MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Day (Continuedfiom page 21) Did the cameras make you self-conscious? Jurors - 48% yes Witnesses - 47% yes Attorneys - 46% yes Judges - 100% no Did the cameras make you more attentive? Jurors - 82% no Witnesses - 68% no Attorneys - 77% no Judges - 66% no FEAR OF HARM BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE TRIAL Jurors - 65% yes (12% extreme) Witnesses - 19% yes Attorneys - 24% yes Judges - 66% no, 33% no answer PLAYING TO THE CAMERAS Did you watch yourseEfon TV? Jurors - 21% wanted to see self JUrorS - 53% difficult to avoid watching self Witnesses - 70% yes Attorneys - 85% yes Judges - 66% yes Do cameras in the courtroom extend the length of the trial? Attorneys - 62% yes Is there o danger that the TV exposure an attorney would gain during trial might influence his decisions and advice to a client on whether to settle a case or enter a plea? Attorneys - 84% yes Court News fContinuedfrom page I) tain membership in these clubs. This higher standard,” she continued, “is wholly in keeping with the high standard of conduct imposed on judges by . . . the commentary to Canon 2:” Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by ir- responsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and the appear- ance of impropriety. He must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. (Emphasis added.) Schafran further supported her stance by quoting the directive of New York Governor Carey and the New York State Unified Judicial System that states: “All judges and nonjudicial employees of the Unified Do you feeL that the TV exposure given to a judge who is up for election in the nearfuture might inj7uence his decisions, even subconsciously, during the trial? Attorneys - 84% yes Do cameras in the courtroom exaggerate the impor- tance of the trial? Jurors - 50% yes Witnesses - 59% yes Attorneys - 77% yes Judges - 33% yes Are trial participants more flamboyant as the result of cameras in the courtroom? Attorneys - 23% yes CONSENT FOR CAMERAS IN COURTROOM Should consent of the lawyer be secured as a condition precedent to cameras in the courtroom? Lawyers - 62% yes Should consent of the parties be secured as a condition precedent to cameras in the courtroom? Lawyers - 54% yes Should feelings of victims be taken into consideration before having cameras in the courtroom? Lawyers - 62% given consideration Lawyers - 38% followed completely OVERALL, WOULD You FAVOR OR OPPOSE ALLOWING CAMERAS IN THE COURTOOM? Jurors - 50% opposed Witnesses - 40% opposed Attorneys - 69% opposed Judges - 33% opposed *Data supplied by the judges has little or no significance because only three were involved. Fourteen lawyers responded (74 percent of those asked), 34 jurors (85 percent of those asked), and 37 witnesses (39 percent of those asked). Court System are prohibited from conducting official business at clubs or other facilities which restrict membership or admission on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, creed or political affiliation. Reim- bursement for expenditures at such facilities will be denied.” (Schafran, of course, called for more than a restriction againsi?conducting business at such clubs.) Schafran also submitted the testimony of Eric Schnapper on behalf of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund before the U.S. Senate Commit- tee on the Judiciary in 1979. He stated that “both the Legal Defense Fund and the Congress have insisted that there are certain minimal standards that must be met by any nominee for the federal bench. For our part we have maintained, and so advised the Ad- ministration and the Committee, that one extremely troubling action on the part of a nominee would be knowing membership in an organization which dis- criminated on the basis of race, national origin, sex or religion.” He too noted the commentary to Canon 2, adding,
CJ I REPORT AND RECOMMENRATXQNS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE BAR. ASSOCXA- TION OF GREATER CLEVELAND ON THE EFFECT OF CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM ON THE PARTICIPANTS IN SUCH A TRIAI, _ . . ._
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 44 and 45: ‘C . 0 Jack G. Day is a judge of
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?