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

like judjclal decisions, jury verdicts should also be held up to close
public scrutiny.
Another judge stated that TV cameras had been. in the court-
room for 15 minutes for "background shots". The judge expressed an
<
opinion that "the camera could and probably would be distracting to
witnesses and jurors. I also believe jurors could be intimidated in a
Criminal Case knowing defendant's friends could identify them from
showing of film."
The final negative comment was an extended report of
an experience during a bizarre murder trial which occurred shortly
after Canon 3 was amerided. The multiple news media people were
criticized for squabbling about camera position and prerogatives.
The Judge was of the firm belief that the news media coverage did
.
distract and had a detrimental affect on the proceedings.
The judge stated:
“The continuous awareness of their. continuous presence
was observable. In the court's judgment, the conduct
of counsel, jurors and witnesses were'affected by the
cameras in court. The court was affected and felt a
continuous pressure from the newspaper reporters and
TV cameras. Whether this was observable in the COUTt'S
conduct has not been reported to'me. I cannot define
the reason for feeling the pressure. Perhaps It is derived
from a fear of exposure to publicity. A judge
has no script and muSt perform perfectly on the spot
and fears humiliation from public exposure of a hasty
and perhaps inappropriate ruling or comment- . l
“Whether it was real or not, at 3:30 or 4 o’clock in
the afternoon of each day, when all the cameras and
reporters were absent from the courtroom, it seemed
as Lf there was a general easing and relaxation of
previous tension and a sigh,of relief seemed to breathe
through the crowded court. *’
POSITIVE RESPONSES
On the positive side, 34 judges had a good reaction to news
media equipment In the courtroom. Although the degree of enthusiasm