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

maintain constraints on the media rests with the trial judge and within
the judicial system. I
7. The evidence received in respect to whether or not or how video
and audio coverage impacts on the participants in the courtroom (aside
from the. technical aspects discussed in Paragraph 1) is inconclusive and
has the inherent weakness of being largely based on opinion, behavioral
theories, unprovable suppositions and person21 prejudices.
It is very
deficient in solid empirica: data and could as easily support a recormzen I
dation that Canon 3A(7) not be amended as that it be amended to permit
video and audio coverage of trial courts. While the Commission does not
question the sincerity of witnesse: after reviewing 211 such testimony
it has difficulty finding any empirical support for the fact that the
alleged impact on t’ne courtroom participants (w’nen coverage is provided a
under guidelines placin, * reasonable limitations on the conduct of the
media in the courtroom) has affected the outcome of any litigation in
those jurisdictions which permit video or audio coverage of trial courts
or vi11 affect such proceedings if Minnesota were to permit such cover29
3
Rules and guidelines of states which penit video and audio coverag, %
of trial court proceedings are in most cases of very recent origin and,
in a large ‘number of those states, still on 2n experimental basis.
Colorado, in 1956, was by a considerable margin the first state to permi d
broadcasting and photography by express judicisl rule, since most other
states did not adopt any rules or guidelines in this regard until the
middle or late 1970’s. This relatively short experience \?ith video 2nd
audio coverage of trial court proceedings is a major limiting factor on
the availability of em?;-;
-&&Cal data bearing on this question. I
-181
. I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I