Judge Neidhardt continues livestreams, cites transparency

SAN MARCOS — The Hays County District Attorney’s Office was notified on July 1 that 483rd District Judge Tanner Neidhardt began livestreaming the trial proceedings of a case. Questions and concerns from the prosecution led Neidhardt to discontinue and remove the livestream from YouTube. Nearly a month later, Neidhardt took to YouTube again to stream his docket, citing the need for transparency. Prior to the livestream, Neidhardt announced on  social media that he will be livestreaming his docket in the upcoming week: “Our Constitution says, ‘All courts shall be open,’ (Art. 1, Sec. 13). Let the people see what our judges, [district attorneys] and attorneys are doing, we demand,” said the judge. On July 23, the livestream began and displayed two cameras: one of which was focused where Neidhardt would be sitting and another angled to face the court benches. The latter was placed behind him to give a view of the room, according to the judge, As Neidhardt entered the courtroom, the microphone was unmuted and he immediately launched into a statement revealing the ongoing stream. The judge then motioned to a screen on the side projecting a notice of the livestream, which he included after receiving feedback. He then placed a separate camera in front of him, stating that this is where it sat when the claims the device was “secreted” were made. So, he wanted to advise those in the room where the cameras are positioned to avoid that same argument. Hays County Criminal District Attorney Kelly Higgins, who previously stated that the cameras “were secreted and installed prior to the trial without the knowledge of all parties” in response to the initial livestreaming occurrence, later advocated for the stream: “I heartily welcome broadcast or livestreaming of court proceedings … I am happy to see the courts livestreaming proceedings, as long as the parties are informed and any measures needed to preserve identities and investigations are taken. I take the court’s recent introduction of notice to the courtroom as an understanding that informing the parties and public is necessary and proper … No one should be gaslit into believing that this office opposes livestreaming. Our objection was never that the court initiated a livestream. That is full within the discretion of any court. Our objection was, and remains, that the court livestreamed proceedings without informing the parties. Apart from that, we do not object or have any reservations about livestreaming judicial proceedings.” The reasoning behind the need for the stream, said Neidhardt, is transparency. He stressed to the court that he believes the judicial system is under attack, due to “half of the county” assuming that the court is there to attack individuals. The livestream would provide an opportunity to give constituents insight on what goes on inside the courtroom — how attorneys defend community members and protect their rights — and encourage skeptics to believe once more in the system, he continued. Higgins agreed with the sentiment that transparency is important, revealing that “If I had my own way, there would be even more transparency than that represented by livestreams. I would have the county know everything, but the rules that govern my comments prevent my saying more,” he concluded. Before the 483rd District Court began its docket, a defense attorney questioned if Neidhardt had considered the implications of the stream if a defendant sought an expungement. In response, Neidhardt noted that there are several counties in Texas that hold livestreams and that he has been in touch with them and will look into the implications. One of the counties that hosts regular livestreams is Harris County. The county courts have dedicated a portion of their website to include livestream links. Each court has an icon of a camera next to the link and when they are live, the camera will turn green and residents are able to view the stream in real time. Through viewing the more than five livestreams that occurred on July 24, the Hays Free Press noted that the camera for Criminal Court at Law No. 13 with Judge Raul Rodriguez, who was streaming a docket as well, was set up similarly to Neidhardt. There were two cameras, with one facing the judge and another that was more direct and front facing the benches. Rodriguez did mute the stream throughout for certain individuals or attorneys. Although, instead of YouTube, the county uses a separate server to host the streams. There was also an ongoing trial in the 281st Civil Court that was livestreamed. This time, with three cameras: one was placed in front of the jury seats and faced the courtroom (the jurors were not shown), another on the witness stand and, finally, one facing the benches as the other streams were. The Hays Free Pres s was able to view the initial livestream that Neidhardt held on July 1, which confirmed that the set up for the trial was the exact same as Harris County’s trial stream, with a camera on the witness stand, on the judge and facing away from the jurors. During the Harris County trial, the camera stayed on the entire time, with the microphone being turned off during breaks. Throughout the duration of the stream, there were no less than 30 viewers. Closer to Hays County is Bexar County's 187th District Judge Stephanie Boyd, who streams daily on YouTube. She currently has more than 1,000 videos and 31,300 subscribers. “People have the right to access our courts, but if they can’t actually come here because they have a job from nine to five or if they are a student and they have to be in class or they’re a mom that has kids, but wants to know what we’re doing in here about the fentanyl crisis. They can’t really come, so what is the right to access if they can’t come in and actually see it,” emphasized Neidhardt. “Ultimately, I believe in your right to access the courts — and now, I’m going to make that right actually mean something.” Neidhardt’s stream occurred for four hours and 33 minutes on July 23 and can be viewed at bit.ly/4fksrU4 .