- UPDATE (10:38 a.m., Nov. 25, 2009) — By my general reckoning, at least thousands of people know there’s more to this story, as of this past Friday. Various editors, journalism school faculty and I have since worked to remedy the situation. Now that we’ve tied up our loose ends, I believe now is the time to clarify exactly what happened — at least on my part. Please read my blog entry for the second (and final) component to this incident.
“Hello, this is Chris.”
“Hi Chris, this is Josh. You need to tell me the truth about what happened in court yesterday. And don’t lie to me, because lying isn’t going to get you anywhere.”
That’s how, via a phone call today at 9:13 a.m., I found out I was in trouble.
Here’s why:
Yesterday, I spent almost six hours in the Boone County Courthouse as the pool photographer for the fourth day of William Clinch’s first-degree murder trial. Armed with a 300mm lens, a 70-200mm and a 17-35mm, I knew the following before I entered the courtroom at 12:45 p.m.:
- Do not photograph the jury.
- Do what the judge tells me to do. Do not anger or even mildly irritate the judge.
- Be respectful and quiet. This means not firing off more than three frames at a time.
- Do not photograph the jury.
I photographed the jury.
That is why:
- the Missourian reporter was kicked out of the courtroom this morning,
- the photo director (Josh, above) called me,
- I had to explain exactly what happened to several editors,
- I could have been put in jail for contempt of court,
- I spent the next hour tearfully worrying and wondering what would happen next,
- I wrote a letter of apology to the judge,
- I ended up on A1 of The Columbia Daily Tribune and
- I am writing this blog post.
More specifically, I am writing this blog post to clarify exactly what happened. I believe in transparency, and I believe that other journalism students and journalists can learn from my mistakes.
Therefore, I am laying out everything that happened. This is the truth and is consistent with my letter of apology and my explanation to various Missourian editors and colleagues. And the truth is long, so this blog post is long. But I hope you’ll keep reading.
First, below is my sketched version of the photograph in question. For obvious reasons, I cannot and will not post the actual photograph.
A sketched version of the photo. The woman in the foreground (the figure in center left) is the mother of the man whom Clinch killed. The man with his arm around her (the figure in center right) is her husband. The jury box is at the right, with all the people who have only white circles for heads. Obviously, you can't tell here how out of focus the jurors were, so you'll have to take my word that they were completely unrecognizable.
Second, here’s a diagram of the courtroom. This will help explain a few things later in this entry.
Not quite to scale, but this'll do.
Now, here’s what happened in the courtroom yesterday:
- I arrived at the courthouse at 12:30 p.m. and was in the courtroom around 12:45 p.m. The reporter met me there and told me that the photographer on Wednesday had moved all over the place to get his photos. This, to me, sounded as if I had more freedom and mobility than I expected.
- For the first 30 minutes, I remained in Column C (the pool-side column of rows). There’s a reason why photographers and videographers generally stay in this area: They can get footage of the witness without getting the jury in the background. (Whereas, if a photographer or videographer stood at the back of Column A, it would be extremely difficult to capture the witness without getting the jury in the background.)
- After half an hour, I decided to change vantage points. I moved to X1 (see diagram), where I was careful to avoid photographing the jury.
- Shortly after I moved to X1, the judge sent the court marshal over to where I was. The following dialogue occurred:
- Marshal: “Are you taking photos of the jury?”
- Me: “No.”
- Marshal: “Are you taking photos of the witness?”
- Me: “Yes. I’m taking photos of the witness, the judge and the attorneys.”
- Marshal: “Okay.”
- After the court marshal left me, I decided to play it safe and move back to Column C. I remained there for the rest of the trial session, and moved only between rows within Column C. I had taken no more than a dozen photos while I was in Column B. None of those was of the jury.
- In the last 30 minutes of the trial, I noticed the man with his arm around the woman at XX (see diagram). I moved to X2, where I took five photos at 35mm (with a 17-35/2.8).
