1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch
1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch
1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1<br />
1<br />
I<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
covering “Conferences <strong>of</strong> Counsel” should be amended to read as follows:<br />
To protect the attorney-client privilege and the effective<br />
right to counsel, there shall be no video or audio pickup<br />
or broadcast <strong>of</strong> conferences which occur in a court between<br />
attorneys and their client, co-counsel <strong>of</strong> a client, opposing<br />
counsel, or between counsel and the presiding judge held at<br />
the bench. In addition, there shall be no video pickup or<br />
broadcast <strong>of</strong> work papers <strong>of</strong> such persons.<br />
’ 4. Coverage <strong>of</strong> parties or witnesses in cases involving child custod<br />
divorce, juvenile proceedings, motions to suppress evidence, police infor<br />
mants, relocated witnesses, sex crimes, trade secret; and undercover agen<br />
should either be categorically prohibited or prohibited on objection by<br />
the parties.<br />
5. It is recognized that the categories mentioned in Paragraph<br />
4<br />
1 ~2<br />
overlook other situations requiring special consideration by the presidin<br />
judge. In any such situations and in any rulings <strong>of</strong> the presiding judge<br />
adverse to the media in respect to their video or audio coverage <strong>of</strong> a<br />
particular pro’ceedings, any rules or guidelines adopted should provide fo<br />
a strong presumption <strong>of</strong> validity in favor <strong>of</strong> the judge’s ruling.<br />
6. Trial judges and laGyers, in trial court proceedings where there<br />
visual and audio coverage, should be encouraged--or perhaps directed--dur<br />
the experimental period to report to the Supreme Court any difficulties o<br />
excesses which create special burdens for the presiding judge and special<br />
problems in respect to counsel, witnesses, litigants or jurors. Such rep<br />
would be valuable for a review process at the end <strong>of</strong> the experimental per<br />
before making a final determination 2s to whether the rules and guideline<br />
here recommended should be made permanent, modified or revoked.<br />
As previously stated, Commissioner Kaner dissents from these<br />
Recommendations and recommends that the Petition be dismissed on the meri<br />
-210