A courtroom can be open to the public and still leave people with only part of the story.
That question is now before the Sixth Circuit. Samantha Hallman says she sought recordings of court proceedings in Oakland County, Michigan, after becoming concerned about how a judge treated her brother during a hearing. Her allegations have not been decided in this lawsuit. The broader issue is whether the First Amendment protects public access to courtroom audio and video, or whether a written transcript is enough.
This question is personal to me. My family’s experience in federal court before Judge Victor Bolden has made me acutely aware of how much can depend on the official record. We have raised serious concerns about the accuracy of transcripts and the difficulty of getting clear answers about what happened in court. I know those are our concerns, and they should be examined on their own record. But the experience taught me that a transcript is not a minor administrative detail. It can shape how a family understands a proceeding, how it can challenge what occurred, and whether anyone outside the courtroom can fairly evaluate it.
A transcript can preserve words. It cannot always capture tone, pauses, or the way an exchange unfolded. Hallman’s lawyer put the tension plainly: “You have a proceeding that is open, transcripts are available, but recordings are secret.” Those missing details may matter when the public is trying to understand how justice was administered.
There are real concerns on the other side. Recordings can expose private information, affect witnesses, or complicate a fair trial. Public access should not mean every proceeding is automatically broadcast or shared without limits. But restrictions should answer a specific need, and courts should explain why less restrictive options would not work.
The legal question is unsettled. The Sixth Circuit has previously rejected a right to courtroom audio in a case where people could attend, obtain a transcript, or seek permission to record. Hallman’s appeal asks whether those alternatives are meaningful when an official recording exists but the public cannot obtain or share it.
My experience has left me wary of asking families simply to trust that the written record tells the whole story. That is not a judgment about the allegations in Hallman’s case, or a claim that every courtroom recording should be released. It is a reminder that transparency matters most when people have reason to question whether the available record is complete.
Courts ask the public to trust the process. That trust is stronger when people can see how the process works—and when the record is sufficient to assess it. A transcript may be part of that record. It should not automatically be treated as the whole of it.
