Media Guide

Clothing must be suitable to the professional atmosphere of the courtroom and the seriousness of the proceedings.

The presiding judge controls what happens in the courtroom. Ask a court clerk or bailiff or the trial court administrator if the court has a written list of rules for the media.  Special rules govern the use of cameras and recording equipment in the courtroom. 

Judges generally explain their reasons for handing down a particular punishment when the defendant is sentenced. The trial court administrator or other authorized court personnel can provide a copy of the order, but cannot, for example, interpret or analyze the judge’s decision.

Information on the types and roles of courts in Idaho’s Judicial Branch is available in the “About the Courts” section of this site.

Information on Idaho’s court records rule and on requesting court records is available in the “Court Records & Cameras” section of this site.

The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 and Idaho Court Administrative Rule 46 for the use of all cameras and any recording equipment in the courtroom, including cell phones. The presiding judge authorizes and may revoke the use of cameras and other recording equipment at any time without prior notice. The judge’s decision cannot be appealed.

These rules guide potential camera operators on how to request permission to record a proceeding and, if granted, what can and cannot be recorded through photos, video or audio.

More information on the camera rules is available in the “Records & Camera Requests” section of this site.

The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted Idaho Court Administrative Rule 49 for the use of electronic devices — cell phones, personal computers, and other similar devices — in the courtroom. Unless the administrative district judge or the presiding judge in a case issues an order prohibiting or restricting the carrying or use of electronic devices, these devices may be carried in court facilities or courtrooms, may be used for the purpose of note-taking in courtrooms or court facilities, and such notes may be transmitted from the courtroom or court facility.

Electronic devices may not be used for the recording or transmission of sounds or images in or from courtrooms except as permitted under the camera rules discussed above

Electronic devices shall not be used in a manner that interferes with court proceedings or the work of court personnel. Any electronic device capable of emitting sounds that would be audible in the courtroom must be set to a silent or vibrate mode. Cell phone calls shall neither be made from nor answered in the courtroom.

Court personnel may confiscate and retain an electronic device that is used in violation of Rule 49 or of any order of the administrative district judge or presiding judge, subject to further order of the court or until the owner of the electronic device leaves the building.

Any person who violates the provisions of Rule 49 or any order of the administrative district judge or order of the court regarding the possession or use of electronic devices may be found in contempt of court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a judge considering closing a proceeding must follow certain procedures to ensure that closing the proceeding will not infringe upon First Amendment rights. See Press-Enterprise v. Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984).

The judge must hold a hearing on the need for closure, and allow the media and others to argue against closure. A presumption of openness under the First Amendment right of access requires courts to grant access unless confidentiality is “necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Thus, if a compelling interest is at stake (e.g., criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial) the judge must consider alternatives to court closure (e.g., change of venue, sequestering the jury, postponing the trial until the effects of publicity have diminished). A judge who determines that no alternative will work must also determine that closure will protect the party’s interest and must tailor the closure order to protect that interest without unduly restricting public access. Finally, the judge must present written findings supporting the closure decision in order to allow appellate review.

In the scenario where a judge orders the media to leave a hearing that has so far been public:

• If a news organization is prepared to send a lawyer to argue against closure, politely ask the judge for permission to speak for a moment.

• If allowed, tell the judge that the news organization objects to the closure and would like an opportunity to argue against it. Ask for a brief recess so that the organization’s lawyer may come to court to argue the case and ask that an objection be made part of the court record.

• If not allowed to address the court, do not refuse to leave or shout an objection. Leave the courtroom and write a brief note to the judge. Explain that the news organization wants to oppose the closure and that the editor or lawyer will be contacted immediately. Ask a court officer to give the note to the judge and get in touch with superiors immediately.

If a closed court proceeding is in progress or has already taken place, try to determine:

• Who sought closure and on what grounds,

• The nature of the proceeding (i.e., criminal, civil, pre-trial, trial, etc.),

• Whether a hearing was held on the closure order and, if so, what findings the judge made justifying the closed proceeding,

• Whether the proceeding is still going on, and

• Consult an editor about challenging the order. A challenge may be as simple as requesting a meeting with the judge to point out the procedural requirements mandated by the Supreme Court. Be sure to ask for access to future proceedings and transcripts of past proceedings (note: be prepared to pay for past transcripts). If a judge does not agree to resolve the issue informally, a motion to intervene in the matter can be filed for purposes of formally challenging the closure order (including a possible appeal).

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. Judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

It is vitally important to the perception of justice that the sole source of information regarding court proceedings be “on the record” in the courtroom and the records filed in a court case. A single source of information improves the participant’s and the public’s sense of fairness in the judicial system, ensures the accuracy of coverage of proceedings, and captures, as part of the record, all matters and statements that could be considered on appeal.

The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for ethical conduct of Idaho judges. It consists of broad statements called “canons,” specific rules set forth in sections under each canon, a terminology section, an application section, and commentary.

Canon 2 provides that a judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. Addressed as part of this canon is the requirement that “A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”

The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any appellate process and until final disposition. A judge may make public statements in the course of their official duties and may explain the procedures of the court.

For information on how judges are elected or appointed, please visit the Idaho Supreme Court’s Annual Report website.

The Idaho Judicial Council is responsible for managing complaints of judicial misconduct against judges. The council is comprised of three citizen members, two attorneys, one district judge and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Judicial misconduct is any violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which may include but is not limited to the following:

• Failure to perform duties impartially and diligently

• Failure to dispose promptly of the business of the court

• Conflict of interest

• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute

A complaint must be filed in writing. It may be in letter format or the complaint form, which can be accessed at the Judicial Council’s website. The complaint must identify the judge and the specifics of the conduct or action believed to be improper. Names and addresses of witnesses should be included, as well as any documents or correspondence that substantiate the allegations. The letter or complaint form must be verified and notarized.

By statute, complaints and the identity of complainants are confidential. If the Council conducts a preliminary investigation, the judge will receive a copy of the complaint. When a Council recommendation is filed with the Supreme Court, it becomes a public document, which can be reviewed in the Supreme Court clerk’s office. The Supreme Court has disciplinary authority and reviews any recommendation from the Council for censure, suspension, removal of a judge for misconduct, or retirement of a judge for disability seriously interfering with the performance of judicial duties. The Supreme Court is not required to follow the council’s recommendations.

More information about the Judicial Council’s processes is available at its website.

The Idaho State Bar is responsible for managing complaints against Idaho attorneys.

If a person believes an attorney has acted unethically, he or she may file a complaint against the attorney with the bar counsel’s office of the Idaho State Bar. The bar counsel’s office reviews the complaint to determine if the attorney has violated the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary action needs to be initiated.

More information on this process is available at the Idaho State Bar’s website.