Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 15-1-10.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 15-1-10.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 15-1-10.1

TITLE 15 COURTS

Section 1. General Provisions, 15-1-1 through 15-1-22.

15-1-10.1. Standards in determining grant of requests for televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings.

  1. It is declared to be the purpose and intent of the General Assembly that certain standards be considered by the courts in determining whether to grant requests for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings. Such standards are intended to provide an evaluation of the impact on the public interest and the rights of the parties in open judicial proceedings, the impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court, and whether the proposed activity would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice.
  2. In considering a request for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings, the court shall consider the following factors in determining whether to grant such request:
    1. The nature of the particular proceeding at issue;
    2. The consent or objection of the parties or witnesses whose testimony will be presented in the proceedings;
    3. Whether the proposed coverage will promote increased public access to the courts and openness of judicial proceedings;
    4. The impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court;
    5. The impact upon the administration of the court;
    6. The impact upon due process and the truth finding function of the judicial proceeding;
    7. Whether the proposed coverage would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice;
    8. Any special circumstances of the parties, victims, witnesses, or other participants such as the need to protect children or factors involving the safety of participants in the judicial proceeding; and
    9. Any other factors which the court may determine to be important under the circumstances of the case.
  3. The court may hear from the parties, witnesses, or other interested persons and from the person or entity requesting coverage during the court's consideration of the factors set forth in this Code section.
  4. This Code section shall not apply to the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of a record.
  5. The court in its discretion may grant requests made under this Code section for all or portions of judicial proceedings.

(Code 1981, §15-1-10.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 734, § 2.)

Cross references.

- Freedom of speech and press, U.S. Const., amend. 1 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para V.

Use of electronic devices in courtrooms and recording of judicial proceedings, Unif. S. Ct. Rule 22.

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 1996, p. 734, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section is applicable to all judicial proceedings held on or after July 1, 1996.

Law reviews.

- For article, "The Case Against Closure: Open Courtrooms After Presley v. Georgia," see 16 (No. 2) Ga. St. B. J. 10 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Discretion of court.

- Decision whether electronic media will be allowed in the courtroom is not governed by the principle that there must be "clear and convincing proof" that closure is necessary to prevent a "clear and present danger" to the right of a fair trial, rather, the decision is a question for the trial court's discretion. WALB-TV, Inc. v. Gibson, 269 Ga. 564, 501 S.E.2d 821 (1998).

In ruling on a request for electronic and photographic coverage of judicial proceedings, a trial court should bear in mind Georgia's policy favoring open judicial proceedings, and, although the decision whether to allow electronic and photographic coverage of a trial is within the discretion of the trial court, if a trial court denies such coverage, there must be a factual basis in the record that supports the denial. Morris Communs., LLC v. Griffin, 279 Ga. 735, 620 S.E.2d 800 (2005).

Although O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1(b)(2) permits a trial court to consider the objection of the parties or witnesses whose testimony will be presented in the proceedings, when considering a request for electronic media coverage of a trial, a party's objection must set forth an adequate ground for denying the request and the record must contain some factual basis supporting that ground. Morris Communs., LLC v. Griffin, 279 Ga. 735, 620 S.E.2d 800 (2005).

Despite finding that the presence of cameras in the courtroom during a pending criminal trial would be harmful to the rights of the defendant, the state, and the potential jurors, given the small and limited space in the courtroom, because the superior court failed to provide a factual basis for denying a newspaper's request to record those proceedings, the court abused the court's discretion, warranting reversal of the denial. Savannah Morning News v. Jeffcoat, 280 Ga. App. 634, 634 S.E.2d 830 (2006).

Trial court erred in excluding a camera and denying a purported student's request to make video recordings of the criminal calendar proceedings because the trial court erred in the court's application of O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1 and did not properly consider the factors set forth therein. McLaurin v. Ott, 327 Ga. App. 488, 759 S.E.2d 567 (2014).

Consent of parties or witnesses.

- Consent of the parties is not a prerequisite to the trial court's decision with regard to the televising of proceedings; O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1(b)(2) provides that the consent or objection of the parties or witnesses is but one factor for the trial court to consider in making the court's discretionary determination. Smith v. Gwinnett County, 270 Ga. 424, 510 S.E.2d 525, cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1003, 119 S. Ct. 2338, 144 L. Ed. 2d 236 (1999).

Findings sufficient to support denial of coverage.

- Because the murder trials of two defendants were to be conducted separately, denial of coverage of the first trial was justified based on findings that due process rights would be jeopardized because testimony at the first trial would be similar to that introduced at the later trial and could create a tainted jury pool for the second trial. WALB-TV, Inc. v. Gibson, 269 Ga. 564, 501 S.E.2d 821 (1998).

