAR CASE .
AS YOU LEVEL THE FIELD FOR ONE PARTY, YOU ARE UNLEVELING THE FIELD FOR THE OTHER PARTY, WITHOUT T HEABILITY TO HAVE A WITNESS THAT MAY BE CRITICAL AND DECISION-MAKING FOR THE DETERMINATION . WHAT HAENS TO A CHILD IN THIS STATE. ARE YOU SUGGESTING IT THAT WE NEED TO GO T O COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM AND LET'S JUST FEED IT IN AND WHATEVER COMES AC ROSS THE TV SCREEN , WE WI LL HAVE JUDGES JUST RELY ON THAT. DO YOU FIND THAT OUR SYST EM IS SO ST ERILE AND SO COLD THAT WE NO LO NGER V ALUE LOOKING AT A WITNESS , SEEING HOW A WITNESS RESPO NDS IN THE COURTRO OM, U NDER OUR ADVERSARY SYSTEM? IS THAT WHERE WE ARE HEADE D?
I AM CERTAINLY NOT HEAD THERE HAD. THIS IS NOT SAYING IN EVERY INSTANCE THIS.IS JUST SAYING GIVE T HEJUDGE THE AUTHORIT Y, WHEN THE JUDGE, IN EXERCISE OF HER OR HIS SO UN D DIS CRETION THINKS THAT IT IS FA IR TO DO THIS, I , FOR ONE , HI GHLY VALUE THE ABILITY TO OBSERVEA WITNESS , AND I AL WAYS INSTRUCT MY JURORS , DON'T GET SO INVOLVED IN YOUR NOTE TAKING THAT YOU FORGET T HAT PART OF THE INSTRU CTION IS THAT YOU OBSERVE HOW THEY TESTIFIED. THEIR DEMEANOR WHILE TESTIFYING, SO, AND CERTAINLY IN JUVENILE C ASESAND IN FAMILY LAW CASES, WHERE I AM GOIN G TO BE THE FINDER OF FACT , I WOULD M UC H RATHER HAVE THAT WITNESS HERE IN PERSON . BUT THERE MAY BE INSTA NCES WHERE I THINK IT IS F AIR , EVEN IF ALL OF THE PARTIES DON'T AGREE, TO LET SOM EBODY IN OKLA HOMA TESTIFY BY PHONE , IF THEY HAVE GOT A NOTARY PUBLIC THERE THAT SAYS THAT THAT IS THEM , TESTIFY BY PHONE, IF THERE IS SOME INFORMATION THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO ME AS FIN DER OF FACT. AND THAT IS NOT FOR TODA Y'S MATTER, EITHER , BUT I ANTICIPATE SOMEDAY I HAVE A SCREEN , AND I WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT WITNESS OUT IN OKLAHOMA TESTIFYING, SO I CAN BE ASSI STED I N ASSESSING THEIR CREDIBILITY. WE ARE GOING THERE, BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF TOD AY'S PROPOSAL.
NOW IT IS EVEN W ORSEBECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO HAVE A VOICE ON A P HONEBOX, A LITTL E METAL BOX , AND CAN TESTIFY.
I WOULD N'T DO IT. I WOULD USE MY DIS CRETION TO DECIDE WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A FAIR PROCESS TO ENGAGE IN.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WITH OUR HELP AND, OF COURSE , THESE ARE, OF COURSE , A LO T OF SUBSTANTIAL MATTERS , WE ARE WAY, WAY OVER THE TIME , AND WE THANK YOU VERY MU CH . JUDGE ISOM, FOR BEING HERE FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU DO AS AND HAVE DONE AS CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. IT HAS SEEMED LIKE, WITH ALL OF OUR QUE STIONS , SEEM LIKE A THANK LESS J O B BUT WE THANK YOU VERY , VERY MUC H FOR A LLOF THE TIME AND EFFORT THATYOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS AND FOR COMING UP TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU T HAS BE EN AN HONOR.