LAURA CONOVER
PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY
J. William Brammer, Jr., Bar No. 02079
[email protected]
James W. Rappaport, Bar No. 031699
James. [email protected]
Deputy Pima County Attorneys
32 North Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-5600

The Pima County Attorney’s Office joins in full the thoughtful and well-reasoned petition filed by Matthew A. Walker.

The Pima County Bar Association supports this Petition.

James W. Rappaport, SBA No. 031699
Pima County Bar Association
177 North Church Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 623-8258
[email protected]

Mark W. Kelly
RPBMedia
P.O BOX 1215
Vail, AZ, 85641
(520) 441-7705
[email protected]

[b] I oppose this petition on constitutional and due process grounds[/b]

The current version of rule 122(h) properly allows public court observers to notify the court of an intent to record, consistent with the values of transparency, and accountability, and the First Amendment. Forcing people to ask permission – especially when using their own devices to lawfully document public hearings-creates a chilling effect, risks selective enforcement, and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Court proceedings belong to the people. We should not be required to beg the government to record or observe it.

I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment to Rule 122 is of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona raises grave concerns about transparency, accountability, and the very integrity of our judicial process. In essence, the amendment appears to grant an unbalanced empowerment to the courts to restrict the recording or broadcasting of proceedings—a measure that seems poised to serve the interests of unscrupulous prosecutorial practices rather than the ideals of an open justice system.

Undermining Public Accountability
The fundamental tenet of an open court is the assurance that justice is not only done but seen to be done. When the judicial process becomes shrouded in secrecy, it compromises the public’s ability to scrutinize the conduct of prosecutors and judges alike. This hidden veil, under the guise of protecting the proceedings, could facilitate a culture in which unethical practices go unnoticed and unchecked. Without the presence of a public record, the prosecutorial branch may exploit this opacity to further their own interests—potentially suppressing evidence of misconduct and curtailing the necessary debate that upholds the principle of accountability.

Precedent for Curbing Investigative Oversight
History has taught us that when the mechanisms of public oversight are curtailed, it often paves the way for abuse of power. The proposed amendment seems less an innocuous administrative adjustment and more a strategic maneuver by certain prosecutorial factions to hide behind a curtain of limited access. This not only compromises the adversarial process by potentially limiting the defense’s ability to monitor and challenge prosecutorial decisions but also diminishes the media’s role as a watchdog of the justice system. The free flow of information, which is crucial to highlight any deviation from ethical legal practices, is imperiled by such restrictions.

Erosion of Checks and Balances
Our legal system rests on a delicate balance of power. Transparency in court proceedings serves as a check against the concentration of power in the hands of any one party or branch. By allowing unilateral restrictions on recording and broadcasting, the amendment threatens to upset this balance. The measure opens the door to selective enforcement—a tool that unethical prosecutors might wield to avoid unfavorable public scrutiny. Such an outcome would severely undermine public confidence in the impartiality of our courts.

The Public Interest and the Right to Know
It is paramount that the public retains access to information regarding the administration of justice. An informed citizenry is the bedrock of our democracy, and any rule change that obstructs this vital link between the judiciary and the public is inherently suspect. The proposed amendment, by broadening the courts’ power to restrict recordings, seems to prioritize the interests of a closed prosecutorial mindset over the democratic imperative for openness and accountability. It is our duty to ensure that justice is administered in the light, and not hidden in the shadows.

Conclusion
While the intention to protect the integrity of courtroom proceedings is understandable, the practical effect of this amendment is to erode public oversight and accountability. I Consider whether empowering courts to unilaterally restrict access to recordings might inadvertently create an environment conducive to prosecutorial abuse. This change, far from strengthening our legal system, would instead be a concession to unethical practices, ultimately undermining the justice system’s legitimacy.

I respectfully request that this amendment be rejected in order to preserve the fundamental principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability that are essential to our judicial process.

Contact information:
[email protected]

Erin Hickey
[email protected]

I’m incensed that any officer of the court would FEAR TRANSPARENCY so much that they would cowardly put forth this petition.
I urge a total rejection.
We should have audio and video recordings and livestreams of public hearings.
It’s the PEOPLE’S COURT, not an inadequate lawyer hiding shame of losses court.

I would reject the idea of more control to the government and less to the people.
The people need to keep an eye on the "good ol boys club" (women too, of course.)
Respectfully,

Todd Mac
PO BOX 155
Aurora OR 97002
[email protected]

Eli Dalton-Webb
5009 E. Ironwood Circle
Sierra Vista, Arizona 85650
[email protected]

Imagine being a defendant in a criminal proceeding and the judge was throwing around a bunch of oral directives and oral information and not being able to record the proceeding.

