EUGENE, Ore. -- Judge Jack Billings denied requests from both KVAL TV and The Register-Guard newspaper to bring a camera into the courtroom to cover Tuesday's sentencing of Matthew Ellmers, who pleaded guilty to driving drunk and causing a crash that killed four people and left a boy seriously injured.

Judge Mary Ann Bearden had allowed cameras in the courtroom for an earlier hearing in the case.

"Those victims who wish to address the media can do so outside the courtroom," Billings wrote in a letter to Denae D'Arcy of KVAL TV and Rob Romig of The Register-Guard. "The public's 'right to know' will be adequately covered by any media representatives in the audience taking notes in the usual manner."

Judge: TV camera "a fairly intimidating device" 

In the letter to KVAL and The Register-Guard, Billings said the defendant Ellmers, through counsel, opposed having a camera in the courtroom.

District Attorney Alex Gardner favored having a camera present. However, some, but not all, of the family members who planned to testify told prosecutors they would prefer not to have a camera present.

Billings cited two concerns in his letter: first, the defendant's right to due process; and second, the rights of victims to be present and make statements at sentencing.

"A number of them have expressed through the District Attorney that the presence of television and/or still photography would tend to intimidate them in what will be in any case an intensely stressful event," the judge wrote.

"Even for someone who's been around the block, like myself, it's a fairly intimidating device," Billings said of TV cameras at the outset of Tuesday's hearing.

He also speculated that, if the case went to trial, he would have likely faced a motion to move the trial to another jurisdiction.

"I've been in this business since 1971," said Billings, who added he doesn't watch TV. "I've never seen a case, ever, that has received such intense, relentless media coverage."

Billings also presided over the trial of protestor Ian Van Ornum. The judge allowed a television camera in the courtroom for that trial but required the pool TV camera to also provide still images and audio for newspapers and radio.

The Uniform Trial Court Rules adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court direct courts that "one pool video camera and one pool still camera and one pool tape recorder shall be permitted."

However, the advent of video content on more media Web sites has broken down some of the walls between different media, with newspaper reporters and photographers sometimes using video cameras to capture moving images for Web sites.

The pool camera in the Van Ornum case, operated by KVAL TV, provided still images that appeared in print on the front page of The Register-Guard newspaper.

What did the public miss?

The absence of a camera in the courtroom means the public will only be able to read about the testimony of Ellmers and the families of his victims.

The public also won't be able to see and hear Billings conduct the proceedings or sentence Ellmers, who could have faced almost 46 years in prison. Billings sentenced Ellmers to 20 years in prison.

Billings, who became a judge in 1993, ran unopposed for re-election in May 2008.

From the Uniform Trial Court Rules adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court

3.180 MEDIA OR OTHER PUBLIC ACCESS COVERAGE OF COURT EVENTS

(1) Courtrooms. Upon request or on the court’s own motion, after notice to all parties, public access coverage shall be allowed in any courtroom, except as provided under this rule.

(2) There shall be no public access coverage of the following:

(a) Proceedings in chambers.

(b) Any notes or conversations intended to be private including, but not limited to, counsel and judges at the bench and conferences involving counsel and their clients.

(c) Dissolution, juvenile, paternity, adoption, custody, visitation, support, mental commitment, trade secrets, and abuse, restraining and stalking order proceedings.

(d) At a victim's request, sex offense proceedings.

(e) Voir dire.

(f) Any juror anywhere during the course of the trial in which he or she sits.

(g) Recesses.

(3) Limitations on Denial of Public Access Coverage in Courtrooms. A judge may deny a request for or terminate public access coverage only if the judge makes findings of fact on the record setting forth substantial reasons for the denial. The judge may prohibit public access coverage if there is a reasonable likelihood of any of the following:

(a) The public access coverage would interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial or would affect the presentation of evidence or outcome of the trial.

(b) Any cost or increased burden resulting from the public access coverage would interfere with the efficient administration of justice.

(4) A judge may summarily prohibit public access coverage of a particular witness only if the judge finds on the record that public access coverage would endanger the welfare of the witness or materially hamper the witness' testimony.

(5) Areas Outside of Courtrooms. The presiding judge may allow public access coverage in any area outside the courtroom that is on the courthouse premises and under the control and supervision of the court. Courts are encouraged to designate an area or areas outside the courtroom that is on the courthouse premises for public access coverage. For areas subject to this subsection, each judicial district, by SLR, may establish, for any court location, procedures for obtaining permission for public access coverage that differ from this subsection or may designate locations where public access coverage is allowed or prohibited. SLR 3.181 is reserved for SLR adopted under this subsection.

(6) Public Access Coverage Defined. As used in this rule:

(a) "Public access coverage" means coverage by means of any public access coverage equipment.

(b) "Public access coverage equipment" means any of the following in the possession of persons other than the court or the court's staff: television equipment; still photography equipment; audio, video, or other electronic recording equipment.

(7) Equipment and Personnel for Public Access Coverage. The court may limit the location of public access coverage equipment. One pool video camera and one pool still camera and one pool tape recorder shall be permitted.

(a) No public access coverage device shall be operated by more than one person.

(b) No person shall use public access coverage equipment that interferes or distracts from proceedings in the courtroom.

(c) The video camera must be mounted on a tripod or other device or installed in the courtroom. The tripod or other device must not be moved while the proceedings are in session. Video equipment must be screened where practicable or located and operated as directed by the court.

(d) No artificial lighting devices of any kind shall be allowed.

(e) Any pooling arrangement required by limitations on equipment and personnel imposed by the judge or by this rule must be the sole responsibility of the persons seeking public access coverage, without calling upon the judge to mediate any disputes involved therein. In the absence of agreement on such issues by persons seeking public access coverage, the judge may exclude any or all public access coverage.

(8) Upon request, any person engaging in public access coverage of a court event or in a courtroom, courthouse, its premises, or environs under the control and supervision of the court must provide to the court, without expense, or to any other person, if the requestor pays actual copying expense, a copy of any public access coverage the person performed.

(9) A judge may impose other restrictions or limitations necessary to preserve the solemnity, decorum, and dignity of the court and to protect the parties, witnesses, and jurors. A judge may terminate any or all public access coverage at any point upon finding, based on substantial reasons in the record, that this UTCR or other rules imposed by the judge have been violated.

(10) Nothing in this rule is intended to limit the court’s contempt powers.

(11) Nothing in this rule shall alter or affect the rules of the Supreme Court promulgated under "Video-Trial Project No. 88-38." Under that project, the audio-video coverage constitutes the entire record. In all other courts, the record shall be preserved with court reporters or audiotape. Restrictions on releasing audio-video coverage in courts participating in the Video-Trial Project shall be set forth in separate rules.