Special Episode

[00:00:00]

ChristineWelcome to a special episode of the Judgmental Podcast. We are actually on site at the courthouse, and we want to update you about a scenario that just happened in real time.

HughYeah, well, we were sitting hooking up microphones and deciding what courts to go check out and what we might want to sit through , and watch. And McKay Chauvin the court administrator happened to be standing nearby and Christine said hello and started a conversation with him about quite a few things.

ChristineYes. And McKay Chauvin is a former circuit court judge. He's the current court administrator. There was a scenario that happened in February of 2024 where a family court judge. Secretly selfie recorded a domestic violence hearing from the bench and posted it to TikTok. After that, the local news was interested in running a story WDRB. And at that [00:01:00] time, McKay Chauvin went on the record for WDRB and the story never happened.

HughWhat do you mean explain? He went on the record for them.

ChristineSo when the news reaches out to you, they'll often ask you, do you wanna go on the record or stay off the record? And there was like a questionnaire. And again, this was back in February of 2024. It is August 8th, 2025, and certainly I was aghast personally about seeing this judge, in my opinion, exploit a victim of domestic violence. And utilize a domestic violence hearing for hashtags and for TikTok. That was my personal belief. So you're

Hughcreating clickbait out of somebody's horrible experience while they're sitting in front of you crying,

Christineright? And you could tell it was a selfie recording. Like you could look, you could tell. And at one point she almost posed for the camera. I was obviously mortified by it, and that's what started my personal journey in just saying Enough is enough. And like we've talked about before, when I first started this, I really thought it was a Louisville issue. And then the more I've looked into it, I realized how much [00:02:00] this is happening throughout the country.

HughOh, sure. They're very popular judges on TikTok and other social media that have their own accounts. Mm-hmm. And they selectively choose proceedings to record and post, and they have followings. You know, not knowing what Shaban said on the record, necessarily to the reporters, that that resulted in that story not being

Christineoh, we know run. No, we know because he typed it up and the reporter sent his responses.

HughOkay. Well, I, I just was, you know, , I've always been wondering how the distinction is made at the administrator level or at the any, anyone that has any control over it at that level, because. You're allowing somebody to use the court process for personal gain, and I always suspected that it was given a free pass because well, court proceedings are public and they're recorded anyway, so who cares if another person records it? The interesting thing is they care very much who else records it [00:03:00] and when asked whether we could record

Christineright.

HughWe were told that the judge would have to give special permission to do it because they control their courtroom, which,

Christineyeah. And not actually that judge, not the former Judge McKay, the actual judge in the courtroom, which means that the judge at all times would know whether or not that record button was on. And that's the thing about the selfie recording that you and I have talked about, where if they know they're recording, are they being performative for social media?

HughSure. And , you know, not on this particular instance, but if you see. You see some of the judges that are on TikTok that have these hearings and they have these outsized reactions to things, you know, that are in front of them every single day, and it's so clear that they're doing it because they're recording and they are wanting to get followers, and they're wanting people to click on and watch that video and see how they, you know, how they treated this deadbeat father or something like that.[00:04:00] That's influencing what happens in the courtroom that is very different than the public's interest in seeing what goes on in the courthouse or the press's interest in the courts being open. This is something that is actually having an effect on how a judge rules on a case. Yes, treats litigants, and that is a very different thing. It also. I mean, it's just part of how the judges like to try to act in the shadows a little bit. That Amen. If they can record anything they want, they're going to and they control when they're being recorded and all other circumstances, then they can make sure that it's very hard for people to see bad behavior. Yes. You would have to randomly pick. Cases, , from the public record and watch in order to find anything.

