You Be the Judge: Spotlighting the Texas Judiciary on YouTube

As of today, she has approximately 23,800 subscribers on YouTube. According to her bio on Trellis, the Hon. Stephanie R. Boyd is a judge for the 187th District Court in Bexar County, Texas. She was elected to the bench in 2018. Judge Boyd has gained attention for live-streaming courtroom proceedings on her YouTube page. Are livestreams of court hearings on YouTube a good thing? You be the Judge! Today, let’s dive into the transformation of the Texas judiciary through livestreaming.

Covid Changes the Game

The Honorable Judge Emily Miskel is a justice for Place 13 of the 5th District Court of Appeals of Texas. She was appointed to the bench by Governor Greg Abbott on December 20, 2022, filling a vacancy created by the resignation of the Hon. Leslie Lester Osborne.

Before her appointment, however, Miskel was a judge for the 470th District Court in Collin County, Texas, a position she was named to in 2015. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she held the nation’s first fully remote hearing and its first entirely virtual bench trial.

In a 2020 interview with Slate Magazine, Miskel, as a sitting Collin County judge, commented on risks associated with live streaming and that in Texas, judges are elected every four years, and “everyone’s worst fear is that you go viral in your election year.” In the same article, “David Slayton, the administrative director of Texas’ Office of Court Administration and one of the masterminds behind the state’s virtual migration, expressed worries about live streaming sensitive matters … ‘like family violence or child protection cases.’”

**Access to Justice for All or ‘Infotainment’?**

Last year, a formal complaint was lodged against Judge Stephanie Boyd with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, stemming from a July 6, 2023 hearing involving sexual assault defendant Wilberth Villamil. Villamil was expected to enter a no-contest plea for aggravated sexual assault of a child in exchange for a 15-year sentence. However, Judge Boyd questioned the plea deal’s adequacy during the live-streamed session, which attracted over 8,500 viewers and numerous derogatory comments towards Villamil. Despite the prosecutor’s explanation that the agreement aimed to prevent retraumatizing the victim at the family’s request, Judge Boyd proposed extending the sentence to 20 years. The case was later transferred, and Villamil ultimately received the initially proposed 15-year sentence in a different court. The complaint against Boyd accused her of violating the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct through her livestream comments. Judge Boyd, however, emphasized her commitment to courtroom transparency but declined to comment on the sealed case, as reported by KSAT Online in Texas.

According to Slate Magazine, “[At] the onset of the pandemic, 38 states [… ] issued orders to mandate or urge the use of virtual hearings, according to the National Center for State Courts.” Indeed, according to the same article, “Texas, had held “more than 350,000 virtual hearings [from about] mid-March 2020, and has [established itself as] a leader in promoting public access. Court administration encouraged judges to create YouTube channels, which have been collected into an online directory.”

Scales of Justice Balancing Transparency, Fairness, and Privacy

Livestreaming court proceedings significantly amplifies transparency, a cornerstone of public trust in the judicial system. By breaking down the physical barriers to courtroom access, livestreaming ensures that justice is not only done but seen to be done by a broader audience. This accessibility fosters an informed citizenry, allowing the public to witness the intricacies of legal arguments, the application of laws, and the impartiality of the judiciary firsthand. Moreover, such broadcasts serve as invaluable learning resources for educational institutions, legal practitioners, and law students, offering real-time insights into courtroom dynamics and judicial reasoning.

However, this digital openness is full of pitfalls. Foremost among these is the potential compromise of trial fairness. The omnipresent “court of public opinion” on social media platforms can influence the perceptions of witnesses, jurors, and even the judiciary, threatening the integrity of proceedings. Furthermore, the anonymity afforded to online commenters can lead to unwarranted character assassinations of the parties involved, magnifying the social and psychological burdens on victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

Privacy concerns also loom large. The Internet’s memorable nature means that once a trial is streamed, participants’ identities and testimonies become part of the permanent public record, accessible long after the verdict is delivered. This could have lasting repercussions on participants’ personal and professional lives, particularly in sensitive cases.

Judicial systems must navigate the intersection of openness and privacy, ensuring that while proceedings are made accessible, measures are in place to protect the fairness of trials and the dignity of individuals. Crafting policies that allow for selective streaming, anonymizing participants in sensitive cases, and implementing robust moderation of online platforms could mitigate risks. As the legal landscape evolves, the goal remains clear: to harness the power of technology in fostering a transparent, accessible, and just judicial process.

Interested in Learning More About the Judges Featured Today?

Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.