MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-. c c CJ The Case against Cameras in the Courtroom By Jack G. Da”y In January, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Chandler v. Florida [49 LAW WEEK 4141; 126811 that the states were free to experiment with the television broadcast of trials, that such broadcasts were not “inherently a denial of due process,” and that the burden of proving that a fair trial was compromised by a broadcast was on the defendant. ” These conclusions do not foreclose opposition to cameras in the courtroom. Opponents can still attempt to persuade a state that the experiment is an inherent violation of the state constitution or is unwise as a matter of state policy. In addition, the federal issue is still open. Obviously, the Supreme Court has not said what it would do in future cases. It is implicit in Chandler that the court will opt for “inherent infection” if sufficient empirical data are developed to support it. Some data and an abundance of argument already exist to oppose an extension of the Chandler result. It follows that the field should not be left to the victors in that cause. The Judges' Journal Winter, 1981, Vol. 20, No. 1 American Bar Association eras in the courtroom focuses on whether or not the broadcasting industry has sufficient technical skills to screen trial pro- ceedings absolutely from physical or noise interference. I assume this argument to be correct, but it provides no jus- tification for allowing cameras in the
L c courtroom. Instead, overwhelming rea- according to law. True, an open trial is sons for forbidding videotaping or televis- essential to a fair trial and prevents ing trials still remain. subversion of process, but that objective The‘judicial process is not designed or is served adequately by a full transcript, intended to educate, inform, or entertain a public presence, and media represen- the public. It is a search for truth. It is a tatives in the courtroom. Additional solemn, frequently tedious effort that set- public gains other than securing a fair tles questions about the rights of litigants trial are ancillary and must be considered The Judges' Journal Winter, 1981, Vol. 20, No. 1 American Bar Association 19
Page 1 and 2: 1, c .” c c I.., EXHIBITS MINNESO
Page 4 and 5: EVERYONE knows how much the knife-w
Page 6 and 7: ogcment included - are strongly C\I
Page 8 and 9: c ‘1 G to strrct (.l’i11N’. I
Page 10 and 11: ‘for them to identify with the wh
Page 12 and 13: UNlFtiRM RENTAL SERVICE WHAT OUR UN
Page 14 and 15: ~tea.l the &r, he only borrowed it.
Page 16 and 17: .&. tran$erred to: the federal drug
Page 18 and 19: society? Has he a family,’ a j,ob
Page 20 and 21: c c I. Civil Case - State Courts A.
Page 22 and 23: c c c persons assets. 3) Also has j
Page 24 and 25: c c G 4) Appeals taken to District
Page 26 and 27: conviction appeals from State court
Page 28 and 29: -2 Everyone is expected to read at
Page 30 and 31: BEADING SCHEDULE: Week 1 -- New Str
Page 32 and 33: c 0 j-3-776 - 2 C. Course Outline \
Page 34 and 35: c 0 Jai-776 - 4 Hentoff, Nat, The F
Page 36 and 37: c Statement on "Cameras in the Cour
Page 38 and 39: . -3- 5 Trial participants - partie
Page 40 and 41: l 0 e (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)
Page 44 and 45: ‘C . 0 Jack G. Day is a judge of
Page 46 and 47: Day (Continuedfiom page 21) Did the
Page 48 and 49: di . 0 ! REPORT AND RECQMMENDATIOti
Page 50 and 51: c 3 I, c f Attitude questionnaires
Page 52 and 53: c c 5 I . ‘( Recapitulation- of P
Page 54 and 55: . . Perception of the Court and the
Page 56 and 57: c c Jurors - 53% difficult to avoid
Page 58 and 59: e c 11 SUMMARY It should be clear t
Page 60 and 61: * c G . . . 14 __ __ ,_-,.._ ...b.-
Page 62 and 63: c cj e \ 16 I oppose strongly media
Page 64 and 65: ( ‘- c, OFFICE OTTHE PUBLIC DEFEN
Page 66 and 67: c c . NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CHAMB
Page 68 and 69: Mr. John S. Pillsbury, Jr. Septembe
Page 70 and 71: c September 9, 1981 Mr. John S. Pil
Page 72 and 73: c G CHAMnLRs or MITCHELL A. DUBOW J
Page 74 and 75: 0 c1 MARTIN J. MANSUR JUDGE Mr. Joh
Page 76 and 77: c c c , ’ . . . % .- .z . a Court
Page 78 and 79: c c c . Courtroom Coverage (Ho>?) 1
Page 80 and 81: c G , . Courtroom Coverage (Hoyt) 1
Page 82 and 83: c c . , Courtroom Coverage (Hoyt) 4
Page 84 and 85: c 0 * . Courtroom Coverage (Hoyt) 4
Page 86 and 87: c CJ c Sec. I: Sec.. II The Court O
Page 88 and 89: c i committee takes this opportunit
Page 90 and 91: c c 9. Use of Evidence -4- Any film
Page 92 and 93:
c I c r* . ‘. For use by the comm
Page 94 and 95:
c -89 * / ‘Itto media-related pro
Page 96 and 97:
c -10. they could leave but could n
Page 98 and 99:
c c . I. 6. -12. Khat, if an-f, eff
Page 100 and 101:
c . L -14- - Shfense at tcrney t Ja
Page 102 and 103:
c . . -16- . 11. Ki-isc overall adv
Page 104 and 105:
e The natw?, of the case mado it ha
Page 106 and 107:
c c i -2s Dafandznt And defense wit
Page 108 and 109:
c ! “22” Richard D. Hochstaader
Page 110 and 111:
c; . . . * . . . . , . . . - . . .
