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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Y I . 8. If trial Court prcccedings are to be subject to video and audio coverage, the judicial system must be willing to accept the fact that there will be more frequent need for sequestering jurors with the attendant additional inconvenience to the jurors, the additional burdens on court personnel and the attendant additional expense. Only an experiment2 progran can provide dat a to assist in determining the magnitude of this problem. 9. ‘Minn. Stat. 5 631.34, prohibiting, subject +o certain exceptions the attendance at criminal trials of persons under the age of 17 years, has been part of the Minnesota statutes since 1891. The Commission can find no legal precedents p:hich givs it any assistance in determining whet’ that statute should be regarded as any limitation on video or audio coverage of trial court proceedings. The Commission believes that this is more appropriately left for decision by the Supreme Court and therefor makes its recommendations herein without regard to that statute. 10. Minnesota is one of twenty-three states lzhich, by reason of a prohibition such as contained in present Canon 3A(7), totally prohibits video and audio coverage of trial court proceedings. 11. The evidence received expressing concern about leaving the question of video and audio coverage of witnesses and parties in sexual assault cases to the discretion of the presiding judge has merit, and the considerations involved are applicable as well to the other special types of cases catalogued in Exhibit 24, pages B-12 to B-16. Accordirgly s.- if any video or audio coverage of trial courts is to be permitted, there should be an absolute prohibition of such coverage as to participants in such situations on timely objection made by them to the court. -19-
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 106 and 107: witness was very firm in asserting
Page 108 and 109: conducted for the purpose of explor
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?