## Facts

- In a Harris County capital-murder prosecution, the trial judge signed a pretrial order permitting certain media outlets to videotape the jury’s deliberations for later use in a public-education documentary.
- The order required that the camera be unattended and that no media personnel or court staff be present in the jury room.
- The criminal defendant consented in writing to the recording; prospective jurors who objected were excused by agreement, and selected jurors stated the camera would not affect deliberations.
- The State objected and filed an original mandamus proceeding seeking an order compelling the trial judge to vacate the portion authorizing videotaping of deliberations.
- The appellate court stayed the trial proceedings while considering the mandamus request.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may authorize videotaping of jury deliberations for later public broadcast, even with party and juror consent, consistent with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 36.22.
2. Whether mandamus relief is available to stop the recording before it occurs.

## Decision

- The court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial judge to vacate the portion of the order permitting videotaping of jury deliberations.
- The court treated an unattended video camera as an impermissible “presence” in the jury room during deliberations under article 36.22.
- The court held that consent by the defendant and jurors did not authorize what the statute forbids because the rule protects the jury system and the public interest, not merely private litigants.
- The court concluded that policy goals such as public education could not override the statute; any change must come from the legislature.
- The court found mandamus appropriate because the order was a clear abuse of discretion under a controlling statute and because the loss of jury-deliberation secrecy could not be cured by appeal once recorded.

## Legal Principles

- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 36.22 bars any person from being with the jury during deliberations except in narrow, court-ordered circumstances defined by the statute.
- Recording jury deliberations for later viewing conflicts with the statute’s text and purpose by compromising the confidentiality and independence of the deliberative process.
- The secrecy of jury deliberations is a structural protection; it is not fully waivable by party agreement or juror assurances.
- Mandamus lies to correct a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion when a statute imposes a clear legal duty and there is no adequate remedy by appeal, including where the threatened harm is irreparable.

## Conclusion

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 36.22 prohibits videotaping jury deliberations, even by an unattended camera and even with consent, and it conditionally granted mandamus to prevent an irreparable breach of jury-room secrecy.


State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)