- The first two frames included the jury, in the background and completely out of focus. The second of these frames was the one that eventually ran on the Missourian Web site and that I sketched above.
- The lines you see coming from X2 in the diagram represent what was visible within those first two frames.
- After I saw that I’d caught the jury in the frames, I decided to play it safe again. So I moved to my right and shot the couple from a slightly different angle. This meant that in the next three frames, I captured the same situation but without the jury in the background.
- When I returned to the newsroom, I downloaded all my photos and selected about 20 of them, from which my editor could make the final edit. One of those selected photos was the second photo in that five-photo sequence (with the jury in the background); another of those selected photos was one of the last three that did not have the jury in the background.
- My editor went over my edit and, among three other photos of witnesses and attorneys, chose the photo that had the jury in the background. Once I captioned the photos, they were out of my hands.
- The photos ran on-line. Only one made it in print.
So yes, that photo included the jury, which is a violation of court rules. But I didn’t think it would be a problem — after all, none of the jurors is even faintly recognizable because all of them are completely out of focus.
Here’s what happened today, as best as I can piece it together:
- The judge threw the Missourian reporter out of the courtroom this morning, citing the photo that had run on-line.
- Word spread throughout Missourian leadership. Josh called me and asked for an explanation. I gave him my account of what happened and got the impression that the judge/court thought I had lied to the court marshal and had actually taken that photo before the court marshal approached me. Josh told me the Missourian reporter had been thrown out this morning.
- I went upstairs to the newsroom to talk with Missourian executive editor Tom Warhover. (Warhover, who was also my Advanced Reporting instructor last semester, is probably the Missourian affiliate whom I respect most, and he is the only editor I’ve ever had who can make me cry. I hate disappointing him, and you can bet I broke down while he grilled me.)
- Warhover had me draw a diagram of the courtroom, tell him what happened yesterday in chronological order and show him the photo in question. He then left to make some phone calls.
- I sat in the photo office, still in tears, for a few more minutes.
- Warhover called Josh, Stephanie (another photo editor), the editor who had chosen my photos last night and me to his office. The two priorities, he said, were getting the reporter back into the courtroom and keeping me out of jail for contempt of court. He said this meant he had to “throw me under the bus” in the Columbia Daily Tribune‘s article about the incident. Warhover also said that if the judge called me in for contempt of court, The Missourian would stand with and behind me — meaning, he, Josh and the paper’s attorney would go to court alongside me.
- Still crying, I said, “I honestly don’t care what happens to me. I’m just upset about the reporter. I want her back in there.”
- Right when I said that, Warhover’s phone rang. According to the court’s communications director, the judge was still angry but would let the reporter back inside and would not call me in for contempt.
- I spent the next 20 minutes writing a letter of apology to the judge. And that’s the end of that, for my part.
That is my account of this entire courtroom photography faux pas. If I had been called in for contempt of court, I would have sworn that this account is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
But even though that’s the end of that for my part, it’s not the end. The Tribune — an afternoon paper — ran the story on A1 today, and according to several people, everyone in the newsroom was talking about it. The story has filtered down to people in pre-Missourian journalism classes, as well. I would be surprised if there’s a single member of the journalism school faculty who doesn’t know something about the incident.
And because it seems the court and judge believe I lied to the court marshal, I’m afraid I’m being painted as a liar.
Yes, I told the court marshal near the beginning of the trial session that I was not photographing the jury.
Yes, near the end of the trial session, I shot two frames that had the jury in the background.
But I don’t think I’m a liar. My focus was completely on the couple, not on anyone else. And I intentionally shot those three next frames without the jury in there. And I chose one of each — one with the jury, one without — to show my editor. And she chose the photo with the jury.
[That said, I’m not assigning complete blame to my editor. Another photographer who was in the office at that time later told me she heard me tell my editor not to use that photo because the jury was visible. I only vaguely remember this. I don’t remember it specifically or confidently enough to swear on it. That’s why, when talking to Missourian leadership, I took as much of the blame as I could.]
