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

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