Following recent work as a court-watcher monitoring criminal arraignments in suburban Washington, D.C., singer/songwriter Fiona Apple, shown performing in New York City in 2015, has come out in support of a pair of bills that would make remote access to criminal courts permanent in Maryland. (Photo by Jack Vartoogian/Getty Images)
Singer-songwriter Fiona Apple added another skill to her repertoire during the pandemic by becoming a citizen court-watcher, remotely observing hearings in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, and now she is part of a coalition advocating for a bill that would make it easier for the public to access court proceedings.
Apple, who rose to prominence in 1997 with the single "Criminal" and most recently released the album "Fetch the Bolt Cutters" in 2020, has been volunteering for two years with Courtwatch PG, a group of citizens who monitor arraignment proceedings in Prince George's County, Maryland, collecting data and keeping an eye on the way bail is set.
The New York-born Apple does not reside in Maryland, but the court system there made it possible to stream arraignments and trials online during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the public to see what was happening in its courtrooms without the risk of catching the virus. This access allowed for increased transparency and accountability in the justice system, according to Courtwatch PG, which is among a host of groups supporting a pair of bills in the Maryland state legislature aimed at making public audiovisual access to criminal court proceedings permanent.
"We're trying to make sure that we can keep court-watching and have good access where we can hear what's going on in courts — because we all know that there's some bad shit that's going on in the courts," Apple said in a video posted online on Jan. 24 urging her followers to contact their lawmakers in support of the bills, H.B. 133 and S.B. 43.
In testimony she provided for an earlier version of the bill last year, Apple reported that during her time as a court-watcher, she had seen defendants remain jailed because they could not afford their bond even when they were not deemed dangerous or a flight risk — in contravention of Maryland bail guidelines — or because the court system was unable to provide an interpreter. She also said she saw defendants jailed without access to life-saving medication, including people in renal failure, and had observed police officers be called to the stand despite being on the state attorney's "do not call list."
"This is all being done in the people's name," she said. "They deserve to see it too."
Among examples of the work it's done, Courtwatch PG says it helped bring to light a common practice of keeping people jailed for weeks or even months after they were cleared for release by a judge. A subsequent lawsuit filed over the practice alleged that people approved for release make up one-third of the jail population in Prince George's County. The case, Frazier v. Prince George's County, remains ongoing.
The practice of court-watching has been around for decades, but it's seen a recent resurgence amid nationwide calls for criminal justice reform. In 1974, the League of Women Voters of Illinois deployed several hundred volunteers to observe Cook County courtrooms daily. Over eight months in 1975, the Fund for Modern Courts in New York City conducted a volunteer-run program to monitor criminal arraignments.
Courtwatch PG is part of a newer crop of court-monitoring programs that aim to use the data they gather to critique and change the system. Other newer court-watching programs, like Court Watch NYC in New York and CourtWatch MA in Massachusetts, partner with not-for-profit bail funds engaged in advocacy around cash bail.
Representatives of Courtwatch PG did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
For Courtwatch PG, the pandemic provided the silver lining of making court-watching much more accessible and convenient for its volunteers than before thanks to remote access. It also forced judges to adopt an innovation that they might not have otherwise and provided proof that remote access can work, according Delegate David Moon, D-Montgomery County, who is co-sponsoring H.B. 133 with Delegate Nicole Williams, D-Prince George's County.
"Judges have traditionally resisted anything that looks like cameras in the courtroom," Moon said. "This was an interesting experiment that showed the sky did not fall."
But with courts across the country abandoning their pandemic accommodations, court-watchers are pushing to hold onto remote access. Trial courts in Prince George's County have returned to in-person proceedings in the courthouse and have set up an audio feed, as opposed to holding virtual proceedings on Zoom that court-watchers can tune in to. Courtwatch PG says the courthouse audio-only stream is muffled, low-quality and impedes its volunteers' ability to monitor the courts.
When reached for comment, the judiciary said the audio feed was a concession to high public interest in court proceedings and a departure from pre-pandemic business as usual in court proceedings, and contested the idea that the feed was low quality.
A pair of bills to make remote access to all public court proceedings permanent was introduced by Moon and state Sens. Jim Rosapepe, D- Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties, and Joanne Benson, D-Prince George's County, in 2022, but the measure languished in committee. The judiciary opposed it at the time and opposes the new version as well, citing separation of powers issues, detainees' rights, the possiblity of witness and victim intimidation, and cost. But this year, Moon said the time is ripe because of a heightened focus on courtroom transparency in the state.
In December, a Maryland federal judge struck down a state court rule known as the "broadcast ban," which prohibited the press from publishing legally obtained audio or video recordings of public courtroom proceedings.
On Jan. 5, in the wake of the decision, the judiciary's Rules Committee proposed a rule to the Supreme Court of Maryland that would have barred the public from getting copies of recordings and, instead, required individuals to listen to records in person at the courthouse. Following pushback from advocates, including Courtwatch PG and sister organization Life After Release, the court delayed the rule by kicking it back to the Rules Committee for further consideration.
"That triggered a wave of discussion, attention and, dare I say, criticism of this lack of transparency," said Moon, who hopes the extra attention will help move the needle on the remote access bill.
Some state court systems, including those in Michigan and Texas, go much further than what is proposed in Maryland and stream court proceedings live on the court websites. That level of unfettered access might be extreme, Moon said, adding that, under the system that his bill seeks to make permanent, people who request access to court proceedings are known to the court system, which is a safeguard against potential abuse.
Critics of the bill have raised privacy concerns. The Maryland Office of the Public Defender, which has not takes a stance on the measure, said in a public comment that the advantages of remote access — like permitting people to easily attend a loved-one's trial without missing a half day of work — should be weighed against the possibility of broadcasting sensitive medical or financial information online or jeopardizing people's ability to move on from a criminal case the ends in a dismissal, acquittal or expungement.
But supporters say that, given how frequently the reality of bail and pretrial detention go against the letter of the law, it's necessary to make monitoring the courts easier, not harder.
According to testimony from Courtwatch PG Director Carmen Johnson, the group and its volunteers have been able to observe 5,400 bond hearings and over 200 criminal proceedings — and she stressed that the work must be allowed to continue.
"This is not 1723. It's 2023, and the technology is there," Johnson said. "Injustice happens in empty courtrooms."
--Editing by Jill Coffey.
Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
