CopyCited 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...
CopyCited 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)....
CopyCited 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....
CopyCited 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...
...[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)....
