MN Advisory Comm Exhibits 1-18 - Minnesota Judicial Branch

*.
c
CJ
:
2
HISTORY OF THE STUDY
On June 1,1979, the Supreme Court of Ohio amended
Canon 3 (A) (7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Super-
intendence Rule 11, and Municipal Court Superintendence
Rule 9 to permit cameras in the courtrooms, both trial and
appellate, throughout the State of Ohio on an experi-
mental basis for one year.
The words “cameras in the courtroom” unless the
context otherwise requires, encompasses television film,
‘and videotape cameras, still photography cameras, tape
recording devices and radio broadcast equipment.
During the early months of this experimental period,
a well-publicized case in Cuyahoga County entitled, The
State of Ohio v. George Forbes et al., CR 43564 was tele-
vised by WVIZ in Cleveland, Ohio, in its entirety from
“gavel to gavel.”
Following the conclusion of this case, the President
of the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, William L.
Calfee, appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of
Norman W. Shibley, Chairman, William 3: Coyne, Aaron
Jacobson, Robert J. Rotatori, John L. Strauch and James
R. Williams to investigate as objectively as ,possible, what
effect, if any, cameras in the courtroom had upon the ad-
ministration of justice in Cuyahoga County.
Initially, it was determined to prepare in-depth ques-
tionnaires for submission to the judges, attorneys, jurors
and the witnesses in the Forbes case only.
Subsequently, it was decided to broaden the inquiry
to indude judges, attorneys, jurors and witnesses who had
cameras in the courtroom in two other c&es.
.-
i
.?