I think this would usually be a gray area. Recording a judicial commitee in one of those states could be dangerous legally. A lawsuit or criminal case could be devastating, even if the person wins. However, I believe it would also be dangerous for the elders to assume that they are protected by state law. It's quite possible that a judge would view judicial committees as an exception or that the constitutional rights of the accused trump the state law.
"And yes, both criminal and civil damages can be assessed if you violate the laws. This does not hold for public meetings but any meeting where there can be an expectation of privacy and JC's would definitely be included in that."
I frankly don't see what is definite about judicial committees. Here is an interesting link about a case in Florida http://www.ocala.com/article/20101225/articles/101229821?p=1&tc=pg
Here is an interesting quote. "The courts have gone on to say that in addition to a party expecting privacy at a location, the expectation must include a ‘societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable,' " Haldin quoted from a court decision."
The elders can ask for privacy during a JC but I doubt that society would agree that it is wrong to record a JC for the protection of the accused. Our society values due process and protection of the weak. Most people would be horrified at what goes on in judicial committees and would be in favor of the accused recording it if it helps to protect him in a process that could result in a violation of his religious rights, a breakup of his family and destruction of his reputation.
Furthermore, the elders realize that the results of the JC may be sent to headquarters and possible announced to the congregation. They also know that their statements may later be discussed in an appeal. I don't see how they can claim that they have an expectation of privacy.