Commenter:
Elizabeth Burton Ortiz
ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’
ADVISORY COUNCIL
3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 850
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
[email protected]
Tel. (602) 542-7222
Fax. (602) 274-4215
State Bar No. 012838

Please refer to attachments for comment submitted in support of petition R-25-0031.

Lucas Desin
[email protected]
5221 Leisure View Rd
Placerville CA 95667

I strongly oppose amending Rule 122. We absolutely cannot allow courts to become "secret" courts. The public MUST have the ability to record proceedings in a PUBLIC court in order to document and broadcast it to the people. We have the right to due process and free press in The United States. The courts have an obligation to being absolutely transparent in their dealings with the public and the accused. This is an attempt to reduce transparency in our court system and We The People will NEVER support such an amendment. We NEVER need to ask permission to record public court proceedings as this would easily lead to impropriety in OUR courts. We The People say NO to amending Rule 122. If we allow this rule to be amended, we will be inviting corruption into our courts. we will not allow it. We must keep our courts open, honest, transparent and accountable to the people. Say NO to amending Rule 122.

Jeremy Turner
Managing Director
4045 John Allyson Dr
Cumming, GA 30040
678-447-1419
[email protected]

I. Snapshot

The Petition asks this Court to swing a hammer at a fly. Rule 122 already gives trial judges “broad discretion” over electronic coverage — State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 601 (1997) — and that discretion is backed by the court’s inherent contempt power and by Rule 122(d). A statewide rewrite that converts every pocket-sized recorder into contraband is needless, over-broad, and constitutionally suspect.

II. Constitutional backdrop
Open courts serve the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982), and Press-Enterprise I & II hold that the First Amendment guarantees the public a presumptive right of access to criminal proceedings. Any restriction must survive the “experience and logic” test and be narrowly tailored to an articulated, case-specific interest. A blanket rule conditioning any on-person recording on prior judicial permission is a classic prior restraint; Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
Cameras aren’t inherently prejudicial. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) rejected the notion that broadcast coverage violates due-process rights and left regulation to state courts so long as the rules are even-handed and specific to demonstrated prejudice. The Petition offers only a YouTube link and vague fears of harassment, not empirical prejudice. That will not meet Chandler’s standard if a litigant later challenges the amended rule.

III. Arizona law already handles the problem
• Lee confirms judicial power to “permit, limit, or prohibit” electronic coverage on a case-by-case basis.
• Judges who see harassment can bar or delay livestreaming under current Rule 122(d)(1)(A) (“reasonable likelihood of harm”).
• Protective-order and victim-rights statutes (A.R.S. §§ 13-4431, -4433) let trial courts seal or restrict coverage of sensitive testimony.

The Petition itself concedes that the rule “does not seek to change Rule 122 to prevent recording or livestreaming in court altogether” but only wants courts to “feel empowered”Petition to Amend Rule 122 Rules of the Supreme Court.

IV. Practical fallout
Pro se litigants and disability accommodations. Litigants who cannot afford transcripts often rely on personal audio to prepare appeals or complaints. For hearing-impaired participants, a phone recorder paired with real-time captioning apps is a low-cost accommodation. The amendment would force them to file written motions and wait for rulings in every hearing. That would be an access-to-justice nightmare.

Transparency in the post-COVID judiciary. This Court livestreamed its own arguments throughout the pandemic; many trial courts still do. Rolling that openness back while other states expand it (e.g., Florida S. Ct. AO SC22-28 (2022)) sends the wrong signal.

Overbreadth. By targeting any personal recorder, the draft sweeps in silent note-taking apps, smartwatches, and even hearing aids with recording functions. Such overbreadth will spawn collateral litigation and place bailiffs in the impossible position of policing pockets instead of keeping order.

V. Case-specific relief beats blanket bans
If a witness credibly fears harassment, the trial judge can:
require devices to be set to “record-only” with no data or cell connection;
delay release of the audio until after testimony; clear the courtroom under Rule 9.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P., or use pseudonyms (see State v. Borovetz, 200 Ariz. 180 (App. 2001)). Those narrower tools respect both witness safety and the public’s constitutional stake.

