When the Ninth Circuit announced last month that it was launching an experimental program that would allow video cameras in district court courtrooms, the first question on everybody’s mind seemed to be: “Will the Prop 8 trial be televised?”

Now, the question is, “Will you settle for delayed broadcast on YouTube?”

Though the case seems a rather  obvious first choice for the program in light of its high profile, the decision is not without controversy:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ordered the video coverage, the first for a federal trial in California, over the objections of Proposition 8’s sponsors. Their lawyer argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.

“The knowledge that you’re testifying to untold thousands or millions … can cause some witnesses to become more timid” and induce others to be overly dramatic, attorney Michael Kirk told Walker.

Prop. 8’s campaign committee, Protect Marriage, has maintained that some of its supporters have been harassed, and that witnesses whose testimony was widely seen would face further danger.

Walker will have the power to order that individual witnesses’ faces be concealed or their voices muted on the YouTube uploads.

***

Lawyers for the couples supported video coverage. “What happens in the courtroom is public property,” attorney Theodore Boutrous told Walker.

A few people may be able to view a live feed — presuming camera coverage goes forward at all. Keep in mind that the press release announcing the program said “[c]ases to be considered for the pilot program will be selected by the chief judge of the district court in consultation with the chief circuit judge.” And the San Francisco Chronicle article notes:

Walker’s order, subject to final approval by the appeals court’s chief judge, allows live video feeds to public areas of federal appeals courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle and Portland, Ore., and to a federal court in Chicago that has requested it.

University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that “it does appear that public comment process has been completely short-circuited,” citing this post at Bench Memos claiming “procedural shenanigans” by the district judge to get around the public comment period for changes in the local rules.

The YouTube link is here.