ChristineIt's very much like a dictatorship if you think about it. They're only gonna record and post things that are in the light most favorable to them. Sure. Like even if they actually are recording and they make a mistake [00:05:00] or they mistate the law, then they can just delete it. And that's what's like, let's talk about the conversation with McKay, which. Did get a little heated. I mean, I certainly just said, Hey, McKay, and he said, I heard you're talking shit. And we talked about the WDRB article. He said he can't control the news and that, you know, he was asked something and he just answered it. And so it wasn't news. But what was the most interesting to me is he said there was no problem with it. He said there

Hughwas absolutely no problem with it, with the judge recording. Anything and everything that they want in their own court and recording it however they want

Christineit at. Any time. Yeah,

Hughat any time. And

Christinedoing whatever they want with it. Yeah. And so it's not actually like those records. Are not held by the circuit clerks, like the formal record, the official court record is held by David Nicholson, the circuit clerk, and so you can go get a copy of it. But this just really begs the question, I have always been under the belief that the TikTok judge, Denise Brown, was recording much more than what she posted. But how many recordings are out there [00:06:00] from these judges? How long are they holding them? Where are they holding 'em? What devices are they storing them on? And are they trying to essentially like. Get content to be a judge Judy once they retire, to use these people's traumas in order to get fame.

HughWell, I mean that begs the question about , if you are using it for your personal commercial interest and you don't have the permission of the people that you're using in the video. I mean, yes, this is a public forum, but. Not sure how public it really is. If you control who has access to it and who films,

Christineright? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we would never be able to go in and just pop out a recording. Also, their reasoning for us not being able to go in with our cell phone tomorrow and record is the fact that it's not the full hearing, but the judges are allowed to just pick and pull from the stuff that would be the most salacious. Also, I've always thought about this. And if you look at the [00:07:00] way the TikTok judge was recording, it appears to me that it's like over on this side. And so that would mean that she's got a setup that she knows is gonna be in an angle that's favorable to her. But if she's sitting there listening for testimony that she knows could be clickbait before she pushes that button and then gets performative. Which, just the ability to multitask and listen, give litigants like full attention to hear the facts of the case and adjudicate the case when you're worried about creating content.

HughNo, I, I agree though. You just touched on my two biggest concerns with this because if it is open, anyone can record. It's a public forum, then I think in and of itself, that's not a problem. If a judge records, if we record, if it's fair and everything is open, my biggest issue with it is. If you're planning it for content and you're multitasking, you're serving two roles while you're sitting up there, you're not giving the case the proper attention. And , I mentioned this a little bit earlier while I was following around trying to keep notes of who was here for the [00:08:00] judicial roll call. I'm, I, I'm not that old, but I can't multitask all that well if I was listening to something that very well could be life or death for a domestic violence victim. And I'm really just thinking about looking out for clickbait content. That really concerns me about what the judge can do. Mm-hmm. The other piece is the performative aspect of it. If you know that, that you are recording for a specific purpose to get clicks, to get followers, you're going to act in a way that would be different than if you're not recording.

ChristineYep. You're acting in your own best interest, not a child's best interest, and not following the law. That wouldn't be your priority,

Hughand at the very least. If you're trying to be Judge Judy, which you're, you know, you're doing it for ratings, you're, you're still acting as a judge. But if you're doing that, you need the opt-in for the people to go on the show like Judge Judy. Mm-hmm. You need to say, okay guys, is it all right if I record this? Do you mind or you sign something letting me use it. For these purposes, which are not archiving the public record or keeping official record, they are for somebody's personal [00:09:00] financial gain and for followers online

ChristineLet's get back into McKay's questioning or his discussion with me. I don't even know that. Was a question. I feel like he was a little bit, and I mean, again, I don't like to do the mentality. I'm an attorney. He's an attorney. We sometimes get heated. I cannot get my feelings hurt. I am not in any capacity trying to be that sort of attorney. But I did think it was heated. Did you?

HughIt was heated. He, I mean, he came over, he was very polite at the very beginning, said, how, are you, and actually could have easily just been like, oh God, it's her. And walked away. Totally. Totally. And so he came over to. Speak and you just asked him if he'd been listening. He said, no, I haven't been listening, but I hear you're talking shit.

ChristineYeah. Well, he actually said I said, we were here for judicial roll call. There were 16 judges on the bench. And he's like, well, you're wrong about that. Yeah. And I think I said, teach me. But I did ask if he'd like to have a sit down and he said, not a chance. Which I just think, you know, I understand. I don't understand, to be honest, because I will tell you with a hundred percent certainty. Unequivocally, without question, y'all, I've been wrong before and [00:10:00] I will be wrong again. Okay. And I think that one of my biggest complaints about judges is their inability to understand that they may not get it right all the time.

