- Joined
- Aug 18, 2018
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 4,029
Here's what I see:
Equipment Limitations.
1. Video. The media shall be given access to the courtroom, in a location as designated by the judge, and the petitioners shall be responsible for pooling pursuant to the arrangements outlined below. There shall be only one such camera in the Courtroom from which the proceedings may be viewed. Only one person shall be permitted to operate the one videotape, television, or motion picture camera. The camera operator may use a tripod but shall not change location while Court is in session. Video may be utilized for live streaming and taping.
2. Audio. The court’s audio system shall be used if technically suitable and, in that event, there must be no interference with the court’s use of its system. If the court’s system is not technically suitable, then the person conducting expanded media coverage may install an audio recording system at his or her own expense upon first obtaining approval of the judge. All microphones and related wiring shall be unobtrusive and shall not interfere with the movement of those in the courtroom.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/19th_Judicial_District/caseofinterest/2018CR2003/Order Concerning Expanded Media Coverage.pdf
Is what you're referring to somewhere else and I'm missing it?
No you’re right. I was just inferring from notice of court room change document that the live streaming was their own -
“Based on the limited seating capacity in Division 17, the sentencing hearing will be held in Division 16, a courtroom that has greater seating capacity. However, Division 17 will be utilized for overflow seating and will offer live video streaming of the sentencing hearing.”
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...rest/2018CR2003/Notice - courtroom change.pdf