Darlene Schempp finds herself in an uncomfortable juggling act.

The Los Angeles Superior Court judge who is presiding over the murder trial of actor Robert Blake in Van Nuys is charged with ensuring the rights of the accused in this case, a celebrity accused of a sensational crime.

Schempp initially banned electronic recording devices from her courtroom, but made concessions after complaints by a media group. She is now allowing a single video camera and a single still camera feeding a media pool during the opening and closing statements and the reading of the verdict.

“Because the role of the media is to get information and some members of the media show no deference or respect or understanding of the judge’s concerns for ensuring the rights of parties, sometimes there are very difficult control issues,” said L.A. Superior Court Judge Judith C. Chirlin. “That’s one reason judges may be very apprehensive about allowing cameras. You have to control the courtroom.”

Cameras have been allowed in the state’s courtrooms since 1984, with the adoption of what was known as Rule 980 of California’s court procedures. The pressure to restrict their access ratcheted up in the wake of the murder trial of O.J. Simpson.

Following that case, then-Gov. Pete Wilson asked the Judicial Council, which oversees the state court system, to consider instituting a ban on electronic media coverage of state trials, similar to the policy of federal courts.

The ban was not adopted, but Rule 980 was amended in 1997 to give trial judges discretion over whether to allow electronic media both inside the courtroom and around the courthouse. Judges are under no obligation to justify these rulings, which cannot be appealed.

Outside the courtrooms, restrictions on the media in and around courthouses fall under the discretion of the district’s supervising judge.

Chirlin, who favors having cameras in most cases, said a major concern is the large numbers of TV crews blocking access and disturbing the proceedings as they load and unload gear. When hearings end, crews have frequently crowded around the celebrities involved, blocking access and disrupting other courtrooms.

To deal with those issues, the Superior Court assembled a committee of judges and journalists in 2000 that visited every courthouse in the county and designated separate media rooms for interviews and press conferences.

Interests still compete

The changes have not left everyone happy.

“The access to the court system is becoming more and more limited all the time, particularly when you have no cameras in the courtroom,” said Steve Kindred, a reporter covering the Blake trial for KFWB-AM (1070) and president of the Radio Television News Association, which negotiated with Schempp for the expanded access.

“The media gets accused of grandstanding stories and chasing people into courthouse elevators, but the judges create that exact climate by restricting reporters’ movements. It’s making it impossible to report the story accurately,” he said.

Concern about letting his courtroom get out of hand led Rodney S. Melville, the Santa Barbara Superior Court judge overseeing the molestation trial of Michael Jackson, to ban all cameras from his courtroom.

Melville is set to hear opening statements on Jan. 31, and one media outlet, E Entertainment television, has taken steps to keep viewers up to date by reviving a device it used during Simpson’s civil trial. The channel will feature a nightly show with actors reading verbatim court transcripts interspersed with dramatizations.

“This is the result of there being limited access of what will be going on in the courtroom, with no cameras allowed,” said Ted Harbert, E’s president and chief executive. “We’re producing a unique product to tell this fascinating story.”

Royal F. Oaks, a partner at Barger & Wollen LLP in Los Angeles and RTNA’s general counsel, said the potential for distorting reality through dramatization is exactly why cameras should be allowed inside the courtroom.

“It’s a bad idea that the public should be forced to have access to the court system through the filter of dramatic re-creation,” Oaks said. “Because the Jackson judge banned cameras, the public is stuck with recreations by actors that do not accurately reflect the demeanor of witnesses, or actual real-life court proceedings. I think the judge should reconsider her decision to ban cameras in light of this re-creation plan.”

Harbert contends that using the transcripts to re-create what went on in the trial provides essentially the same news to the public.

“The job of our producers will be to select the key testimony, but that’s really the same job as the reporters who sit in court and take notes, and then go out and do a standup outside,” Harbert said.

Not all broadcast journalists bemoan the limitations. Eric Leonard, a reporter covering the Blake case for KFI-AM (640), has to air hourly updates on the trial throughout the day, and because he works alone, he would otherwise have to sift through all the audio for each report.

“For me, it actually makes things easier,” said Leonard. “My reports would be slowed down and more difficult. It would be nice if listeners could hear the same thing I hear in court. But I think I can do a better job by boiling down the key points of what’s going on, rather than playing awkwardly phrased questions that would be difficult to understand out of context anyway.”

The limitations also mean more room in the court’s gallery.

Kindred said many of the 30 seats inside the courtroom that the public information office has set aside for the media remain empty because, without pictures or sound, broadcast media have little to report on.