Colorado state criminal courts are no longer required to offer livestreams of their proceedings after Chief Justice Monica Márquez of the Colorado Supreme Court last week ordered a 90-day pause on the mandate. The directive cites abuse of the livestream feature and affects transparency for all state courts, including those serving Grand Junction and Mesa County, regarding cases that can impact a resident’s liberty.
Chief Justice Márquez stated that the livestreaming technology, intended to promote access to the courts, had been "subverted as a tool of disruption, disparagement, harassment, and private economic gain." She reported that viewers had repeatedly violated rules by recording livestreams and posting them to social media. Illegally recorded hearings have included derogatory comments about participants, threats, and other conduct that would not be allowed in person.
Márquez's authority to issue such a sweeping, unilateral directive is uncertain. Colorado law explicitly states that its livestream requirements "supersede any ... judicial guidance, or chief justice directive limiting remote public observation of criminal courts." The law envisions exemptions being evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket order to all courts. Márquez, however, invoked her "superintending" control over Colorado courts, citing the state constitution. While her directive could face legal challenges, the outcome would likely rest with her court.
The Chief Justice emphasized the negative effects of this activity on courts over the past two years, noting that hearings and trials have been "thrown into disarray," causing delays in routine processes and hindering the efficient administration of justice. She stressed the importance of fairness and safety for participants in legal proceedings.
Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, has suggested potential solutions. He points to the judicial branch’s Remote Public Access Terminal, which allows permission-granted access to case filings in civil and other matters. Under such a model, members of the public could request access to livestreams by signing a user agreement and providing basic biographical information like their name, email, and phone number. Roberts believes such a system, while not eliminating all misuse, could "significantly deter it."
Márquez indicated that the judicial department requires time to consider improved methods for managing online access and invited input from various stakeholders. Roberts expressed his desire to be "part of the conversation over the next 90 days" to collaboratively find a solution, acknowledging the legitimacy of the problem. He also anticipates that state legislators may revisit the law concerning livestreamed court proceedings when they reconvene in January.
Open courts are a hallmark of a free society, and state policy aims "to maximize transparency and accessibility of criminal court proceedings." Remote access to court proceedings is particularly important as the number of reporters, who often serve as the public’s eyes and ears in courtrooms, continues to decrease. Roberts stated it is a "really important tool" for ensuring more oversight of the judicial system and adequate coverage by journalists, especially with shrinking newsrooms. Chief Justice Márquez has affirmed her commitment to providing public access to Colorado courts, a commitment that will be tested in the coming months.
