MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

‘C . 0 Jack G. Day is a judge of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate Circuit bonuses, not goals. While a trial maybe dramatic, anything that pro- motes theatrics in the courtroom should be deterred; The thespians in the legal profession (both on and off the bench) need no urging, and the system should not encourage them by enlarging the audience,. The media like to talk about t&e right to know and the educational process, but their interest is mainly, and understandably, in good theatre. Therein lies the problem. The media determine what deserves airing and what does not, which trials are to be broadcast, and what portions of those trials. And that eclecticism is exercised without regard to a just balance, except as the editors see it. A two-minute televised news story- which is considered very long-cannot do adequate justice, to the complexities in many cases. Thus, the supposed issue of the right to know is hon- ored only speciously, because a whole case is seldom if ever presented on public or even nonpublic television. Legally, the media do not have to do this, since it is not the viewing audience’s responsibility to determine guilt or innocence; thus, it is argued, the public needs no more than fragmented information further frac- tured by the accidents of interest and chance viewing. But why must we suffer distortion, when a real interest in the right to know is preserved by the public record available to anyone sufficiently motivated to read it? The so-called educational objectives of televising trials are susceptible to much the same criticism. Knowledge about the facts and applicable law in a par- ticular case cannot come in bits and pieces; random selections from a lurid trial may do no more than excite and misinform the public. What is the educational value of that? Moreover, the media’s educational goals are poorly defined. Do they want to explain the judicial process, clarify court procedures, or let the public know- that justice is being done? The first .two goals cannot be achieved by limited television exposure even if judges and lawyers were able to explain their reasons for ob- jections, rulings, and orders. The last cannot be accom- plished without a full .exposition of trial issues and, evidence, including considerable material of interest only to attorneys, judges, and insomniacs. On the other hand, what a.fragmented version of a trial is apt to do is persuade the public to take sides on the basis of limited, even esoteric, information. The viewers’ varying perceptions of the events they witness on their televisions could even do the administration of justice inestimable harm, because distorted views may lead to unfounded public decisions about both the judicial process and its product. 20 TiIE WTINESS/JUROR AS -ACTOi Regardless of the media’s objectives, cameras in the courtroom make it a stage on which nonprofessionals must perform whether they like it or not. The-average witness takes the stand with all the anxieties of a person not accustomed to public speaking compounded by the presence of a civil but hostile counsel. The possibility of ’ legitimate humiliation is, at best, threatening. Add to that an immense radio-television audience, which c&t cause even experienced performers to suffer attacks of nerves, and the judicial process is not assisted, but impeded. Moreover, the wide dissemination of the faces and testimony of witnesses makes them fair game for ridicule, pressure, and threats. Jurors, too, are susceptible to public broadcast jit- ters, ‘even though they do not have to perform like witnesses. The recognition that accompanies television exposure may intrude on their attentiveness and, in-a notorious case, subject them or their families to unwel- come attention, harassment, or coercion. In addition, some nonsequestered jurors may have an irresistable urge to see themselves on television and, therefore, will be exposed to the hazards of partial repetition of the evidence. Also, the rule separating witnesses may be impaired when a trial is broadcast, and witnesses may become judges of their own and other witnesses’ credibility. If a suggestible witness sees or hears an earlier witness, the integrity of his or her testimony may be subverted. In- deed, a fair witness may become involved in a deroga- tory assessment of his or her recollection simply because of exposure to a different one. Finally, no one can predict constitutional develop ments with assurance. And grave constitutional issues may be opened if trials are allowed to be broadcast selectively. Consider these questions: Would not dis- - parate treatment raise -an equal protection. problem? ‘, Do thebroadcast media have a right of access protected by the Sixth Amendment? Will the broadcast media determine which defendant’s trial is to be broadcast and which not? What portion of a trial must be aired? If not all, how much is necessary and in what balance required to satisfy, due process? Will. public obloquy punish before conviction? Should these questions be answered in any way that requires substantial coverage for all criminal cases, one can predict staggering costs and numbing monotony. And who will pay the costs? Will there be a different rule for rich and poor? It may well be that the enormous cost of television ac- counts for the relative brevity for the telecast experience so far. That same factor may provide some shield for the ,
