Court allows broadcast in Calif. same-sex marriage appeal

from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) allowed the live broadcast Monday of more than two hours of oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriages.

The hearing before the three-judge panel is the latest legal step in the case brought by two same-sex couples to challenge California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution enacted by voters in 2008.

In August, a federal court in San Francisco ruled that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitution. That ruling, by Judge Vaughn Walker, came after a trial that, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, could not be broadcast to the public.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rebuffed Walker’s plan to broadcast the trial, ruling that the broadcasting would conflict with court policy and procedural rules. The Supreme Court also noted the possible chilling effect on witnesses.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision to broadcast Monday's hearing did not raise the same issues.

Read the rest here.

Electronic trial proceedings are public records in Fla.

The Florida Supreme Court rejected a recommendation to protect judicial audio and video recordings, the AP reported.

The state Supreme Court has ordered that electronic recordings of trial proceedings are public records.

The court Thursday unanimously rejected a recommendation from a judicial commission that audio and video recordings be protected unless a judge approves their release. The high court cited the state's open government laws in siding for openness.

The ruling comes after an appeals court rejected a request from The Tampa Tribune for audio recordings in a criminal sentencing. At issue was whether privileged conversations that weren't part of the official court record could be heard on the recordings.

More here.

Medical records of minor cancer patient are public

A Brown County district judge ruled that the medical records of Daniel Hauser, 13, are public, City Pages reported. Hauser's case has been in the public eye after he and his mother fled the Minnesota to avoid chemo for his Hodgkin's lymphoma. The judge said the boy's parents have spoken to the media and the case has been in the public thus far. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense to reverse the course now.

He might be a minor and the issue might be medical records, but that doesn't mean this family will have any medical privacy in their case as their boy has forced chemotherapy treatment for his cancer.

A judge denied their request to seal the medical records of Daniel Hauser, 13, who made national headlines when he fled the state with his mother to avoid chemo for his Hodgkin's lymphoma.

More here.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion A Blow To Access...

I'm needing to get a copy of this opinion, which sounds pretty grim...

Oklahomans' access to court records on the Internet will be limited by rules adopted Tuesday by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The court said individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the Internet. People wanting to see this information can go to the courthouse and view it.

The court said it issued the rules in order to balance the rights of privacy of individuals who use Oklahoma's court system and public access to court documents. The rules affect operations of the state's district courts.

These rules regarding privacy and public access to court documents will be effective June 10.

The rules also say people filing cases should omit personal identifiers such as Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers and home addresses.

Omitting these things from documents was called "outrageous overreaching” by Joey Senat, past president of FOI Oklahoma and an Oklahoma State University journalism professor specializing in freedom of information.

More here.

More here, including a great debunking of the identitfy theft FOI issue...