Daniel Talbot Murder Trial 15 Jan 2010: KingCast wonders "Why does Mass lag behind NH in electronic camera/device access?"

UPDATE: In point of fact Massachusetts is not so far behind New Hampshire, and everything I have been doing and requesting is authorized by SJC Rule 1.9. That fits, because I've been bringing cameras into courtrooms since the mid 1990's when I was busy successfully defending the First Amendment against lying State's witness, watch the new YouTube videos from my old VHS tapes right here.


In response to yesterday's coverage a bloke wrote in and criticized me for doing what I can do freely in New Hampshire, a state presumptively "backwards" compared to Massachusetts, the so-called "Birthplace of the Revolution." I in turn wrote this:

This is the Rule in NH, why is NH so far ahead of Massachusetts, thank you for the subject of my next blog entry, going up right about.... NOW.

NH bids to make courts current with technology.

"Electronic devices have been common in New Hampshire courts for years, used by members of the press and members of the public. The updated policy, as a uniform guideline, states that laptop computers, personal digital assistants, cell phones and related electronic devices are allowed in the courtroom unless a presiding justice finds the use of a particular device will disrupt a particular proceeding. Cell phones must be in "silent mode" in court.

Audio recorders, video cameras, and still cameras are also permitted, including cell phone cameras."

I'll be sure to present a copy of said story to His Honor on Monday, he seems like a Good Judge, whether he agrees or not he's gonna' see that other jurisdictions do it differently, and it will cause him to think about things, and isn't that what life is all about?

Critical thinking. You are free to share yours here any day my brother/sister.

-The Editor.