Rules Revisions

I just love talking about revisions to the Rules.  It’s not going to happen because the Supreme Court ponders the Rules for too long, and it does not promptly consider the suggestions of its own Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules.

A problem in our rules is the redundancy.  We should try to make the Rules simple.

Here is an example.

We have the MISSISSIPPI RULES FOR ELECTRONIC AND PHOTOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  [Adopted effective April 17, 2003 for proceedings conducted from and after July 1, 2003.]
RULE 1. GENERAL. Electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings in Mississippi  Courts shall be governed by the following rules. These rules apply to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, chancery courts, circuit courts, and county courts and may be cited as MREPC.

At least, Uniform Chancery Court Rule 1.12 is consistent (i.e. redundant):

RULE 1.12 ELECTRONIC MEDIA COVERAGE
Electronic media coverage of judicial proceedings by means of cameras, television
and other electronic devices is governed by the Rules for Electronic and Photographic
Coverage of Judicial Proceedings.
[Adopted effective April 17, 2003 for proceedings conducted from and after July 1, 2003.]

Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 1.04 adds even more:

Rule 1.04 CAMERAS
There shall be no broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court or recesses
between sessions, except that the court may authorize the same in accordance with the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Comment

Section 3B(12) of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent  thereto except as authorized by rule or order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now adopted the Rules for Electronic and Photographic Coverage of Judicial Proceedings which provides detailed guidance for such coverage.
[Adopted effective April 17, 2003 as to proceedings conducted from and after July 1, 2003.]

Once should be enough.

One thought on “Rules Revisions

  1. Agree that seems redundancy has run amok within the rules. Sometimes I “know”‘a rule exists but have a devil of a time finding it between RCP, RAP, UCCCR, local rules, etc.
    Simpler rules would promote better practice by establishing relatively bright lines and a body of law interpreting the same.

    Thanks for continuing to call attention to these situations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s