by Bo del Ransi

Created on: May 07, 2011   Last Updated: May 10, 2011

Any legitimate courtroom commissioned by constitutional law contains the exercise of a scheduled, interactive presentation that consists technically of a plaintiff, a defendant, a judge - and possibly a jury of the defendant's peers instructed to judge the facts of the case or alternately to perform amusing tricks on behalf of any judge's avoidance of impropriety. The jury trial holds the most sacred version of justice.

That's not the only reason why the rules against electronic equipment are slanted in favor of courtroom procedures and limited - such as to the use of jurors and certain court officials. But such should be reason sufficient to state the nature of the need of securing guarantees of justice without risk of unsolicited intrusion or interference with courtroom proceedings. Punishment is an offense that may garner up to a year of imprisonment, in addition to a suitable fine in any case where the proceedings of a grand jury or petit jury are intruded upon with any act of recording, listening or observing their negotiation or voting by any technological device or deliberate act. Authority for this penalty comes from "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," USC 18 Ch. 73 § 1508 (in reference to "Obstruction of Justice," Part I of the chapter.)

Beyond the sacred chambers of the jury is Rule #53 of United States Code Title 18, Chapter 201 Section 3004, written also as Rule #53 of the USC, Title 18a, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title IX, "General Procedure." Rule #53, on matters of "courtroom decorum," provides that no photographs and no broadcasting may occur from inside of a courtroom while proceedings are in session.

As clarified in the title's appendix (USC 18a), the current language provides for future rules that may allow for a specifically limited roles of the use of such technologies that could include hosting of a remote video-conference.

Response has been varied as to how courts throughout the land implement and interpret their own policies regarding Congress's laws concerning the use of electronic equipment. For example, the policy of the courts of Frederick County, Maryland, specify the following rules, notably that all electronic devices must be kept OFF and hidden from view, that anyone or anything can be searched by any court guard, and that contempt charges or confiscation are possibilities for anyone who resorts to breaking the court's posted policy.  Meanwhile, courts imposing bans on cell phone use cite apprehension over

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>