{"id":392,"date":"2019-05-02T10:18:30","date_gmt":"2019-05-02T14:18:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/?page_id=392"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:15:27","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:15:27","slug":"local-journalist-sues-baltimore-court-officials-demanding-access-to-audio-recordings","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/our-press-releases\/local-journalist-sues-baltimore-court-officials-demanding-access-to-audio-recordings\/","title":{"rendered":"Local Journalist Sues Baltimore Court Officials Demanding Access to Audio Recordings"},"content":{"rendered":"

[Baltimore, MD] \u2014 A local journalist and writer has filed a lawsuit<\/a> asserting that Baltimore City court officials have violated a state rule requiring them to provide public access to audio recordings of court proceedings. \u00a0Justine Barron seeks a court order directing the Baltimore City Court Reporter\u2019s office\u2014which houses all local court recordings\u2014to comply with Maryland Rule 16-504(h)<\/a>, which requires court officials to \u201cmake a copy of [an] audio recording .\u00a0. . available to any person upon written request.\u201d \u00a0Until last week, the Baltimore City Circuit Court had routinely provided audio recordings of court proceedings to the public upon request.\u00a0 Ms. Barron was the first person whose request for an audio recording was denied under the court\u2019s new policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe availability of courtroom audio is important for journalists, like myself, and for the public to understand the full scope of what happens during trials\u2014not all of which is apparent in a transcript,\u201d said Ms. Barron. \u00a0\u201cLike most people, I don\u2019t have full days or weeks to watch trial video at the courthouse. \u00a0I\u2019m frustrated that the local courts are suddenly using their powers to restrict access to their own proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s change in policy follows on the heels of a letter<\/a> that the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) sent to local court officials last month on behalf of another journalist concerning a controversial state law prohibiting the broadcast of audio recordings from criminal trials.\u00a0 That letter notified the court that Amelia McDonell-Parry, a journalist who reports on criminal-justice issues, intended to use audio recordings from a high-profile criminal case on her podcast series, Undisclosed<\/em>. \u00a0The letter explained that the blanket ban on broadcasting criminal court proceedings, which is codified in \u00a7\u00a01-201<\/a> of Maryland\u2019s Code of Criminal Procedure, likely violates the First Amendment. \u00a0The court\u2019s new policy restricting public access to court audio recordings appears to be a response to that letter\u2014and part of court officials\u2019 broader effort to prevent recordings of court proceedings from being widely shared.<\/p>\n

Ms. Barron was notified of the policy change on April 24, one week after she initially submitted her request for an audio recording. \u00a0After Ms. Barron repeatedly requested an explanation for the policy change, the court eventually provided her with a copy of an administrative order<\/a>, signed by Administrative Judge W. Michel Pierson, stating that \u201cno copies of audio recordings maintained by the Office of the Court Reporter shall be made available to persons other than parties to the relevant proceeding or counsel to the relevant proceeding.\u201d\u00a0 The court has not posted the order publicly and has provided no explanation for the change in policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis isn\u2019t just a transparency issue\u2014it\u2019s a rule-of-law issue,\u201d said Daniel Rice, one of the attorneys representing Ms. Barron. \u00a0\u201cBaltimore court officials are attempting to nullify a statewide rule through local administrative fiat.\u00a0 We\u2019re eager to fight these officials\u2019 brazen effort to exempt themselves from existing Maryland law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, challenges to the state\u2019s ban on broadcasting recordings of criminal proceedings continue to mount.\u00a0 This morning, a group of journalists and local community organizations submitted letters to court officials asserting their intent to include criminal-court recordings on their websites and in upcoming projects, including a documentary film.\u00a0 The letters (available here<\/a> and here<\/a>) ask court officials to specify what harm, if any, would actually arise from their decision to broadcast or publish the recordings.<\/p>\n

A copy of Ms. Barron\u2019s complaint is available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

About the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP)<\/strong><\/p>\n

ICAP uses the power of the courts to defend American constitutional rights and values.\u00a0 Based at Georgetown Law Center, ICAP draws on expert litigators, savvy litigation strategy, and the constitutional scholarship of Georgetown to vindicate individuals\u2019 rights and to protect America\u2019s constitutional way of life.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[Baltimore, MD] \u2014 A local journalist and writer has filed a lawsuit asserting that Baltimore City court officials have violated a state rule requiring them to provide public access to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"parent":26,"menu_order":31,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-392","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3077,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/392\/revisions\/3077"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/icap\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}