HARRY HUGHES, Governor

3333

May 19, 1981
The Honorable James Clark, Jr.
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, today I have vetoed Senate Bill 123.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, pursuant to its rule
making authority in Article IV, Section 18 of the Maryland
Constitution, adopted Maryland Rule 1209 which allows
recording and broadcasting by the news media of proceedings
in the trial and appellate courts on an experimental basis.

Senate Bill 123 would supersede this rule and ban the
recording and broadcasting of any trial court proceedings,
civil or criminal.

House Bill 231 is a similar measure that bans the
recording and broadcasting of criminal trials and would
allow coverage of civil proceedings.

Prosecutors have expressed reservations that allowing
cameras in the court room for criminal proceedings would
tend to intimidate and discourage reticent witnesses and
victims from coming forth to relate their testimony.

By the enactment of these two bills, the General
Assembly has expressed strong concerns regarding the balance
of the broadcast proceedings which would impact upon the
public perception of the functioning of the court system and
the educational value which may be derived from such
coverage.

Maryland Rule 1209 does not allow coverage of criminal
trial proceedings without the consent of the defendant.
Data presented to me at the veto hearing indicates that many
states are permitting some camera coverage of court room
proceedings but long term experience is not yet available.
Maryland's venture into this relatively untested area should
be cautious in light of the sensitivities and issues
involved. Furthermore, the data shows that, since the
effective date of the court rule, only two criminal
proceedings have been open to the extended coverage provided
by Maryland Rule 1209. Therefore, if that trend continues,
the prohibition of photographic and electronic coverage of
criminal proceedings at the trial level will not have a
significant impact on press coverage by that means.

I believe that the prudent course of action, protective
of all points of view, is to sign House Bill 231, which bans