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

L
realistic posturing and extended, long-winded arguments. Each counsel
departed from the legal ISSueS frequently In an attempt to upstage
the .opponent.. l
Rule. ”
recommend
greater restrictions than presently in the
One comment considered negative in the statistics cited
above stated that the judge had”mlxed reactions” about the cameras
in the courtroom on two different occasions.
A local bar association criticized one judge for allowing
even limited TV camera and still camera coverage of a murder trial.
Although the judge stated he did not “have any particular diffictilty”
he was concerned about the strong reaction by the bar association
and indicated he may be slow to grant permission In the future.
A differentiation between extended hearings and brief
.
hearings was made by one judge. He stated that during the long
hearing which lasted for several days, one TV camera and tape
recorder “were not disruptive” and that “all media personnel. were
cooperative .”
On the other hand, he stated that on a brief hearing,
“multiple cameras and recorders. . .did adversely affect the dignity
of the court” and he indicated reservations on allowing media equip-
ment in the courtroom during brief’matters.
One judge commented that he believed the “movie cameras”
in the courtroom during a trial (by approval of the Supreme Court
before the amendment of CJjA(7)) affected the verdict. After another
experience Fecently with video tape tiecording equipment in the court-
room during a trial, the judge stated, “1 have changed my mind.” In
addition, he commented that even if the cameras in the courtroom did
affect the jury verdict, he was not sure that was inappropriate since