County Commissioner - Tim Bubb on Courthouse Security

November 17, 2009

Licking County Update

From…County Commissioner Tim Bubb


Usually my Commissioner Updates are a summary of local and County Government related information. However, this time I would like to share with you an excellent article by Leila Atassi that appeared in The Cleveland Plain Dealer last month.

As a part of the background for the story she interviewed Court officials here in Licking County.

As background you should know that this year, at the instigation of the Ohio Supreme Court and the local judges, we limited access to the Licking County Courthouse and tightened security. The Commissioners did this with great reluctance, but also with the realization the safety of our courts and their staffs, and the general public using the Courthouse is a priority.

Six doors now are secure and alarmed, including the double doors at the top of the steps on each side. Of course they still open from the inside for emergency exit, but again are alarmed.

On the ground level we have a secure prisoner entrance and on the southeast corner the general public entrance. It is at this ‘public entrance’ where everyone must come and go, under the watchful eye of our security staff. Generally people have come to accept this limited and secure access, and have been appreciative of this safety consideration.

A final point regards cell phones and all manner of electronic personal communications devices. They are banned from the Courthouse, and only permitted for Court staff, attorneys and law enforcement personnel.

Frankly, people have come to view cell phones or the small personal computers they have evolved into as an entitlement.

However there are good reasons the judges ask for the ban and that is why I am sharing this Cleveland Plain Dealer story. I feel it is excellent information and will help you understand the changes we are making to take into account the new methods of immediate communication and the threats to our security that can result.

Many of you comment on my newsletters, and I will be curious what you have to say about this subject.

Best Regards…Licking County Commissioner Tim Bubb

Courts struggle to keep trials fair in an age of instant information…
By Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer
October 06, 2009, 5:28PM


More people are using social media sites, such as Twitter.com, and the trend his implications for courts.CLEVELAND, Ohio —


The first mistrial Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John Russo declared in his courtroom wasn't because of a hung jury, improperly admitted evidence or a procedural error.

It happened, in large part, because of a text message.

An attorney in another Ohio jurisdiction called Prosecutor Bill Mason's office reporting that her sister, who was serving jury duty on the felonious assault case in Russo's courtroom, had texted her with a legal question -- a direct violation of the judge's orders to abstain from doing outside research on the case.

Russo began confiscating jurors' cell phones from then on. But the judge acknowledges that his new policy might just be a temporary solution to a burgeoning problem.

From text messaging to micro-blogging to the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, judges find themselves crafting new policies for their courtrooms in response to evolving technology and its risk to the fairness and integrity of the justice system.

Across the country, stories have surfaced of mistrials caused by jurors describing their trial experiences on social networking Web sites or accessing the Internet and conducting their own research -- all on wireless devices so small they fit inconspicuously in a juror's pocket.

In March, a federal drug trial in Florida ended in a mistrial after nine jurors admitted to researching the case on their iPhones and BlackBerrys. A week later, a building products manufacturer asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment, claiming that a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

In Cuyahoga County, some judges have banned journalists from blogging live during trials, worried that witnesses waiting to testify could follow the trial on their wireless device from the courthouse lobby. In one case, a judge asked a trial spectator to leave the courtroom out of fear he could be recording the proceedings through a wireless phone ear piece.

And some Ohio courthouses, including Lucas County Common Pleas Court in Toledo, have banned cell phones from the building altogether. Court administrators there hope it will prevent people from taking camera-phone photos of jurors or witnesses -- a new form of intimidation becoming increasingly more popular and problematic in courts.

Judges have always faced the challenge of striking a balance between transparency in the courtroom and the rights of litigants to due process, said Chris Davey, public information director for the Ohio Supreme Court, and chairman of the New Media Committee for the Conference of Court Public Information Officers.
As technology changed throughout the 20th century, courts developed standards to account for the presence of cameras, audio and video recording devices, Davey said.

"Now, we've made another quantum leap forward in terms of what technology is capable of doing, and it requires that courts reexamine how that balance is achieved," Davey said. "Some people already have declared Twitter to be a fad. But there is no question that Web 2.0 and social media are not only here to stay, but they are transforming our culture right before our eyes."

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, like many courts across the country, has not adopted a set of guidelines for judges making decisions about the use of these tools in their courtrooms.

So to offer a framework, the Conference of Court Public Information Officers has sponsored a year-long national research project on the effect of new media on the justice system.

During the next year, the group will examine ways courts use new media and poll judges and administrators on their perceptions about the technology. The completed project will help courts develop their own best practices for using new media to reach out to the community while mitigating the risks, Davey said.

Cuyahoga County judges interviewed for this story reported several beneficial applications for social networking Web sites and other technologies in their courtrooms so far. Photos taken with camera phones at crime scenes have been entered into evidence in some cases, and victims have brought cell phone voicemail recordings with them to court to prove restraining order violations.

And in many criminal cases, defendants who denied that they owned guns or belonged to gangs have been confronted in court by their own Facebook photos featuring them holding weapons and flashing gang signs.

Some judges and court public information officers have embraced Facebook themselves -- establishing profiles to publicize court-sponsored programs, news from the legal community and provide links to court opinions as they are issued.

This instant access to information from the courts, coupled with micro-blogging technology such as Twitter, is a boon for journalists in fierce competition for the public's attention, said Jen Reeves, associate professor of radio-television journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia and an expert on the use of new media tools in journalism.

Covering court trials in real-time is a growing trend among reporters that improves transparency and fosters public dialogue, while reaching a potential audience in its medium of choice, Reeves said.

But the real-time flow of information from the courtroom could cause serious problems for the administration of justice and should be limited as much as possible, said Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason.

In most criminal cases, judges order a separation of witnesses to prevent them from knowing the testimony of the others. But witnesses discreetly using handheld devices with internet access could easily follow a reporters' live blog or Twitter feed from courtroom proceedings, Mason said.

"Prosecutors use a witness's inability to get the details straight to impeach their credibility in cross-examination," Mason said. "If they're following previous testimony they could change their story accordingly, and all they're doing is supporting the perjury."

Common Pleas Judge Deena Calabrese agrees with Mason and has banned reporters from blogging or using Twitter in her courtroom. The judge, who is in her first term on the bench, developed her policy after she attended an Ohio Supreme Court seminar on capital murder cases, during which presenters warned of ways that real-time media updates could prompt mistrials.

Calabrese also is sensitive to the effects of other technologies too.

During a recent aggravated murder trial in her courtroom, the judge ordered sheriff's deputies to examine the cell phones of a group of young men sitting in the back of the room.

Calabrese said she saw the men, friends of the defendant, and secretly snap photos of jurors with their camera phones, then scramble to purge the photos when the judge noticed their behavior.

"I know that with my phone I could be online anywhere in a minute," Calabrese said. "And I knew immediately when I looked back there that those guys were either exchanging information with witnesses outside the courtroom or taking pictures of the jury."

The challenge judge’s face is in separating the appropriate uses of technology in the courtroom from the countless ways its use could derail a trial. But short of ordering all computers and cell phones checked at the courthouse doors, judges say they will handle the problems as they arise.

"I guess you just need to be aware of what technology can do," said Judge David Matia. "And equally aware of what technology can screw up."