HughYeah.

ChristineYou know, like, I'm not bating a thousand, are you?

HughAlways. Absolutely.

ChristineAnd so the other takeaway we talked about, like the goose and gander and just the fact of like, where are these where are these recordings? But that's the point. So what if for some reason there was a malfunction with JAVs and there is not an official court record, would the judge's cell phone and personal devices be discoverable in litigation?

HughOh, that would be very interesting. I mean. I don't know that it would be usable unless, as, as a, an official record or a, a full recording. 'cause I'm sure they're not recording the full thing. No, , but making it discoverable because the video record didn't actually happen or got lost or got corrupted or something.

ChristineWell, no, but also, you know, [00:11:00] when you record here in Kentucky, , it's not a live stream. It's not constantly recording. They push the button and then the red light goes on. So when you're walking into the courtroom that I could very easily see a scenario in which when walking into a courtroom, a party opponent, a litigant in the case, said something that could potentially be relevant. So I really think lawyers of Louisville, you guys have an absolute obligation in every single hearing to ask if the judge is recording this. Because what if there is information that you need for your client's case on a device, I mean a statement by a party opponent? Oh

Hughyeah. , You know, the judges oftentimes leave the audio on before the hearing starts and the parties and the attorneys are just sitting there, but the judges back with their staff getting ready and they have the audio on and they hear everything that you're saying in the courtroom. Mm-hmm. And I was amazed at how few people knew that and could be baited into saying things that were gonna make the judge matter to say something about the judge while you're sitting there and [00:12:00] 90% chance the judge actually heard it. The judge beforehand should

Christinenot be doing that.

HughWell, they, if you ever go back in chambers before Yeah. You will hear the client sitting there. They have the audio and they can hear the audio. So I, I would have fun and if I could get an attorney to say something about, well, if the judge would ever do, they were like, say something nasty. So the judge was already angry at them when they came in. It. It's absolutely true.

ChristineIt also begs the question, is the judge making themselves a potential witness in a case over which they're presiding? What if one party walked in and said like, what if you and I had a domestic violence case against one another? We walked in before there was any sort of recording, and I said to you, I'm gonna follow you after this and I'm gonna get you and we're not on record yet. Or if

Hughsomeone came in, of course he did it, but you just can't prove it. Yeah. And then said that, and it came through the audio and the judge heard in the back. That creates a big problem,

Christineor not even that, but if the judge is secretly recording, I mean, that is discoverable. There are. Ton of ethical issues.

HughOh, you want me to

Christineplethora, plethora issues. Y'all my favorite verbiage. But we [00:13:00] really wanna know what questions you have. And this does, we are gonna start doing big in-depth investigation on different stuff, and we really want to make sure that we do it the right way. We're not trying to be clip ba. We want y'all to have all the facts. We don't wanna just come in and say a few little snippets, and so bear with us while we try to gather all that information. But one thing I want to know is whether or not judges have a duty to tell lawyers if they're recording them.

HughYeah. I, I would like to know the regulations behind that. I would like to know, I think it would be interesting to see how different jurisdictions treated it. Mm-hmm. But for here in Louisville, the best way for us to learn about that is for. Mr. Shavan to come in here and judge Shavan to come in and talk to us and tell us his side of why he believes that there's absolutely no problem with the judge selectively recording parts of a very intimate. Hearing. Mm-hmm. And then using it for her own financial gain,

Christine[00:14:00] allegedly. Additionally, you know, we are media and so he just, he has zero issue. It'd be one thing if a judge has a strict policy or a former judge. I do not interact with media. I do not speak with media. But why is it, he indicated to me that he can't control what stories get ran, but why would he speak to some reporters and not others?

HughYeah. Well, and certainly the judges can control what stories get run if they don't. Permit people to record in the courtroom.

ChristineAbsolutely. All right, y'all, we want to know your questions. This is Judgey investigates on the fly at the actual courthouse tech issues. Stay with us. Thank y'all. Thanks.

Speaker 4Yeah. Yeah. We need some. Justice. Justin found justice.