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

19% REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE 25
The reportedso surveyed participant attitudes to- against the general negative to neutral attitude to-
,,.ard audiov%uaI media coverage. Judges, witnesses ward permitting cameras in the courtroom.=
and jurors found the presence of.cameras and audio The report ended by cautioning against granting
,quipment acceptable by approxunately two to one, unrestricted courtroom access to the media because
while attorneys were approximately three to two in the study experience took place in a highly S~II.Kopposition.
s The latter figure must be viewed tured and tightly controlled environment.n
The special committee met on October 15,1981, to
consider the consultant’s report. After discussing the
consu]tam’s findings and recommendations, the
comdttee voted to recommend, with two members
dissenting, that the Judicial COLUIC~~ repeal rule 980,
offecuve January 1, 1982, and substitute in its place
the wording of rule 989.2 with the changes noted
below. The committee also recommended, with one
member dissenting and one member abstaining, that
the consultant’s report be “accepted as responding to
the inquiry of the Judicial Council.”
The committee also recommended that the Judi-
cial Council:
1. Eliminate the shutter noise problem by requir-
ing the use of “blimps” on all still cameras except
Leica M42 Rangefinder cameras (one member dis-
scnted).
2. Prohibit any close-range photographs of jurors,
particularly front or side face shots (three members
dissented).
3. Continue the requirement of a written request
for permission to conduct film or electronic media
coverage (one member dissented).
4. Retain the requirement that audio-visual media
coverage be permitted only on the consent of the
judge (two members dissented).
5. Reject the consultant’s suggestion that relaxa-
tion of certain of the rules be permitted in the discre-
tion of the court with reasons stated on the record.
At’ the November 14, 1981 Judicial Council meet-
ing, the council directed staff to (1) seek comment
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RULE ADOPTED
V. PERMANENT RULE ADOPTED
on the desirability of amending the rules to permit
coverage of court proceedings by the film and electronic
media after the experiment ends, and on the
form and content of the rules under which a permanent
system should function, and (2) explore ways of
expanding the consultant’s data on the effect of cameras
on witnesses and jurors, and report to the spring,
1982, meeting of the council.” The council also extended
the expiration date of the experimental rules
to December 31, 1982.
At the May 15, 1982 meeting, a status report on
witness and juror information was presented CO the
councikg At that time it was reported that staff
would send a letter to each attorney appearing in a
media-covered case asking whether there were any
problems with witnesses or jurors because of media
presence. The letters were subsequently sent and
the responses summarized and presented to the
council at its November 20.1982, meeting.
At the same time, the council was informed of a
study being planned by the State Bar on the effect of
film and electronic media coverage on witnesses and
jurors. The State Bar Committee on Administration
of Justice was discussing what action, if any, should be
recommended to the Board of Governors.” Largely
to await the results of that study, and to allow further
evaluation of comments received, the council extended
the expiration date of the experiment to December
31, 1983. The State Bar was unable to find
funding for the study.
At its November 19,1983 meeting, the council au- (1) “Film or electronic media coverage” means
thorized the circulation for comment of the text of a any recording or broadcasting of court proceedings
draft permanent rule permitting film and electronic by the media using television, radio, photographic, or
media coverage of courtroom proceedings. The expi- recording equipment.
ration date of the experimental rules was extended to (2) “Media” or “media agency” means any person
June 30,1984, to allow time for comment on the draft or organization engaging in news gathering or report-
permanent rule.” ing and includes any newspaper, radio or television
The text and a summary of the draft permanent station or network, news service, magazine, trade pa-
rule were widely distributed and comments were per, in-house publication, professional journal, or
invited. other news reporting or news gathering agency.
The Judicial Council adopted the permanent rule (b) [Media coverage] Film or electronic media
on June 1,1984. The text of the rule, which took effect coverage is permitted only on written order of the
one month later. follows: court. The court may refuse, limit or terminate film
Rule 980. Photographing, recording, and broad-
casting in the courtroom
(a) [Definitions] I
or electronic media coverage in the interests of jus-
tice to protect the rights of the parties and the dignity
of the court, or to assure the orderly conduct of the
proceedings. This rule does not otherwise limit or