Long story short, here are the lessons I’ve learned:
- Do not photograph the jury. Period.
- Even if the jury would be completely out of focus and in the background, do not photograph the jury. Period.
- Even if you have good photos that have the jury out of focus and in the background, do not select them to be shown to your editor.
- There are times when you need to stand up to explain and defend yourself, and there are times to accept what’s happening and apologize. If I had been called in for contempt, that would have been the time for standing up and defending myself. Because the judge did not call me in, that was the time for apologizing.
- Don’t make mistakes.
- But it’s a fact of life: You can’t avoid making mistakes.
- And if you’re going to make honest mistakes, any good paper and any good editor will stand with you and stand behind you.
- Do not photograph the jury.
If you made it this far into this entry, I appreciate your patience and your willingness to understand the situation. I hope this entry has clarified the situation and that fellow journalism students and journalists can learn from the mistakes I made.
Words and Light 
You made a mistake, but it does not appear to be intentional, or malicious. I also do not believe you are a liar. You took responsibility for your actions, and it did not place the trial in any kind of jeapardy. Remember, if the mistake was that serious, the judge would have held you in contempt and you would not be welcome in any courtroom. Keep your chin up, and move on.
I suggest you take down the portion where you say “the man he killed.” The suspect has not yet been proven guilty yet and I doubt you want any more trouble on your hands.
Thanks for thinking of that. The defendant did admit to killing his former brother-in-law, as you can read here. The question is whether his reason(s) for doing so is/are justified.
Admissions can be retracted, evidence can be nullified and entire cases can be thrown out.
Better safe than sorry, I say. 🙂
I’m sure you are not the first reporter to photograph a jury. More than likely, you will not be the last! But for you it is a lesson learned. It also sounds like your boss will back up your story and the judge didn’t haul you off to jail, so don’t worry what other people think. We ALL make mistakes, that is how we learn! Good luck on your future in journalism.
[…] from my photo editor about some things going on this weekend and within the body of the email was this, a first hand account of a major faux-pau committed in a local courtroom where a photographer (a […]
Chris,
As far as I’m concerned, the story isn’t over until you’ve apologized to Tram Whitehurst, currently one of the most respected journalists in town and the person who was subjected to the humiliation of being escorted from a courtroom in front of his journalism peers, several lawyers with whom he has built a professional relationship and a number of new sources in a story he will continue to need to cultivate for future stories. Actually, all of my students on the public safety beat who have prepared for this assignment for months are owed an apology for your painful journalistic lesson.
I just hope this gaffe doesn’t result in Missourian photographers being barred from courtrooms for a year because we have two more major murder trials coming up. We will have a relationship with the 13th Circuit Court long after you’ve graduated, and sometimes I fear students forget that fact as they strive to produce impressive journalism for their portfolios. These relationships we’ve built over the years are hard to maintain as each new crop of beginning reporters come through and learns by trial and error.
“Trial and Error” — hey, there’s a clever headline for your blog post!
Hi Katherine —
As soon as I heard the reporter had been removed from the courtroom, my first and immediate concern was how to get her back inside. (At the time, I thought that reporter was still Alicia Swartz, with whom I’d worked on Thursday.)
While I knew that my being called in for contempt was a very real possibility, that was at the back of my mind. What really upset me was that the reporter was humiliated and had to pay for a mistake I had made. Even after the reporter was allowed back in and I’d written my letter of apology to the judge, I was still shaken and upset for several hours.
I can’t predict what will happen in terms of future access for Missourian staff, but I can only hope the ramifications will be minimal. I will send Tram a written apology and e-mail you a letter you can forward to your beat students. If you have further concerns or questions, you can reach me via commenting here or e-mailing me at christhedunn[at]gmail.com.
I don’t understand why you’d give your editor photos that included the jury, especially if you shot very similar ones withOUT the jury in them. If a photo was blurry, would you give the editor that one? The photographer’s name goes in the photo credits, so it’s up to the photographer to make sure the photo is fit and worthy of publication.