O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1 does not specifically list jurors' desire for privacy as a factor to be considered in ruling on a request for photographic and electronic coverage of a trial, but it does authorize a trial court to consider any special circumstances of the participants in the proceedings, including concerns regarding the safety of the participants, and to consider any other factors which the court may determine to be important under the circumstances of the case. Morris Communs., LLC v. Griffin, 279 Ga. 735, 620 S.E.2d 800 (2005).

Findings insufficient to support denial of coverage.

- Since the murder trials of two defendants were to be conducted separately, denial of coverage of the second trial was not justified based on due process concerns and the distraction posed by the camera's presence. WALB-TV, Inc. v. Gibson, 269 Ga. 564, 501 S.E.2d 821 (1998).

When a newspaper moved for still camera coverage of a murder trial, it was error, under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 22 and O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1, to deny the motion because no facts supported the trial court's findings that the motion should be denied because: (1) defendant objected, and to insure due process and a fair trial; (2) jurors wanted to protect their privacy; (3) a camera would not increase the openness of the proceedings; and (4) a camera would impact on the court's administration and detract from the ends of justice, given the courtroom's small size. Morris Communs., LLC v. Griffin, 279 Ga. 735, 620 S.E.2d 800 (2005).

Cameras allowed in courtroom.

- Although the defendant's allegations that the defendant was harassed and abused by officers at the jail where the defendant was held were troubling if true, the defendant failed to demonstrate how such actions, which (even if true) occurred outside the courtroom, impacted upon the due process and the truth-finding function of the judicial proceedings; thus, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in allowing cameras in the courtroom. Roberts v. State, 344 Ga. App. 324, 810 S.E.2d 169 (2018).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Moore v. The State (two Cases), 858 S.E.2d 676 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 17, 2021 | 311 Ga. 506

...Citing former Uniform Superior Court Rule 22 (P),2 Milbourne contends that the trial court erred in granting a request by the media to film closing arguments over his objection, because the record does not affirmatively show that the court considered the factors set out in OCGA § 15-1-10.1 (b).3 However, Milbourne cites 2 Milbourne’s trial took place in August 2016....
...At the time, former Uniform Superior Court Rule 22 (P) said: “A request for installation and use of electronic recording, transmission, videotaping or motion picture or still photography of any judicial proceeding shall be evaluated pursuant to the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1.” 3 OCGA § 15-1-10.1, which has not been amended since Milbourne’s trial, says: (a) It is declared to be the purpose and intent of the General Assembly that certain standards be considered by the courts in deter...
Copy

Walb-tv, Inc. v. Gibson, 501 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 6, 1998 | 269 Ga. 564, 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2390, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 2381

