Staunton, Virginia- When judges and lawyers talk about the role of the judiciary, they usually remind that the courts are an equal partner in government, the third branch in a system of checks and balances. Then, with their next breath, too many of them try to dodge public scrutiny.

From local town councils to Congress, governments try to be transparent. They even embrace new technologies that facilitate openness. First photographers, then television cameras were allowed to record meetings so that citizens who could not attend might still experience as much as possible. Some governments still slide into secrecy, but at least most are trying.

The judiciary is the awful exception. Judges routinely rely on antiquated notions and fears of exposure to justify keeping cameras out of the courtroom. It happened in Staunton just last week.

Staunton’s overzealous commonwealth’s attorney, Raymond Robertson, [pictured] is prosecuting felony obscenity charges against an adult video store. The case has drawn national and local attention, and many people no doubt will want to see the testimony as Virginia’s obscene obscenity law is tested. They will need to show up early to get a seat in the courtroom.

Judge Thomas Wood banned cameras after attorneys for both sides objected to them. Citizens must rely on secondhand reports rather than a direct recording of the trial. Good for newspapers; bad for a free democracy.

Precious few courts permit cameras. Despite experiments in a couple of circuit courts that found few deleterious effects, judges remain camera-shy.

Cameras might make things messy and difficult, but that does not justify secrecy. Democracy is messy and difficult.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears the nation’s most-scrutinized cases, remains hostile to them. It moves toward transparency at a glacial pace.

Last week the court released same-day audio of the challenge to the Washington, D.C., gun ban. It normally does not release recordings until months after a hearing. Everyone had a chance to hear nuances of tone lost in a transcript.

Cameras could offer even more. Viewers could see who is speaking, facial expressions and visual evidence.

If the courts continue to balk, the other two branches of government should fulfill their duty to be a check and balance. Pass legislation to direct courts to open up. Let the people witness the justice their taxes pay for in Staunton and the Supreme Court.