We all learn from mistakes, and it doesn’t sound like the jury was jeopardized in any way. Judges like having their power, though, so I won’t be surprised if it’s a long time before your paper is allowed to photograph in his courtroom — or any others.
(Just fyi, I’m a newspaper courts and crime reporter.)
P.S. — Bravo putting your neck out there, and for linking to your blog in the comments section of the article you linked. Most newspaper commenters are not right in the head, so don’t take them too seriously.
Hi Layla —
Honestly, the photo in which the jury was visible was the strongest photo in terms of composition and angle, and even the moment. (The man’s arm was wrapped around his wife’s shoulder more strongly; in later photos, he’d relaxed it a bit.)
I also didn’t think that having the jury in there would be an issue, since the jurors were completely out of focus and unrecognizable. I wish I could publish these photos so everyone could see what I’m talking about, but absolutely no faces were visible — all heads were turned toward the witness seat. You can see who’s bald and who has black or blonde hair, but that’s really about it. I’d thought that as long as the jurors were unrecognizable, it’d be fine (but just in case, I threw in one of the photos without the jury). Clearly, that was not the case.
Thank you for reading this entry in full and checking out the article about the incident.
You made a mistake. You lived up to it. You admitted fault. You appear to have worked tirelessly to right every “wrong” you committed, even if the wrongs were pure accident. You’ve apologized incessantly for your actions, even accepted full blame for the photo publishing (where it seems others in the process could also easily be blamed). I commend you for that.
I think it’s time the judge loosens up a bit — with all of the problems with our criminal justice system (particularly innocent people being punished as well as prosecutorial misconduct), a photographer accidentally taking picture of a faceless jury doesn’t seem to be as big of a deal as this is. The judge should have called the Missourian, told y’all to take it down and made a threat that if it happens again, you’re barred from the courtroom and charged with contempt. I think that sends a better message, because now he just looks draconian.
As for the Tribune, I respect the newspaper and all, but it’s about time they toned down their sophomoric “Haha look what the Missourian did!” attitude. It’s getting old.
While I’m sure the average person would ask, “Why didn’t you immediately delete the photos that had the blurry jury* in them?” I know that a photographer just cannot do that. There are plenty of other issues.
If this incident prevents you from getting a job in the future or comes back to bite you, then I’m afraid we’re just holding journalists to a standard that even Jesus Christ can’t meet.
*Hey there’s a funny name for this incident.
Wow. That Josh fellow sounds fairly caustic and abrupt. So does Katherine Reed. Journalism School, anyone? Yeesh.
Journalism can (and should be) a tough, merciless industry, so I would hope that any journalism school reflects that aspect somewhat.
Having worked with Josh since August, I can attest that Josh as director of photography is pretty fair. That morning, he and other Missourian leadership were in “crisis mode,” so I was not surprised that their approach was more to-the-point and abrupt.
I haven’t worked with Katherine closely, much less at all, so I can’t attest to her approach.
Chris,
I’ve been following your post and comments with keen interest since this episode could have had a huge negative impact on the photo staff at the Columbia Daily Tribune as well.
I think your experience and your post will be used by other students as a reference and learning tool. So I want to take this opportunity to add some information that I feel your post might be lacking in.
While I think you did well to make the “don’t include the jury in any portion of a photograph” point, there some other specific rules that people need to know.
Specifically Court Operating Procedure (COR) 16.04 Technical (e) and (f) which talks about decorum and moment in the courtroom.
(e) …. “Still photographers and broadcast media personnel shall not move about the courtroom while proceedings are in session, nor shall they engage in any movement that attracts undue attention.”
In other words, by you moving around in the courtroom also violated the court rules.
(f) … “All still photographers and broadcast media personnel shall be properly attired and shall maintain proper courtroom decorum at all times…”
Students need to plan on dressing appropriately.