Add an immense radio-television audience and the judicial process is impeded future. If so, the high’price will have an intrinsic value. FINDINcANlMpARmJuRY Telecasting a trial ‘can pose many problems if a new trial- becomes necessary. Whatwill be the source of an im- partial jury on.retrial if the tirst trial was made notorious before a wide public audience? Take, for example, the case ofRideau v. Louisiana [373 US; 723,83 S.Ct. 1417 (1963)]. The defense filed a motion for a change of venue, saying that the defendant would be deprived of his constitutional rights if he was tried in Calcasieu Parish because, during a televised interview from the jail in which the defendant was interrogated by the sheriff, he confessed to the crimes with which he was charged. The motion was denied and the defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death-a judg- ment that was confirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. On certiorari, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that due process of law required a trial before a jury from a community of peo- ple who had not seen or heard the televised interview. Now, as many states are reviewing their policies ad- mitting cameras in the courtroom, there is important empirical data supporting the stand against such a practice. The Bar Association of Greater Cleveland conducted a-study in early 1980 that surveyed the atti- tudes of judges, jurors, attorneys, and witnesses involved in either a major trial that received gavel to gavel television coverage or two other proceedings in which cameras appeared only episodically. The data indicate that the presence of television cameras in the courtrooms had a substantial delete- rious influence on a sizeable number of participants in the trial proceedings. Admittedly, litigants are not guaranteed a perfect trial, only a fair one, but can that requirement be met in an environment in which 50 percent of the jurors, 30 percent of the witnesses, and 54 percent of the lawyers are distracted? And isn’t that ill effect,compounded when 36 percent of the jurors, 43 percent of the witnesses, and 54 percent of the lawyers are nervous in the presence of the cameras? And when those emotions are coupled with a fear of harm by 65 percent of the jurors; 19 percent of the witnesses, and 24 percent of the lawyers, what then becomes of a “fair trial”? A legal system that cannot equate due process with even the “reasonable possibility” of prejudice from the admission of illicitly acquired evidence can hardly be expected to tolerate prospects of unfairness of the dimension demonstrated in the Cleveland data. The Cleveland experiment should be run again and again across the country. If its results cannot be replicated, 21 th,en‘ it will be time to consider, and reconsider, the place cameras and microphones have in the courtroom. AWARNESSANDEFFECTSOFC,iMERAS INTHECOURTROOM ~NJ~RORS,W~~NESSES,LA~RS, tiDJUDGES* (Reprinted with permission from the Cleveland Bar Journal, Vol. 7, No. 51, May 1980) AWARENESS OF CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM Jurors 7- 88% yes Witnesses - Attorneys - Judges - 74% yes 100% yes 100% yes PERCEFIION OF THE COURT AND THE EFFJSX ON ITS PROCEEDINGS What is the effect of cameras in the courtroom the dignity of the court? upon Jurors - 47% decreased, 44% no effect Witnesses - 21% decreased, 51% no effect Attorneys - 23% decreased, 77% no effect Judges - 33% decreased, 66% no effect Is the presence of cawteras in the courtroom disruptive of court procedures? Jurors - 50% yes (12% very disruptive) Witnesses - 32% yes Attorneys. - 61 YO yes Judges - 33% yes Do cameras in the courtroom informed on court procedures? make the public more Witnesses - 92% yes Attorneys - 92% yes Judges - 66% yes CONCENTRATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE TRIAL Did the cameras distract you? _’ Jurors - 50% yes Witnesses - 30% yes Attorneys - 54% yes Judges - 33% yes Did the .presence of cameras in the courtroom you nervous? wtake . Jurors - 36% yes Witnesses - 43% yes Attorneys - 54% yes Judges - 100% no (Please turn to page 51)
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 42 and 43: -. c c CJ The Case against Cameras
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?