Page 112 and 113:
c -26- strict in chair construction
Page 114 and 115:
-28- The jury was chosen in an exte
Page 116 and 117:
0 G c than any pressures resulting
Page 118 and 119:
c c e -32- assertfag that the pract
Page 120 and 121:
c CJ c -349 (4) Tic: CASE OF FTEON
Page 122 and 123:
c . c -36- out for televising becau
Page 124 and 125:
c c -30- (f) Throughout the trial I
Page 126 and 127:
c -409 the possfbflity of abuse is
Page 128 and 129:
-42” Ellen ZetteL and published i
Page 130 and 131:
c c c He adds that Met, as chief ju
Page 132 and 133:
c G -460 any photographers in the C
Page 134 and 135:
c c -18- “‘,$a to the overall e
Page 136 and 137:
c c -so- Tbere is, however, at the
Page 138 and 139:
c t c making the experimental rules
Page 140 and 141:
c CJ -540 and radio broadcasting in
Page 142 and 143:
c I BASIC POLICY VIEWS OF THE COMMI
Page 144 and 145:
c L -5a- not be permitted to speak
Page 146 and 147:
c 1 -60. invasion of jury anonymity
Page 148 and 149:
c c, Furthermore, no rules can be o
Page 150 and 151:
cr c c -64. (b) Two still photograp
Page 152 and 153:
-66- (b) Camera operators shall occ
Page 154 and 155:
c c Court Guidelk.e !Io. 9 Use of S
Page 156 and 157:
, L, i Court Guideline No. 11 -7o-
Page 158 and 159:
LJ 0 . CJ -72- 1Che Cmraf.ttet beli
Page 160 and 161:
0 c . -74- courts as instruments of
Page 162 and 163:
, STATE OF ‘NISCOFJSIN . c 0 Dare
Page 164 and 165:
* I ,. i..' 0 APPENDIX B QUESTIONS
Page 166 and 167:
! z . . * -3- 11. Describe any requ
Page 168 and 169:
c 5. Did c -2- (a) colevision camer
Page 170 and 171:
c c APPENDIX D QUESTIONS ADDRESSED
Page 172 and 173:
c c 5. 'What effect, i:! any, do yo
Page 174 and 175:
c c OtPN?TMt?NT OF POLITICAL SCIENC
Page 176 and 177:
e; c court over the use of the equi
Page 178 and 179:
c L c 6: Mhile the Comnittea is div
Page 180 and 181:
c c c necessary in order to prevent
Page 182 and 183:
c c l whan It wi 11 not interfere w
Page 184 and 185:
i c COHMITTEE TO RECOMMEND RUtES ON
Page 186 and 187:
c t : . . Professor David Fellman F
Page 188 and 189:
c c / L . I‘ . Professor David Fe
Page 190 and 191:
.w.ls :n ;:oc: G! !!I> 1033x:$.:t 1
Page 192 and 193:
c LJ c -2- (d) One audio system for
Page 194 and 195:
c / c 12. , -4- permitted, but clos
Page 196 and 197:
. L c G . Patrl trial Page 2 Court.
Page 198 and 199:
Patri trial Pa88 4 c coom. The Chan
Page 200 and 201:
, Li c I c Patri trial Page 6 91 ta
Page 202 and 203:
c t c . ;I ** I . -2- Judge Frederi
Page 204 and 205:
c c If additional scace is needed f
Page 206 and 207:
’ l . R@ 4 , . -3- Alan Eimnberg
Page 208 and 209:
c c i . ’ . i . P. ‘se -2- PM&p
Page 210 and 211:
l ‘, Harold Elauer, Veupaca Counk
Page 212 and 213:
The Rev. tichard biundt, pastor of
Page 214 and 215:
c L c -. Mr. Jean Clark, assists t
Page 216 and 217:
c c c . . Mr. Loslle Xeyer, state f
Page 218 and 219:
c c , . . Dr. Anm Campbell of Elm G
Page 220 and 221:
c , a. . Mrs. Jacqr line Bartlett *
Page 222 and 223:
c . c c .’ . 5. Mrs. Elaine Betz
Page 224 and 225:
L i t c ._--.. _ .I...._ _.-. _. .
Page 226 and 227:
c / c . , * . Mrs. Leona Choata ;*
Page 228 and 229:
LJ 5; 6. What ef,"ect, ii any, do y
Page 230 and 231:
t c . . ’ Ers. Eva Farrls 5. What
Page 232 and 233:
. c : ,, ‘I. . xrs. Jacquellzls &
Page 234 and 235:
c , * * . Mr. Frank Eitson 5. What
Page 236 and 237:
c I c c 5. Cat effect, if any, da y
Page 238 and 239:
c c c J * l . . . I 5. 6. *a. Ws. E
Page 240 and 241:
c c . 8 . a . Mr. Jama 9 ShoLlts 5.
Page 242:
c e c , . 5. 6. 7. 8. Mrs. Sandra
show all

MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?