Huguely sentencing: Cameras in courtroom denied-- again
-
The late-February trial of George Huguely drew unprecedented media attention to Charlottesville.PHOTO BY TOM DALY
Calling it a "dangerous" precedent, Judge Edward Hogshire quickly denied a media motion Wednesday to allow cameras in the courtroom when George Huguely gets sentenced later this summer for killing his former girlfriend, Yeardley Love.
At the July 25 hearing, Huguely wore black-and-white striped prison garb instead of the suits and blazers he wore during his February trial, and he sported longer hair and didn't appear to have shaved before court. His mother and stepfather, Marta and Andrew Murphy, sat in the front row.
Judge Hogshire seemed unswayed by arguments from attorney Greg Duncan. Representing NBC29, and referring to a Virginia statute, Duncan sought the right to put a television camera in Charlottesville Circuit Court when Huguely is sentenced August 30 for second-degree murder and grand larceny.
"There are nine situations in which a camera is not allowed," said Duncan. "Sentencing is not one of them."
"There's never going to be a case of this import to the citizens of Charlottesville," added Duncan.
Daily Progress director of photography Andrew Shurtleff, representing the Virginia Press Association, requested a still camera in the courtroom. The prosecution and defense, however, were unified in keeping out cameras.
The issue was addressed last year with the only difference being that no one is suggesting building camera platforms this time, said Commonwealth's Attorney Dave Chapman, who claimed that witnesses would be less willing to participate in televised proceedings.
"Those images and words will be forever accessible in the public domain," intoned Chapman, who said he'd be calling three witnesses at the sentencing to describe specific things Huguely did before beating Love to death.
Presumably pointing to frequent Twitter, Facebook, and other postings, defense attorney Rhonda Quagliana pointed out that the open sentencing meant that any citizen needing immediate information could simply visit a media website.
"This case will quickly be appealed," said Quagliana. "Mr. Huguely will appear in this court or some other court and should have the right to a fair trial... without it being on the Internet or videotape."
"The thing that's somewhat unusual in my experience is the intensity of the media coverage," said Judge Hogshire, noting the youth of many of the witnesses, who were not long out of college. "What effect does media coverage have on their willingness to come forward?"
Hogshire said that several factors concerned him and noted that cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I've never understood," said Hogshire, "how the presence of cameras enhanced the judicial proceeding."
10 comments
I'm not sure what good cause is served by allowing televised or even photographic coverage of the sentencing. Assuming reporters are literate (which is, on past evidence, questionable) and allowing for the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom, what good, we may pardonably ask, would be served by photographic records? My opinion is that whatever good there may be lies with the imagined benefits to the media itself. The courtroom proceedings, alas, are undertaken in the interest of justice or, at least, the application of law. No need to turn this into a freak show.
""There's never going to be a case of this import to the citizens of Charlottesville," added Duncan.
For real?
Cameras serve no impact on the outcome of this guys sentencing. No point in giving him more publicity...no one I believe cares how long his hair is...what he's wearing...or the last time he shaved...he is a convicted murderer by his peers...time for him to face the music alone...time for him to learn how much of his remaining miserable life he will spend in prison to relive exactly what he has done here...his actions took a young woman's life...that is forever...
"The thing that's somewhat unusual in my experience is the intensity of the media coverage," said Judge Hogshire, noting the youth of many of the witnesses, who were not long out of college. "What effect does media coverage have on their willingness to come forward?"<<<
From what I have seen of social networking, etc., the cited "youth" court publicity, not shy from it.
Possibly the very honorable Judge Hogshire will extend his prohibition to removing all cell phones capable of capturing video or still images? Not to mention spy spectacles that could take video and stills? I'm betting footage will show up on the 'Net.
Ain't it time yet? ... for the Commonwealth to require a video record of ALL important criminal and civil trials? ... an an official supplement to the record taken down by the Court Reporter ....
"There are nine situations in which a camera is not allowed," said Duncan.
10. When the judge says NO! :)
Number ten actually boils down to the number one and only reason.
I bet if Perry Mason ever has a case in a Charlottesville courtroom, there will be cameras present.
Honestly, I am against the press or news media recording trials. It causes attorneys to "perform" - recall Johnny Cochran? I am not against video conferencing and they do now record court proceedings but those are not for public yet the audio is available to the public.
Yes, I know attorneys are paid to perform to present their side but cameras do funny things to us all.
As for the media, just because you can, should you?
Sad story. Bathetic. Comes out of "The Sun Is Beer" culture ... at UVA. And many other schools. I'd like to see it on tape as a cautionary tale for other drunk youngsters. Does anyone doubt it was the first time he was violent? Where are the Huguely boy's parents?