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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The charge to the jury was somewhat lengthy in that it was he serious crime of amtd robbe-?. The Court was not aware of ht presence Of the cameras or the radio microphones during the imt of the charge to the ju&T. Movement of spectators in and ut of the courtroom is far more noticeable, stlbcOnSCious~y than at the presence of the TV camera and its ootrator. One has a &conscious awareness of the cameras in the courtroom equal to nt's awareness of the people in the coUrt:TOOP. ZVXLUATION It is the writer's opinion that this Xmittd pilot project as very SucctSsful. The writer is of the opinion eat cameras hould'be permitted in the courtroom at the discretion of the vial judge . The Court determined that the many fears that hzt expressed tbout the presence of the TV camera art unfouzdtd. thatever. There was no loss of dignity or ltcoruni in tit courtroom ' Neither the attorneys nor the judge tended to act or "ham ic, up” because of the presence of t!at cmtras..'. The cameras were not:distracting in anyvay;. The lawyers-' krgxtd.to the juq and'did not argut.to the camera. *-The Court -. in giving the charge to the jury addressed the jury and not the amera. The teltrision is a part df the modern way of lift. The . Jrittr sets th entrance of television cameras into the courtroom Eor the benefit of the viewing public as well as for the benefit sf the court. In both instances the parts of the trial that were broadcast deft very objective. I feel that the news media can be more objective about reporting court proceedings if permitted to use cameras and tltc%rcnic equipment.
I _.I We ast presently using audio/vidio depositions in court. Lost courts art going to electronic recording equiptnt in lieu ff court reporters using shorthand or stenotype. At times jhotographs art made of a'chalk board that is being used in the :ourtroom in order that tie appellate court would have the btntfiz ,f drawings and diagrams put on chalk boards by witnesses. This writer recommends another pilot project similar to the ,nt that was authorized on February 23, 1978 with ctrtpin changes. Cht writer would like to have permission to conduct this pilot xojtct again but without the requirement of obtaining the consent 2f the attorneys or the parties or the victim. This writer also cecoranends that Paragraph 8 of tht'order be amended so that the i film, vidio tape and still photographs or audio reproductions could be ustd‘ for any purpose. If tit Court is not willing to Srant permission for a pilot project solely at the discretion of tht trial judge, but is of tbt opision that consent should continue to,be obtained, the writer would still like permission to continue the pilot pro jtct. It is felt that there was not,sufficient coverage to do a . &l'-cvaluation ,.?!. . that the writer would like to do. -A. Y.. me ';'.F -. .*- .I:;;;-'*hi% writer is of the opinion that TV cameias can be placed in the courtrooms on wall mounts and that very few ptOglt would bt aware of their presence. 'There aze presently two courtrooms 13 the Rapidts Parish Courthouse that have two surveillance cameras that art functioning at all times. These surveillance cameras art aonitortd in tie Shtrif f's office as well as in the office of the jailer. Tht writer does request Perrais*ion . to continue this pilot . i Projdet as above recomtndtd or mdtr such cthtr restrictions as thc Court may impost. Respectfully submitted, .f$isj+j&e Ninth Judicial District Court . . : f . I .’ '
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 116 and 117: inding 010 a verdict and 'he passag
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?