Cameras in the courtroom are one thing. Spycams in the courtroom on the other hand…
The post Judge Livestreamed Child Sex Abuse Case Without Telling Anyone For America’s Most Problematic Home Videos appeared first on Above the Law.
Prosecutors have now dropped aggravated sexual assault of a child charges against a Texas man following a hung jury. This decision not to attempt a new trial comes against the backdrop of learning that judge livestreamed the case on YouTube, shutting it down — thankfully — before the testimony of the alleged minor victim was broadcast by the wannabe judicial influencer.
From the Hays Free Press:
Unbeknownst to the parties, the court had, prior to trial, placed three cameras in the courtroom and subsequently began to livestream the proceedings. Although in Texas, it is legal to record a conversation if one party to the conversation consents to recording, in cases of aggravated sexual assault of a child, the legislature has made it imperative that the identities of child victims be protected.
There’s a healthy debate to be had over cameras in the courtroom, but those discussions always involve robust protections against broadcasting sensitive or confidential material. And, generally, fully informing the parties. Though Texas doesn’t actually have a requirement that a judge inform the parties… mostly because no one thought a judge was going to wire their courtroom for Candid Camera.
Despite being a one-party consent state — to the extent that controls within the walls of a courthouse — Judge Tanner Neidhardt allegedly left the room during the stream, capturing the defense team chatting about potential jurors. The stream also captured prospective jurors being identified by name and called to the bench to divulge medical and other personal information.
“It was brought to my attention [that] you are livestreaming on YouTube and there’s a juvenile victim in this case,” said [Assistant District Attorney Allison] Buess. “They’re going to be referring to her by her legal [name] — under the pseudonym statute, identifying information for the parties, which are not public record. So, I’m very concerned we are continuing to livestream.”
After some back and forth about which statute applied, Judge Neidhardt said Article 58.253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the use of a pseudonym in all legal proceedings, to which Buess replied that this is correct because the name could be redacted through the court reported, but it cannot be removed from a permanent livestream.
Following the state’s objection, Judge Neidhardt said, “Shut it down.”
The first scheduled witness following opening statements was the alleged juvenile victim.
The court provided no comment to the local paper, but we can only assume the official statement would be, “Remember to subscribe and smash that like button!”
Hays County District Attorney responds to court livestream concerns [Hays Free Press News-Dispatch]
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