VI. Conclusion
The Petition tries to fix isolated rude conduct with a statewide gag. That’s overkill. Judges already possess, and routinely exercise, the authority the Petitioner says they lack. For these reasons, the undersigned urges the Court to deny the proposed amendment to Rule 122.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeremy Turner
4/30/25

Andrea Dotson
3222 W Washita St
Springfield Missouri 65807
[email protected]
Citizen


This petition to amend rule 122 H is direct retaliation against the people.
Rule 122 H is not respected in Pima County, the people are being retaliated against and jailed for using.
Amending this petition will only hurt the people and further allow the retaliation to happen in secret. For this reason you must reject and side with the people who demand transparency and accountability in our courts.

I oppose this amendment to rule 122. We need more transparency, not less.

Good Citizen
[email protected]

C.Moncrieff
[email protected]

I strongly oppose the amendment of petition R-25-0031 that seeks to limit the broadcasting and filming of court proceedings. Transparency in the judicial system is critical to ensuring fairness and accountability. Restricting public access to courtrooms undermines the principles of open justice, which are fundamental to maintaining public trust in the legal system.

Court proceedings are not solely private matters; they are of public interest. Allowing the media to broadcast trials enables citizens to witness justice in action, ensuring that judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals are held accountable. Without this level of transparency, we risk creating a system that operates in isolation, beyond the reach of public scrutiny. In Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), the Court rejected the argument that broadcast coverage infringes on due-process rights, leaving the regulation of such coverage to state courts, provided the rules are fair and tailored to address any actual prejudice.

Moreover, allowing filming and broadcasting offers a valuable opportunity to educate the public on legal processes, fostering a deeper understanding of the law. The concern that cameras disrupt proceedings is often overstated—appropriate rules and guidelines can easily prevent any interference with the trial.

In today’s digital era, where information is increasingly accessible, restricting access to court proceedings sends a concerning message that the justice system may be hiding something.

Faithfully,
C. Moncrieff

Comment in support of R-25-0031 on behalf of:

Samuel A. Thumma
Chair, Arizona Commission on Access to Justice
Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
Division One
State Courts Building
1501 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3329
Telephone: (602) 452-6700

I vehemently oppose this change in the name of transparency and accountability.

This petition, by Matt Walker, is a blatant attempt to limit transparency within the courts of Arizona under the guise of protecting witnesses and victims. The real issue here is that Matt Walker has a problem with public scrutiny. Matt Walker has shown a pattern and practice of not following court rules, malicious prosecutions and now, a personal vendetta against the one “Walk the Line”, Lane Jeffery Myers, who is very likely to have connected cases come before this very court.

Mr. Myers, a pro se defendant of the aforementioned malicious prosecution, has endured months and months of illegal lawfare up to and including violations of Mr Myers’ civil rights and, even now, is incarcerated under further blatant and malicious prosecution from Matt Walker with the help of his wife and other alumni friends from the ASU School of Law. Pro se defendant, Lane Jeffrey Myers, published hearings and meetings of two court cases in which he successfully defended himself and in the process made the Tucson City prosecutor, Matt Walker, look very incompetent by showing and telling the public about every mistake that was made, all the while following every court rule himself.

Walker is upset that some people are using rule 122(h) to record and broadcast court proceedings without receiving court approval. Walker claims, this rule has been misused and weaponized by people live streaming hearings onto the internet. Let's not forget that public scrutiny is the only tool that citizens have against corruption within any governmental system. If the courts are acting fairly, why would they fear being recorded? Judges do already have discretion. Walker argues that the rule is unclear and that judges are unsure whether or not they can deny recording. This is absolutely not true! Arizona courts have discretion under rule 122 ( C ) & ( D ) to limit electronic coverage under certain circumstances. Walker clearly wants the authority to shut down public scrutiny at will.
Walker fears live streaming and specifically targets it as if people are streaming in some grand injustice if it's used to embarrass people when in reality, live streaming exposes misconduct. If a prosecutor acts inappropriately, people will see it. If judges violate due process, people will see it. If a police officer lies on the stand, people will see it. The only people who fear live streaming are those who don't want the public to know what's going on in the courtroom.
Walker makes the weak argument that the courtroom is not a public forum for First Amendment activity citing old cases but ignoring that the public has an absolute right to observe and document proceedings, That the Sixth Amendment guarantees Public trials, and the First Amendment protects the right of people to report on them.
What would be Matt Walker's next step? To ban note taking or prohibit journalists from writing about a trial?

Walker repeatedly says this is about victims and while REAL victims do deserve some protections, this argument is far too often weaponized to silence criticism of the system. If a police officer, prosecutor, judge or any other public official lies in open court, do they become a victim because someone recorded it and it was disseminated to the public? Are they now a victim of harassment when the public sees what they've done and redresses their grievances? If a judge makes an unconstitutional ruling, are they now being targeted because someone live streamed it?

