Experts weigh in on Delphi case, cameras in court

Like the rest of America in the mid-1990s, Dan Byron remembers watching the murder trial involving former football player OJ Simpson on television.

At the time, Byron — now a senior partner with the Dentons Law Firm — said he felt Indiana could do a better job showing what actually goes on inside courtrooms.

But cameras in courtrooms were forbidden at that time in the Hoosier state, Byron noted, so he went to work at helping change that.

“The media was very interested in doing cameras in the courtroom,” Byron told the Tribune, “but the Chief Justice at the time was solidly against it.”

A few years later, in 2006, Indiana did an experiment with courtroom cameras, and Byron said he thought it went well.

But there was still opposition from those in charge, he noted.

Then in 2022, Loretta Rush, who was the Chief Justice, was interested in trying the cameras in the courtroom experiment again, according to Byron.

What came from that was a four-month pilot program, with pool cameras placed in five different courtrooms throughout the state — Allen County Superior Court; Delaware County Circuit Court; Lake County Superior Court; Tippecanoe County Circuit Court; and Vanderburgh County Superior Court.

And in 2023, Byron’s 30-year fight for transparency in Indiana’s criminal justice system was finally put into place when the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that cameras could be allowed inside Hoosier courtrooms for the first time.

But there is a caveat, Byron said.

Judges have the discretion on whether they want cameras to be used in their courtrooms, and in some situations, like domestic cases and juvenile proceedings, they are still off limits.

Still, for advocates like Byron, it’s a step in the right direction.

So why is perhaps one of the largest cases in Indiana right now not allowing cameras in the courtroom?

It’s complicated, Byron admitted.

Delphi and court cameras

The Delphi murder case has garnered global attention since the day teenagers Libby German and Abby Williams went missing while hiking along the Monon High Bridge in rural Carroll County in February 2017.

And while Delphi resident Richard Allen was arrested prior to cameras being allowed in the courtroom, the special judge presiding over the case, Allen County Superior Court Judge Fran Gull, was one of the five judges who participated in the pilot program in 2022.

But despite numerous attempts by members of the media asking for more visible coverage of Allen’s court proceedings, Gull has reportedly shied away from cameras in the Delphi case.

Byron said he hasn’t spoken with those involved in the case, but he’s not surprised that Gull has denied camera access, and he believes it goes back to a certain situation.

“The judge initially allowed cameras in the courtroom, but then they had this hitch,” he said, referring to an evidence leak that occurred last year.

During that “leak,” a man who was visiting Defense Attorney Andrew Baldwin in his office allegedly took photographs of evidence in the case, including a scene where the girls’ bodies were reportedly located.

Those photographs were then distributed to other individuals, ultimately ending up in the hands of members of the media.

“And so when the judge learned that, she essentially fired the defense counsel,” Byron said. “They’ve since been reinstated, but she (Gull) eliminated cameras in the courtroom after that. And she’s been very cautious ever since.”

Byron added he also believes Gull will ultimately continue to rule against cameras in court when the case goes to jury trial in October.

“I understand where the judge is coming from,” he said. “I know that if there was a leak involved in the jury that’s going to be called in this case, I know that would be the first question raised probably on appeal would be the question of whether the jury had innocently seen some of the coverage of the trial by the media.

“I know that she (Gull) favors cameras in the courtroom,” Byron added, “but I think this case is so notorious that she feels like it would be a mistake, probably, to have cameras in the courtroom. I think this case is so well known, and defense counsel was reinstated against her wishes by the Indiana Supreme Court. So I think she has a feeling that there would be questions raised on appeal if she allowed cameras in the courtroom right now.”

Les Shively, Chief Judge of Vanderburgh County Superior Court and one of the judges who participated in the state’s pilot program in 2022, agreed with Byron.

“I know that Judge Gull is having a lot of the problems and issues in this case,” he said. “And I am sure the decision to have cameras in the courtroom depends on how cooperative both sides are following her rules. And so far, it appears there’s been a little bit of friction, at least between the defense and the bench.”

But like Byron, Shively said he’s in favor of having cameras in the courtroom.

Unlocking the mystique

Last month in Vanderburgh County, 52-year-old Elizabeth Fox-Doerr was found guilty of murder in the 2019 death of her husband, Evansville firefighter Robert Doerr.

And for the first time ever, the general public was able to see the trial via a pool camera set up in the courtroom.

Shively wasn’t the judge for that case, but he said he did speak with the case’s presiding judge and other officials about how cameras affected the trial.

And what Shively found out, he told the Tribune, was the camera didn’t really affect the trial at all.

“When I talked to both the prosecutor as well as the defense counsel, they both felt that the cameras did not impact their presentation at all,” Shively said. “It didn’t take long for them to totally become oblivious to the fact the camera was there.”

But just knowing the camera is there helps with transparency, Shively believes.

“One reason I’m so much in favor of cameras in the courtroom is because people have a misconception of what goes on at a trial,” he said. “And what we have to depend upon, the public that is, is what some third-party so-called reporter with no legal background tells us. And this way, the public can see it firsthand and see how the trial operates, what the judge does, what the parties do, what the attorneys do, and so they can see it in real time.

“And it kind of unlocks some of the mystique,” Shively added. “It lets the public in and allows them to be more informed of how trials really work. That’s never a bad thing.”