...microphones placed at counsel tables would capture privileged conversations. After a hearing at which WALB-TV expressed a willingness to forego placing microphones at the counsel tables, the court denied the request and WALB-TV appeals. [2] 1. OCGA § 15-1-10.1 sets forth standards courts are to consider in determining whether to grant requests to televise, videotape, or film judicial proceedings....
...State, 257 Ga. 764, 765(2), 363 S.E.2d 528 (1988). Compare R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 579(4), 292 S.E.2d 815 (1982). Rather, whether electronic media coverage will be allowed in the courtroom is a question for the trial court's discretion. OCGA § 15-1-10.1(e); Georgia Television, supra; Multimedia WMAZ, Inc....
...WALB-TV argues that, under this Court's decision in Multimedia, electronic media may be excluded only when the court makes certain specific findings, and that this order does not include such findings. However, Multimedia was decided before the 1996 passage of OCGA § 15-1-10.1, when a court's *823 consideration of a request for electronic media coverage was governed solely by a previous version of USCR 22. Under USCR 22, such coverage would be allowed unless the court made specific findings that the coverage would either not be within the requirements of due process or would detract from the dignity and decorum of the court. OCGA § 15-1-10.1 now sets forth factors to be considered other than those grounded in USCR 22 as cited in Multimedia....
...USCR 22 was amended to include section (P), which states that "[a] request for installation and use of electronic recording, transmission, videotaping or motion picture or still photography of any judicial proceeding shall be evaluated pursuant to the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1." This amendment was effective May 15, 1997; WALB-TV's request was filed July 18, 1997. Therefore WALB-TV's request is governed by the new version of USCR 22 and the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1, rather than only those standards present in USCR 22 when Multimedia was decided....
...Nor is there any factual basis for the court's denying the Lematty coverage because the camera could pose a distraction to those participating in the proceedings. While the dignity and administration of the court are certainly proper considerations when evaluating a request for coverage, as OCGA § 15-1-10.1 recognizes, the only evidence presented on the issue of distraction was that the camera would be stationary and silent....
...trial and concur in judgment only with the majority's reversal of the trial court's order denying electronic-media coverage of the Lematty trial. The requirement that trial courts make specific factual findings was not altered by the passage of OCGA § 15-1-10.1 or the subsequent addition of subsection (P) to Uniform Superior Court Rule 22 directing courts to evaluate a request for electronic media coverage pursuant to the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1. The provisions of OCGA § 15-1-10.1 do not address or contradict the long-standing requirement that trial courts make specific findings and such findings continue to be necessary to enable appellate courts to determine that the trial court properly weighed the conflicting constitutional concerns and had sufficient evidence before the court to justify an infringement on First Amendment rights. Moreover, OCGA § 15-1-10.1 cannot be constitutionally interpreted to effectuate a reduction in the public's First Amendment rights by changing the standard to be applied by trial courts when weighing those First Amendment concerns against the due process concerns...
...f such equipment. Among those enumerated "restrictions and conditions" is subsection (P) of USCR 22, which provides that a request for the use of such equipment in a judicial proceeding "shall be evaluated pursuant to the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1." That incorporated statute sets forth a number of factors which relate to the impact that access to the courtroom by the electronic media will have "on the public interest and the rights of the parties in open judicial proceedings, the impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court, and whether the proposed activity would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice." OCGA § 15-1-10.1(a). Thus, Rule 22 mandates that the trial court make its own independent discretionary determination as to the incorporated factors enumerated in OCGA § 15-1-10.1(b)....
...iscretion under Rule 22. Compare Multimedia WMAZ v. State, 256 Ga. 698, 353 S.E.2d 173 (1987). One of the reasons set forth for denying access to the electronic media is that the presence of a camera in the courtroom would be a distraction. See OCGA § 15-1-10.1(b)(5), (7)....
Copy

Smith v. Gwinnett Cnty., 510 S.E.2d 525 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 11, 1999 | 270 Ga. 424, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 241

...hich the County obtained against the Smiths. 2. Although the Smiths urge that it was error to allow television coverage of the proceedings without their consent, their consent was not a prerequisite to the trial court's decision in that regard. OCGA § 15-1-10.1(b)(2) provides that the consent or objection of the parties or witnesses is but one factor for the trial court to consider in making its discretionary determination....
Copy

Morris Commc'ns, LLC v. Griffin, 620 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 11, 2005 | 279 Ga. 735, 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2394, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 3138

...Among other things, Rule 22(P) provides that "[a] request for installation and use of electronic recording, transmission, videotaping or motion picture or still photography of any judicial proceeding shall be evaluated pursuant to the standards set forth in OCGA § 15-1-10.1." Under that Code section, when considering a request to photograph judicial proceedings, a trial court may consider, among other things, "the impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court"; "the impact on the administration of the...
...We conclude that the record does not support these rulings. First, the trial court did not find that the requested media coverage would jeopardize Griffin's due process rights. Instead, the court stated that Griffin objected to the coverage out of concern for his due process rights. Although OCGA § 15-1-10.1(b)(2) permits a trial court to consider the objection of "the parties or witnesses whose testimony will be presented in the proceedings," we conclude that a party's objection must set forth an adequate ground for denying a request for el...
...576, 578(2), 292 S.E.2d 815 (1982); the appeal is not moot; see WALB-TV, 269 Ga. at 564, n. 1, 501 S.E.2d 821; R.W. Page Corp., 249 Ga. at 578, 292 S.E.2d 815; and the record shows that the newspaper is not procedurally barred from contesting the denial of its motion. [2] OCGA § 15-1-10.1(b)(3)-(6)....
...[5] See R.W. Page Corp., 249 Ga. at 576, n. 1, 578-580, 292 S.E.2d 815 (discussing this State's policy favoring open judicial proceedings). [6] WALB-TV, 269 Ga. at 564-565, 501 S.E.2d 821; R.W. Page Corp., 249 Ga. at 578-579, 292 S.E.2d 815. [7] OCGA § 15-1-10.1 does not specifically list the jurors' desire for privacy as a factor to be considered in ruling on a request for photographic and electronic coverage of a trial, but it does authorize the trial court to consider "[a]ny special circumstances" of the participants in the proceedings, including concerns regarding the safety of the participants, OCGA § 15-1-10.1(a)(8), and to consider "[a]ny other factors which the court may determine to be important under the circumstances of the case," OCGA § 15-1-10.1(a)(9)....