Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · North America

Sixth Circuit considers access to Michigan court audio after abuse allegation

The Sixth Circuit heard arguments over Samantha Hallman’s effort to obtain Oakland County courtroom audio after she alleged a judge verbally abused her brother. The panel is considering whether the First Amendment requires the court to release the recording.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 3 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 1 of 3 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 7 entries
3 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Too few ratedL 0 · C 1 · R 1 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: United States
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • Hallman says a judge verbally abused her brother during a plea hearing in Oakland County, Michigan.
  • The court released a transcript, but the audio recording remains unavailable.
  • Sophia Miller, a law student arguing for Hallman, said public access to the proceeding and transcript but not the recording conflicts with First Amendment access principles.
  • Hallman says she sought publication of the recording to encourage voters to elect a more qualified judge.

The brief

Samantha Hallman is seeking to make public an Oakland County courtroom audio recording from her brother’s plea hearing, alleging that a judge verbally abused him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit heard arguments in her case over whether the county court should have to release the recording, the Washington Examiner reported.

The Oakland County court released a transcript of the proceeding, but the audio remains unavailable. Hallman’s lawsuit asks the court to require release of the recording. The dispute therefore concerns access to the audio, distinct from access to the hearing’s transcript.

Sophia Miller, a law student who argued for Hallman, told the appeals court that allowing access to the proceeding and transcript while withholding the recording conflicts with First Amendment access principles. Her argument rests on the difference between being able to read the official account and hearing the recorded proceeding itself.

Lawyers for the Oakland County judges take the opposing position. In a brief to the appeals court, they argued that the First Amendment does not provide a right to access or copy the recordings at issue. Their position addresses both listening to the audio and making a copy of it.

Hallman says she sought publication of the recording to encourage voters to elect a more qualified judge. That is her stated reason for seeking release; the allegation of verbal abuse is also Hallman’s claim.

The Washington Examiner’s account describes the court’s decision to release a transcript while withholding the audio, and records the competing arguments over whether the Constitution requires access to the recording. The appeal puts the legal question before the Sixth Circuit: whether the court must release this courtroom audio under the First Amendment.

The Washington Examiner also notes that the Supreme Court has been resistant to cameras in courtrooms and began audio livestreaming oral arguments in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. That background concerns courtroom recording practices generally; the dispute before the appeals court is about access to the Oakland County audio.

Why it matters

  • Hallman’s request concerns whether the public can hear the audio of a plea hearing when the Oakland County court has released only a transcript.
  • The outcome could determine whether the First Amendment requires access to this recording; Hallman’s lawyer and the county judges’ lawyers argue opposing positions.
  • Hallman says publication would encourage voters to elect a more qualified judge, making public access to the recording part of her stated aim.

What to watch next

  • Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit requires Oakland County to release the recording.
  • How the court addresses the First Amendment arguments made by Sophia Miller and the lawyers for the Oakland County judges.
  • Whether the recording becomes available in addition to the transcript already released by the Oakland County court.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
3 source articles · 3 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Too few rated· 1 Center · 1 Right · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Unknown 67% · US/Canada 33%
Outlet political mix
Too few rated
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
1 outlet
1 outlet
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
3 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

Updat3 does not yet have enough full reports to compare how outlets framed this story.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. The First Amendment was ratified, protecting freedom of speech from government abridgment.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. Michigan voters ratified a state constitution that protects freedom of speech and the press.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  3. Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, enacted in 1976, governs access to records held by public bodies, while Michigan Court Rule 8.119 addresses access to court records.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court held in *Nixon v. Warner Communications* that the public had no automatic right under the common law to copy and broadcast recordings admitted as evidence at a criminal trial.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. In 1980, *Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia* recognized a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, grounding it in the history and function of open proceedings.
    Background · from our historical context
  6. The U.S. Supreme Court applied the First Amendment access principle to jury selection in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. The U.S. Supreme Court set out a history-and-function test for access to criminal proceedings in Press-Enterprise II.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court held in *Nixon v. Warner Communications* that the public had no automatic right under the common law to copy and broadcast recordings admitted as evidence at a criminal trial. In 1980, *Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.

Virginia* recognized a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, grounding it in the history and function of open proceedings. In 1984, *Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court* applied that principle to jury selection, and in 1986, *Press-Enterprise Co. v.

Original sources

2 of 3 articles · Unknown · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.