Those who follow news reports of criminal cases have likely seen photographs and/or video captured during out-of-state court proceedings and wondered why they don’t see similar scenes from inside Pennsylvania’s courtrooms.

The short answer is: Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 112 prohibits cameras in courtrooms.

The longer answer begins: Pennsylvania is only one of five states in the nation with very rigid restrictions that need to be updated for the sake of transparency and accountability.

During the recent preliminary hearing held in Manhattan for Luigi Mangione, the man accused in the fatal shooting of United HealthCare CEO Brian Thompson, Judge Gregory Carro permitted the news media, with some restrictions, to take photos inside the courtroom before daily proceedings started.

The judge also ruled that the media could have access to evidence presented in court during Mangione’s hearing — including a 911 recording, police body camera video, surveillance video and photos.

Because of Carro’s rulings — in accordance with New York law — the Mirror’s website was able to post a recording of the 911 call prompting Altoona police in December 2024 to head to the McDonalds on Plank Road to check out a customer resembling the man who shot the CEO.

And because of Carro’s ruling, the Mirror was among news outlets able to post body camera video recordings, showing how Altoona police interacted with Mangione whose defense team is challenging his arrest and search of his belongings which turned up a gun and a notebook with a handwritten reference to whacking a CEO.

In light of Pennsylvania’s Rule 112, we would describe Judge Carro’s rulings as refreshing and welcome.

In Pennsylvania courtrooms, judges have long relied on Rule 112 — prohibiting photography and broadcasting of judicial proceedings in criminal and civil trials — to keep cameras and recording devices out of their courtrooms. That same rule has been blamed for restricting access to photos, videos and exhibits shown inside courtrooms during public proceedings. But denying access shouldn’t be so easy.

Earlier this year, Republican state Rep. Jamie Flick of Lycoming and Union counties re-introduced legislation to permit video and audio recordings of criminal and civil court proceedings in Pennsylvania courtrooms, with exclusions for jurors and juveniles. He said his desire is greater transparency and accountability of those involved, including judges, attorneys, defendants and plaintiffs.

He mentioned Pennsylvania’s infamous “Cash for Kids” scandal in the early 2000s and suggested that the pair of Luzerne County judges taking bribes to send juveniles to privately-owned lock-ups could have been exposed earlier if cameras recorded their actions.

Flick said his office identified only five states — Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma — that prohibit cameras in courtrooms. And from polling constituents, Flick reported more than 95% endorsed having cameras in common pleas courts.

In a LancasterOnline story published in February, those against cameras in courtrooms came up with typical objections. They proposed that cameras could allow a jury trial to be turned into a circus and subject testifying witnesses to harassment.

In countering those arguments, media law attorney Michael Berry of Philadelphia spoke of practicing law in states where there were cameras in the courtrooms and how presiding judges exercised discretion.

“The public has a right to see what happens in court, and that right shouldn’t be limited only to people who can take the time to go to the courthouse to observe,” Berry told LancasterOnline.

After seeing how Judge Carro’s rulings governed media access to Mangione’s preliminary hearing and paved the way for releasing evidence shown inside the courtroom, we couldn’t agree more.