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

12. The Petitioners have failed to sustain the burden of s’no:;ing
that they are entitled to the relief requested in their Petition.
. I
I
I
RECOKXE~?DATIO:l . .
The Commission, despite its conclusion that Petitioners are not I
entitled to the relief which they have requested, nevertheless recommcny4
that the Supreme Court give consideration to anencling Canon 3A(7) and
3
adT?ting Standards of Conduct and Technology so as to permit video and !
I
audio coverage of trial court proceedings on an experimental basis for 2
reasonable period of time. A Hemorandum supporting this conclusion is 1
attached hereto
Specifically,
and hereby incorporated herein.
the Commission recommends that the Supreme Court
a
P
should give consideration to amending Canon 3A(7) and adopting Standerds I
of Conduct and Technology substantially like those proposed by Petition
as Exhibits A and B to their Petition,
cations and modifications:
subject to the following qualifi-
1. That such expanded coverage be permitted on an experimental
basis for two years. I
2. Petitioners, on page 29 of their post-hearing brief, request an
amendment to their proposed guidelines in PararraDh l(b)
Y . to sermit two
.
still photographers instead of one. Aside from their assertion that the 1 *
experience in the Minnesota Su-7
,,-eme Court and in these proceedings
tes that this change is desirable, there is no evidence to support it.
w..
Accordingly-- at least in an experimental period--this change seems
unnecessary.
3. Paragraph 6 of the proposed Standards of Conduct and Technolog: s
I
3
_.-
I
I