All of the Court Operating Rules are available online and should be read by all students, no matter if they ever get assigned to a courtroom pool or not. http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.asp?id=1473 We are very lucky to be able to photograph in the courtrooms here. It’s not a constitutional right, it’s a privilege.
Hi Gerik —
Thanks for commenting with this additional (and equally important) information. I really appreciate your adding to this discussion, and I’m glad the Trib can still work the pool.
Chris,
I’m the managing editor for the independent student newspaper at Mississippi State University, and I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your post. Way to be honest and admit what happened. I wish all of our staff members (and myself) handled incidents the same way!
Chris,
It takes a lot of courage to admit when you’re wrong. Don’t let others make you feel bad about the mistake. Remember, you are on a team. Editors failed to flag the image as well.
– s
Chris,
I think you are very brave to put yourself out like this. However, I would like to make one point about your mea culpa. I don’t think there is a distinction between your expected behavior had you been held in contempt of court or if the judge had been gracious to accept an apology, as he has. If you err, you take responsibility for that error whether you are punished, given a pass or even spared embarrassment by the intervention of an editor. Granted, you had no control in your editor’s decision to select the photo, but that is not where things went wrong. You made the error in taking the photo. The error is not how your editor could helped catch or avoid your mistake. Hypothetically, had your editor caught the mistake and you avoided potential legal consequences, is the error less severe? Absolutely not. Your responsibility is the same in every scenario.
But again, you caused no harm and have gone to great lengths in correcting yourself and informing others on the lesson you learned. That is noble and should be admired. But make sure you learn the right lesson from this. Take responsibility for your mistakes, whether there are consequences or not. Don’t try to divvy up the blame or apply varying standards according to the degree of punishment.
Holy moly, what a story! I would have been in tears too. Judges can be scary people.
Hi Chris,
As a student at the School of Journalism, I was under the impression that the Missouri Method existed for a reason. We are told that The Missourian sets apart are school because “we make mistakes before we enter the job market.” However, the professionals and experts you work under did not catch the mistake – and it was on the front page. Yeah, you probably should have caught it, too, but that’s what being a student is all about – learning.
Therefore, it truly upsets me to see Katherine Reed’s post. Reed may be professional, experienced and talented. But if that is the way we are responding to a student’s mistake, that was also missed by her editors, then Reed does not belong at the Missouri School of Journalism.
Yes, Chris, you deserved punishment to learn. It sounds like you are handling it extremely maturely and understand the severity of your mistake.
Katherine – Although Chris and other student journalists must learn from their mistakes, you cannot solely place blame on this girl for the future ramifications that the paper may face. There are many people who should recognize an error on the front page (especially a photograph!) who should apologize to the humiliated reporter. If you aren’t there to teach and develop talented journalists, meaning understanding that students WILL make mistakes, then you are at the wrong school.
I have also been following these comments with interest. The only things I would like to add are:
a)”That Josh fellow sounds fairly caustic and abrupt.” He’s not and I don’t think you should judge someone you have never worked with based on an account of a scenario as serious as this one, in which you had no part. Editors have a lot on their shoulders and deserve some credit for the people they stand behind, as they did with you, Chris, when those people do make mistakes.
b)”Honestly, the photo in which the jury was visible was the strongest photo in terms of composition and angle, and even the moment.” Be really careful of what you are willing to put on the line for an image that will get you recognition because of its journalistic or aesthetic attributes. If you didn’t catch CPOY, the judges, some of the top professionals in the field, talked over and over again about respect for our subjects and the situations we are in when we shoot. Don’t compromise that privilege to get a prettier picture, ever.
Hi Cat —
Please rest assured, I am VERY thankful for the editors who have stood alongside me and supported me — and that includes Josh — especially during some fairly recent developments pertaining to this incident.
I have heard that said in CPOY and many other places where I’ve worked and learned. One of the many lessons I’ve taken from this is to respect even the subjects that aren’t the principles in the photograph — i.e., the out-of-focus ones in the corner or wherever else.
