MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

c
G
c
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
-4-
One never knows for suretihat the impact is.
Because it may jeopardize fairness and because
broadcasting is not court business, why put
process at risk by an unmeasureable procedure
that is at best peripheral to court responsi-
bility?
If broadcasts are made, how will the separation
of witnesses rule be enforced? What will lack
of separation do to the power of suggestion?
How will the courts calibrate its effects?
If a broadcast trial eventually has to be re-
tried, where will an impartial jury be secured
for a second trial? Will it be necessary to
develop a rule totally sterilizing bias by
simple disavowal?
Is there jeopardy for participants in the wide-
spread identification by photograph whether
still, taped or live?
If a public broadcast is essential to a public
trial, what of equal protection? If one party
has a public electronic trial, can another insist
upon it?
The electronic media are understandably inter-
ested in drama. If dramatic eclecticism results
in one-sidedness, has Due Process been violated?