Who would benefit from this rule change that Matt Walker suggests? It's prosecutors that don't want their misconduct recorded, judges who fear public accountability and police officers who fear public scrutiny within the courtroom. All the while it's a detriment to defendants who need recordings for a fair trial, journalists and watchdogs who expose corruption and citizens you have the right to see how the courts work. Matt Walker isn't asking for reasonable clarification, He is asking for complete control over recording within the courtroom. His goal is not to protect victims. That's a sign, but to protect the system from the exposure of the corruption within it.
This petition must be denied and opposed in the name of governmental and judicial transparency.

Eric Jones
[email protected]

As a previous commenter has stated:

The courts already have broad discretion where media recording is concerned, State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590, 601 (1997) — and that discretion is backed by the court’s inherent contempt power and by Rule 122(d). A statewide rewrite that converts every pocket-sized recorder into contraband is needless, over-broad, and constitutionally suspect.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, do not need to restrict the people.

Michael Citizen
[email protected]

In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court
Supreme Court No. R-25-0031
Public Comment Opposing the Petition and Advocating for Substantial Reform of Rule 122

Submitted by:
Roy Tripoloni
12165 W. Daviti Lane
Tucson, AZ 85736
[email protected]

I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to Petition R-25-0031 to amend Rule 122. While the intent of the proposed amendment may be to address concerns about courtroom conduct, the effect would be to substantially erode the public’s First Amendment right to observe and record judicial proceedings.

Rule 122(h), as currently written, strikes a critical balance. It allows non-disruptive audio recording using a device on one’s person, which supports transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judicial system. Removing that protection would increase the risk of unchecked judicial discretion, particularly in cases involving controversial or sensitive matters where public oversight is most needed.

Across Arizona, Rule 122 has already been inconsistently applied, and in some jurisdictions — including Pima County — observers have faced retaliation for simply requesting to record proceedings. Audio and video recording in courtrooms, when done non-obtrusively, is a form of protected newsgathering and public oversight, as recognized in Glik v. Cunniffe, Fordyce v. Seattle, and Askins v. DHS.

Rather than expanding judicial authority to deny recording, the Court should consider a broader review of Rule 122’s constitutional impact. As currently structured, it allows for the possibility of prior restraint — a form of censorship that is presumptively unconstitutional under First Amendment jurisprudence.

Public courtrooms are open by default. If an individual may legally sit and listen, they should be allowed to record non-disruptively. That is not harassment — it is public accountability.

I urge the Court to deny this petition and consider whether Rule 122, in its entirety, truly serves the interests of justice. If it cannot be administered in a consistent, constitutional, and non-retaliatory manner, the Court should initiate a comprehensive review and reform — or repeal — of the rule.

Respectfully submitted,
Roy Tripoloni
April 30, 2025

Dear panel,
Please vote against this petition. I want more transparency in the court room. The people need to be able to exercise our rights.

Tammy Jones
[email protected]

Contact:
[email protected]


This amendment should be rejected. It gives the appearance that the people who are submitting and supporting this would like to hide the judicial process from the public at their discretion. This amendment goes directly against the judicial code of conduct, Canon 1, and Canon 2, and gives the appearance of impropriety and does not enhance public trust or confidence in the Judicial system. It does just the opposite. Perhaps they fear the transparency and accountability of an independent recording of the record. If they are performing their judicial duties properly, then they have nothing to fear. The courts should want more transparency to gain public trust in the judicial process.

If an amendment is going to be made, it should promote more transparency and accountability to anyone wishing to audio and video record any public judicial process. The court should not limit the recording of the process without a detailed explanation of why the recording by individuals or the press is being denied, and signed off by the Arizona Supreme Court, or holding a public hearing for the denial. Rule 122 should be made to clarify that the court shall allow independent parties to record the proceedings as the default, without a notice requirement. The integrity of the court will be preserved with minimal delay. The independent recordings of the proceedings are very important to help individuals with disabilities. I have seen proceedings where the judge denies the defendant the ability to record to accommodate their disability. Many of the recordings of the court proceedings produced by the court have technical difficulties and do not always capture all the details of the proceeding. This is biased against anyone participating in the process who may depend on the recording to memorialize the proceeding for future reference. The technology is widely available on small personal devices weighing less than 5 pounds to produce quality recordings without any significant interference or disruption to the court. Many courts have already begun publishing the proceedings online for the general public to be able to observe and learn more about the judicial process.