I don’t know if the same thing would have happened elsewhere with a different judge. I have been a reporter for 33 years, covered courts for 10.
We had a situation several years ago, where a defendant tried to attack a prosecutor and deputies shot him with a Taser in front of the jury box. The television cameras got jurors in the frame as the judge was ordering them out of the courtroom, but they blurred their faces. No one got in trouble, and it was in front of a very strict judge.
In Kansas, we can also not photograph jurors. But the judge always tell the jurors they won’t be photographed so they can be recognized. To be safe, our photogs never get close to the jury box, and I’ve followed that in doing a video blog on the courts.
We have cool judges who let me cover trials live via Twitter, even in federal court. But just today, I almost got my phone taken just today by a U.S. Marshal who didn’t get the message that I had permission from the judge to be texting from my phone in court.
But the result is what counts. You did learn a valuable lesson. The First Amendment is not absolute in the courtroom. I’ve seen journalists out of school with several years experience who didn’t get that. You are now ahead of them.
As far as damage you’ve caused reporters. If they really have solid relationships with the lawyers and sources, it shouldn’t matter. I can tell you if I was escorted out of a courtroom for something a photographer did, I don’t think it would matter much on my beat, because everyone is paying attention to what is happening and they would know it wasn’t my fault.
Still, apologize to the reporter in question. You’ll have to work together again and you don’t need that kind of tension.
Then move on. You have a lot of years ahead of you. I’m glad no one is judging me now for mistakes I made three decades ago. Come to think of it, I’m glad people aren’t judging me for mistakes I made three weeks ago.
One great part about this business, with the ever-changing news cycles, memories seem to be very short.
An editor of mine at USA TODAY told me years ago: “The best we can hope for in this business is to minimize our mistakes.”
She was very smart – and correct.
Best wishes for the future.
Hi Ron —
Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry I didn’t get around to responding until now — been busy settling the dust (https://christhedunn.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/more-lessons-from-the-courtroom/) — but I appreciate your insight and the info about how other cases have been dealt. It’s interesting how it seems it’s different in every state.
I’ve apologized to the reporter, and I do hope the memories are very short. Either way, I’m neither broadcasting this incident nor hiding it. If it comes up in formal situations or interviews, I’m prepared for it.
Thanks again.
I was Bill Clinch’s defense attorney during the trial and I was completely oblivious to this whole situation as it played out. It did not disrupt the trial in any way, and I bet the jurors did not even notice anything amiss. From reading your blog, it appears that you are a professional and handled the situation quite well.
Also, throughout the Missourian’s coverage of the Clinch case I thought the photos were excellent, and that the articles were well-researched, balanced, and informative. I now not only follow the Missourian online, but I purchased a subscription for home delivery. Keep up the good work!
I’m glad to hear the whole story about the photos. I was in that jury and we were all upset when we heard photos were taken. We didn’t know what context, we assumed someone would have to be a jerk to photograph us against the judges orders. You’re not a jerk, I’m sorry I thought that.
I wish I could describe what being sequestered for that week was like. How tight the security was on us and in the vacuum we were living in how paranoid it made us. There were people on both sides of that audience who glared at us. We were so unnerved, and we didn’t ask to be there.
I see now that this was innocent…I guess what I would say to reporters and photojournalists is please take care of those jurors you encounter.
I have covered courts and crime for 20 years, and with reductions in staff in recent years I have started taking most of my own court photos.
One thing I’ve learned in all those years, whether it relates to copy or a photo:
Never trust an editor.
I believe you made an honest mistake and stepped up. But the editor who picked the photo had more responsibility than you, because that person ultimately made the decision to run it.
So, as important as it is to remember to never photograph the jury, it’s also important to never trust an editor.
[…] https://blog.christhedunn.com/2009/10/23/lessons-from-the-courtroom-a-photography-faux-pas/ […]
[…] and other student journalists: You are still young, so make your mistakes now and learn from them. (I did.) You’ve got a lot of years ahead of you, so buckle up, take the wheel and enjoy the […]