Originally Posted By: eljefino
The judge has latitude to decide what sort of record keeping goes on in his courtroom. However it is public court and the defendant in this case could have brought his own lawyer, stenographer or other witnesses.
This is why we have courtroom sketch artists; photography is sometimes banned.
Judge Ito caught flack for allowing all sorts of video cameras in the OJ trial. He could legally have been tighter.
As for cops working in public or on the defendant's property, he has every right to tape what they're doing.
I don't really disagree that a judge should be able to not allow a video recorder in a court room. But he was charged with "wire tapping" and faces 75 years I guess for recording the cops in public or oon his property. And this is just the tip of the iceburgh of the corruption and abuses that the article talks about.
The judge has latitude to decide what sort of record keeping goes on in his courtroom. However it is public court and the defendant in this case could have brought his own lawyer, stenographer or other witnesses.
This is why we have courtroom sketch artists; photography is sometimes banned.
Judge Ito caught flack for allowing all sorts of video cameras in the OJ trial. He could legally have been tighter.
As for cops working in public or on the defendant's property, he has every right to tape what they're doing.
I don't really disagree that a judge should be able to not allow a video recorder in a court room. But he was charged with "wire tapping" and faces 75 years I guess for recording the cops in public or oon his property. And this is just the tip of the iceburgh of the corruption and abuses that the article talks about.