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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

inding 010 a verdict and 'he passage of the verdict sheet to the udge and then to the clerk and the reading of the verdict. AS OOn as this was done the film was rushed to the TV station and ut on the air. The television station had previously infozned ts listeners that the verdict was to be recorded by the TV amera and any program underway would be interrupted for the howing of the rendition of the verdict. After the jury had rendered its verdict the Court asked the urors if they were in anywise a ffected by *de camera or the fact hat they knew before their deliberation, that they were going o render their verdict on TV cppera and they all replied in the egative. Each juror was polled and stated that they had no eeling cne way or the other about the cameras and electronic quipment. The attorneys were asked if they felt any distraction r disruption or were anyway a,& erected by the presence of the cameo nd the electronic equipment and they all replied in 'de negative. he Judge had no feeling one way or the other about the presence If the cameras and the electronic equipment. Once the cows came lack into session, after its recess during the jury deliberation, be presence of +tie.cMlera-just-:slipped ~ne?s.mind~..'Therewas.~o y)re awareness of the TV camera -than there yas of TcCple:in the-' :ourtroom. This experiment indicated to the writer that many, many Of &e fears expressed in the gast about the presence of cameras and clectronie equipment in the courtroom were totally unfounded. rhis will be developed further ti the report. The only other success in obtain?ing camera aad electronic :overage took place in Rapides Parish in the Criminal trial of State v. Jazzes Williams. There was present in the COUrtrOOm One rV camera, a news photoqraphex with a still camera, a news reporter with a small cassette tape recorder and tic=ophones from the radio station. The cameras and operators and newsmen were spotted in the courtroom at tie direction of the trial judge and acre they remained until the trial w2s over. .
II There was a little more coverage in this trial than thert as in the Reid trial. There was coverage of the closing cguments of the district attorney and defense counsel and the >argt to the jury ,on the law by the judge, and the rendition of xc verdict by the jury. All of the cquipent used was in accordance with the widerin aid dovn by the Louisiana Supremt Court. The TV camera was out n *e opposite side of the bar in one of the side aisles and 2s not moved ever. The experiment went quite well, there was no inttrrqtion or istractions. The pco?le coming in and out of the courtroom were uch xcre noticablt than the cameras and newsmen. The radio tation carried the tntirt matter live from the courtroom. u,rprisingly enough the majority of the comments were from radio isttners. People were not even aware that it was going to ome on but when it did they were aware that it was a court rroctediag and many just stayed by the radio to listen, even .hough it was approxima+ly two hours. This matte: was carried my the radio station live to the radio auditnct without any zterruptions, except for the station identification required by 'CC. The jury was 2vare that the filming would be done. After ahc finding of the verdict tbc jurors were polled as to their reaction to the camera aad they all stated that they had no reactions to it.. They stated hey were not affected-one way Or khe other by the presence of the TV c-era. They were specifical , asked if they thought that the fact that this matter vas being :overed by the television placed any greater importmcc on the cilse than they would ordinarily have and they all stated in ',*re negative. The judge had a discussion with the attorneys and tie assistant district attorneys and the defense attorneys 211 statec that they were not at all affected by the cameras. -30 . . .
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 110 and 111: maintain constraints on the media r
Page 112 and 113: 12. The Petitioners have failed to
Page 114 and 115: and that there be no modification o
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?