I have a request from a pro se defendant to record with video equipment the proceedings at the J.P. court a speeding trial. Has anyone dealt with this before?

If he's saying it's public because it is in open court and he wants to permit it to be recorded, that is one thing.

But if, as it sounds, he's trying to make a record so he can appeal on the record instead of de novo, he is out of luck. It can't be the 'official' record of the trial proceedings because there is no authorized equivalent to a reporter's record in a JP court. In some municipal courts, of course, there are 'court of record' laws now authorized by statute, but not in JP courts.

Courts (including J.P. courts) have inherent authority to control the mode and order of proceedings. Ex parte Jacobs, 664 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Marx v. State, 987 S.W.2d 577, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Keller, J., dissenting). Courts must require that proceedings be orderly, expeditious, and controlled so that justice is done. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 21.001(b) (West Supp. 2011).

Video cameras can act as an improper outside influence on the trier of fact. See State ex. rel Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 199-201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (discussing taping of jury deliberations, but also noting subtle influence cameras can have on recording of other trial proceedings).

There are rules for videotaping civil trials. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18c. There are rules for videotaping appellate proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 14.1, 14.2. Absent criminal-specific rules, I'd argue that the justice court's discretion appropriately allows for the prohibition of videorecording (out of concern that it will interfere with the orderly administration of justice). Additionally, as Ann correctly notes, the defendant can't use the recordings for any proper appeal.

File a short memo in the justice court along with a proposed order prohibiting videography without advance permission by the judge. The judge should remind all persons in the courtroom prior to trial about the order of prohibition, as well as the potential for criminal and civil contempt for violation of the no-videotaping order.