1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

witness was very firm in asserting that coverage of victims in these types of cases must be absolutely protected from video and audio coverage and that it was not sufficient for the matter to be left up to the discr tion of the presiding judge. 18. The Minnesota District Judges Association, the Minnesota State 8 Bar Association and the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association have all tak N official action opposing television or audio reporting of trial court proceedings in Minnesota. Testimony, in the form of statements filed >ji d the Commission, t;as presented, however, by some district judges in Minnesota indicating that the position of the Minnesota District Judges Association is not unanimous. In addition, testimony T:as rzceived from a lawyer and judges from states which now permit video and audio coverag of trial courts indicating their continuing opposition to the relaxation of the guidelines which had occurred in their states, but there was also testimony to the contrary from a judge located in such a jurisdiction. courts. 19. No television or audio coverage is permitted in federal trial CONCLUSIONS In stating its conclusions and making its recommendations, the Commission wishes to call attention, at the outset, to the fact that it is the Petitioners who are seeking a modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct by the adoption of an amended Canon s.- 3A(7) and proposed Standards of Conduct and Technology. They seek this change not as a matter of right--consci cltutional or otherwise--but as a I
grant of a privilege now dcnicd to them. This, in the view of the Commission, places an affirmative burden on the Petitioners to show that the change is necessary or desirable and places no obligation on those who appeared as “Interested Parties” in opposition to the Petitioners to show that Petitioners have not sustained that burden. The Commission, having weighed the evidence and considered the briefs of the parties in this context, makes its Conclusions as follows: 1. The technical aspects of providing video and audio coverage of courtroom proceedings can be adequately controlled so as to maintain courtroom decorum, not adversely affect the fairness of the trial and still adeq,Lately satisfy the needs of the media by the implementation of guidelines generally comparable to the Standards of Conduct and Technolog:; attached to the Petitioners’ Petition as Exhibit B. Accordingly, rhe Commission is satisfied that this matter, taken by itself, should not be a deterrent in considering whether Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct should be amended so as to permit video and audio coverag of trial courtroom proceedings. 2. If video or audio coverage of trial court proceedings is to be pemitted in Minnesota, any rules or guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court should not only protect conferences in the courtroom between attorneys and their clients, co-counsel of client, opposing counsel or counsel and the presiding judge held at the bench from audio coverage as provided in the--proposal of Petitioners, but should also protect such conferences from video coverage, and such protection should extend to work papers of those persons, 3. The results of the cspe rimcnts and studies which have been
Page 1 and 2:
Patricia Hirl Longstaff Associate G
Page 3 and 4:
In Re Modification of Canon 3A(7) o
Page 5 and 6:
In Michigan, as in the overwhelming
Page 7 and 8:
supervisory responsibility. (See pa
Page 9:
The report also emphasizes the pivo
Page 12 and 13:
-v 32. CYJ 33.45 8.5% . 3.2% 2.85 2
Page 14 and 15:
I 1 I I a I 8 a a I 1 a 8 I a a I a
Page 16 and 17:
d a. Artorsey . 93 .39 . 3s .a9
Page 18 and 19:
--On most such occasions, the news
Page 20 and 21:
like judjclal decisions, jury verdi
Page 22 and 23:
of this pxpcbrience, I nm lOOX in f
Page 24 and 25:
APPENDIX SURVET SUMARY TABLE OF CA?
Page 26 and 27:
Result D: The presence of the elect
Page 28 and 29:
Table 3 To what extend did the pres
Page 30 and 31:
Not at All Slightly Moderately Very
Page 32 and 33:
1. Too much pretrial publicity. Tab
Page 34 and 35:
Table 12 To what extent did the pre
Page 36 and 37:
C. Attorney Only: Questions and Com
Page 38 and 39:
4. The presence personnel, persons
Page 40 and 41:
Table 9 TO what extent were court p
Page 42 and 43:
12. Believe it to be benficial. 13.
Page 44 and 45:
5. The positioning of the cameras i
Page 46 and 47:
3. The page Commission 3, Rule 7, r
Page 48 and 49:
L L Mailinq: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
Page 50 and 51:
PHYSICAL DISRUPTION CLASSIFICATION
Page 52 and 53:
L.. I i. k. PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY A
Page 54 and 55:
: I : . SELECTIVE COVERAGE Accordin
Page 56 and 57: -. PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT The evaluat
Page 58 and 59: -. I i-. 13. 82% of the judges and
Page 60 and 61: -. ] i- I I L- 7. 55% of the judges
Page 62 and 63: VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 64 and 65: 0 The media's predominant interest
Page 66 and 67: at the forefront of the "cameras in
Page 68 and 69: Clearly, the number of "uneventful"
Page 70 and 71: . It is possible that when measured
Page 72 and 73: The issues involved in the decision
Page 74 and 75: ‘an 306 Townsend Street Lansing,
Page 76 and 77: 1. Still Camera Shutter Noise Obser
Page 78 and 79: jurors are more negative towards EM
Page 80 and 81: ._.,. proceeding and the number of
Page 82 and 83: permanent basis, it is the opinion
Page 84 and 85: Media coverage of judicial proceedi
Page 86 and 87: . tunity to negotiate with the medi
Page 88 and 89: The first group is a vocal minority
Page 90 and 91: function of jurors and demonstrate
Page 92 and 93: The judicial system plays a Special
Page 94 and 95: Minnesota State Bar Association; th
Page 96 and 97: Nancy Reid, reporter, KDLH-TV, Dulu
Page 98 and 99: Commission Rule 3.03 provides that
Page 100 and 101: e effective. 5. Court rules or stan
Page 102 and 103: for reports of important news event
Page 104 and 105: the difficulty in impaneling a jury
Page 108 and 109: conducted for the purpose of explor
Page 110 and 111: maintain constraints on the media r
Page 112 and 113: 12. The Petitioners have failed to
Page 114 and 115: and that there be no modification o
Page 116 and 117: inding 010 a verdict and 'he passag
Page 118 and 119: The charge to the jury was somewhat
Page 120 and 121: Chapter 7 CAMERAS IN COURT I. INTRO
Page 122 and 123: 19% REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE
Page 124 and 125: t i I I i I , ’ _ .b I 1985 REPOR
Page 126 and 127: I- _. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT
Page 128 and 129: Order Entcrrd: January 13, -1989 87
Page 130 and 131: (d) Media agency representatives sh
Page 132 and 133: 8, 8; I 8, I 8 8 a&-. DEC 7 1988 Mi
Page 134 and 135: \ ANN AROGR. MI NEWS H 0 V-23-88 Co
Page 136 and 137: JVlemoranaur chief JusncT Dorothy c
Page 138 and 139: I I, I I I r- -.. (b) A judge may t
Page 140 and 141: 7. Conferences. There shall be no a
Page 142 and 143: Accordingly, the enclosed bill woul
Page 144 and 145: DICIAL PROCEED?NGS AUDIO-VISUAL COV
Page 146 and 147: 1. Definitions. For purposes of thi
Page 148 and 149: coverage in the time and manner des
Page 150 and 151: would have an undesirable impact qu
Page 152 and 153: . ’ . I- proceedings. The chief a
Page 154 and 155: I I I I I I I I -. I I I I I I I I
show all

1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

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

Delete template?

Save as template?