There are a great many cameras in this country. They seem to be everywhere you look. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015); Evolving Issue of Body Cameras (July 2018); Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020); and Orwellian Store Security (August 2022). The bottom line from all of these examples is you just have to assume you are on camera, all day, every day.
Okay, perhaps there remain a few places in which we might expect our privacy. But people have allegedly found hidden cameras in rental cabins, toilets, public spaces, and even our own homes. The technology is becoming cheaper and easier, and the implications are increasingly intrusive. The best advice? Remember that old Rockwell song "Somebody's Watching Me."
The subject of cameras and immense responsibility coincided with the challenge of being a judge in an Oklahoma story recently. This concerns a lawyer elected to the bench in November 2022. The judge took the bench and has been presiding for months. It is no small feat to be elected to anything in most examples. Graduating law school is also not easy, nor is even getting into law school in the first instance. This judge has "been a lawyer since 2003" according to the Associated Press.
This judge is in Lincoln County, a rural area in central Oklahoma. About 34,000 people lived there when the last census concluded. The county has some reasonable-sized municipalities and is intersected by Interstate 44, running east to west. It is likely a pretty quiet place at times. But, like anywhere else, there is some measure of violent crime. Recently that led to this new judge presiding over a murder trial as reported by the Associated Press.
The judge's performance has made headlines and is being investigated by an "Ethics Panel" after one of those surveillance cameras recorded her activity during trial. She was perhaps not aware that there were cameras in the courtroom. The Insider reports that the judge allegedly was "scrolling through her phone throughout a seven-day murder trial." There are accusations that the judge "used her phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony."
It is possible that this is simply boredom. Perhaps it is hard to remain interested through a seven-day murder trial in which someone stands accused of "beating a two-year-old to death." Perhaps the "tearful testimony" was not compelling or interesting? Perhaps the proceedings are so mundane that the judge's attention is not really necessary?
In fairness, judges in jury trials are frequently left without much to do. The trier of fact there is the jury. It will decide what did or did not happen. It will decide whether guilt has been proven. The judge in a jury trial is primarily responsible for gatekeeper roles, deciding what the jury does or does not hear.
There can be many long periods without any evidentiary objections. There can be moments that are perhaps tedious. In a jury trial I participated in as second-chair years ago, the judge fell asleep on the bench. That was bad enough, but this judge had a snoring habit and his narcolepsy was noticed by everyone in the courtroom eventually. The lawyers were afraid to awaken him.
Oddly, the Oklahoma judge recognizes the potential for electronic distraction. The news says that the judge "began the trial by instructing the jury members to turn off all electronic devices." They were told that this was to allow them to "concentrate on the evidence without interruption." Apparently, there is some value in hearing the evidence? Sarcasm.
After using the "phone throughout jury selection, opening statements, and witness testimony," apparently the judge became aware that Candid Camera was watching. That is a reference to a television show that ran in several iterations beginning in 1948. We have all had a great deal of exposure to the fact that cameras might be watching us. Nonetheless, after becoming aware of the survellance camera, instead of changing behavior, "the judge . . . (allegedly) moved the position of the ceiling security camera."
Instead of paying attention to the trial, instead of foregoing Facebook, instead of abstaining from texting, the solution seemed to be to move the camera. Changing the behavior might have brought the attention of the judge to the trial. The interest of justice and due process might have been enhanced by paying attention to the trial. But the solution, it seems, may have been simply to move the camera.
The local news reporting has to be uncomfortable. The national coverage can only be more so. And, these are merely allegations. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite a picture sometimes being worth a thousand words, there is also the potential for cameras and video to lie and mislead.
That said, this judge has some explaining to do. The behavior alleged implicates competency, complacency, and the public faith in the judiciary. The news coverage, true or not, will cast doubt on judges everywhere. The public perception of judges and courts will not be enhanced these news stories. If the video is eventually published (too late, it is on social media now), people are bound to watch.
What is the point of having a judge in the courtroom? The judge is there to keep the proceedings on track, to rule on objections, and to assure that the justice system works. I have never presided over a jury trial, nor a murder trial. But, all trials are important. As I have said many times, the most important case in the world is the one happening today. That is, it is the most important to the people in this case, today, now.
The judge owes all the parties to any case the full attention and respect for the most important case. The parties deserve to be taken seriously, to be paid attention to, to be respected. That said, there are distractions on the bench. There are often dates and details to verify in the docket. Here, there is recording software to monitor and check. There a multitude of good reasons to use that computer on the bench.
Facebook is simply not one of them. Text messaging is not one of them (unless you are texting for assistance with the case - "bring me the arrest file," etc.). The bottom line is that the parties to the case deserve the judge's full attention. The job of judging deserves the judge's full attention. The community that puts a judge on the bench deserves the judge's full attention.
To me, the choice is binary and simple. A judge should either be willing to pay attention and do the job or they should simply move on to a less critical occupation and let the good people find someone else to earn the approximately $165,000 salary. Being a judge is intellectually challenging, interesting, and engaging. It is a tremendous calling with immense responsibility. It is an honor and burden and is immensely rewarding.
All that said, if it is not something that can hold your attention and respect, move on and let someone more suitable do the job. If you are caught disrespecting the job, leave the cameras where they are, and move yourself somewhere else.
The Oklahoma ethics panel investigation will be interesting to watch. One always wonders how stories will play out beyond what the press reports. There are always two sides to a story and hearing both is imperative before there is any judgment. Will the panel listen to the judge’s side or just play on their phones throughout? Regardless, the press reports here are certainly troubling, concerning, and upsetting.
The world is watching persistently. There are cameras everywhere. Critics abound. Your role as a judge puts you at center stage. Put away the social media. Defer the text messages. Pay attention. Someone's life or livelihood may depend upon it.
