Yes, it’s that simple, and it’s very important.

And they have allowed tweeting in Colorado courtrooms – http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/colorado-judge-allows-twitter-in-courtroom/

England has allowed court order to be served via Twitter – http://socialmedialawstudent.com/twitter/court-order-tweeted-instead-of-served/

Just a matter of time before this is allowed. Agree nothing prevents reporters from walking outside of the courtroom to send tweets.

ray_g: I think it is pretty petty when some folks complain that they can’t live without their phones for a couple of hours.

My cell phone also contains my calendar, calculator, dictionary and many of my notes. It contains all my emails, may of which have important documents attached. I use it to jot down “to do” items as well as make my grocery list. I use it to look things up on the Web, which is quite helpful.

I don’t want it taken away for two minutes, much less two hours. It has nothing to do with my wanting to make or receive calls.

As for the more garden-variety case of people whose kids have cell phones to call them in case of emergency… sheesh. How did we ever survive, back in the day, without any cell phones at all to call mommy in case of emergency? Now apparently nothing less than 24/7 contact is sufficient. Come on.

Personally, while I agree that this is a legitimate concern, I believe the public’s right to not have its access to things that are supposed to in fact be public outweighs this concern. I’m open to special rules in unusual cases where there are unusual concerns. But, IMO, the default should be maximum public access.

Bob — then don’t bring the phone to the courthouse or meeting, expecially when you know ahead of time that they are not allowed. Simple really.

Great, thanks, why didn’t I think of that?

Let me pull out a 8 1/2×14 legal pad and write that down.

ray_g: Bob — then don’t bring the phone to the courthouse or meeting, especially when you know ahead of time that they are not allowed. Simple really.

It’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Plenty of us carry a cell phone/Blackberry for plenty of different purposes. For instance, a friend of mine carries his everyone over the last month or so because his wife is pregnant. There are plenty of parents who have theirs with them in case of an emergency with their child at school/daycare. It’s easy to say, “don’t bring your cell phone” but the reality is, life is more complex than that. Lawyers may not like to admit it, but there are some things more important than the case at hand or their client. Family emergencies, for instance, trump any issue a client may be having. Maybe others will disagree with that, but, my family will, without question, always come first.

And, just for good measure, see Richard’s comment.

Anderson: Anyone know the purpose of Rule 53 in the first place? I am puzzled what public interest is served by this rule.

The only reason I can think of is the possibility of prejudicial or secret evidence that is inadmissible or otherwise to be kept out of the public eye.

With delayed reporting, the judge has an opportunity to order the evidence kept secret, something not possible with instant recording or broadcasting.

We may still have issues with the underlying nature of the rule, but the 9 have spoken on the First Am. issue, so: *shrug*

Oren: Bob, any cell phone capable of receiving email can be locked with a password of arbitrary complexity. 

Can and should. I continue to be amazed at the number of lawyers who fail to properly safeguard their clients’ information by password-protecting access to their email devices. There is, in my mind, no legitimate excuse for failing to do so.

As to the case at hand, tweeting is obviously narrowcasting, not broadcasting, and should be permitted under a highly-technical (read: pedantic) reading of Rule #53.

Like many people, my “cell phone” contains thousands of e-mails (and documents) containing confidential client information.

How would you feel handing that over to some stranger for safekeeping for a couple of hours?

In the USDC for the Central District of California, they had a rule until very recently where cell phones would be allowed in the building but not if the cell phones had a camera and they wouldn’t check the phones at the security desk. I arrived at the court for a hearing not knowing of the rule and was told that I couldn’t bring my cell phone in because it had a camera (the marshall didn’t accept my excuse that I didn’t know how to operate the camera) and that they wouldn’t check the phone for me. I was told to go back to my car and leave the phone there. I told the marshall that I had taken a commuter bus the six blocks from my office to the court and didn’t have time to return to my office and make it back in time for the hearing. His response was “too bad”. I ended up burying my phone in a planter just outside the courthouse and retreiving it after the hearing. An absolutely nonsensical rule.

It’s just more petty pompousness from the bench.”

Perhaps it is a (IMO) reasonable reaction to the fact that there are always a few who won’t turn them off or set them to silent ring. I’ve had this problem with business meetings.

I think it is pretty petty when some folks complain that they can’t live without their phones for a couple of hours.

Interesting aside – once I was the person who had to take custody of the surrendered cell phones. I asked people to turn them off so they would not ring. Few did. The next day I stated that if a phone rang, I would answer it. They were all turned off then.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ahockley: Federal rules interpreted as barring Twitter from the courtroom: http://bit.ly/4nccR7...

In the jurisdiction where I practice, use of cellular phones is prohibited anywhere inside the Fed. Ct. house. And, during the last case in which I was involved, everyone entering the courtroom had to check their cell phones with the Marshall.

It’s just more petty pompousness from the bench.