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

equipment becoming more than a novelty in the courtroom. Judges,
however, are concerned that in an arena which requires a judge to be
the guardian of numerous fundamental rights of a defendant, one more
dlstraction demanding the judge's attention increases the possibility
of reversable error and unnecessarily Intensifies the pressure on
the judicial system.
.
On the one hand some judges believe it is good for the
judicial image and it will help create a better public understanding
of our court symtem. Others, however, claim the primary purpose of
the courtroom is to provide each.defendant with a fair trial and the
education of the public or the increased news media access to the
courtroom are secondary considerations.
It is this uneasy--but not necessarily unhealthy--tension
between the fundamental right to a fair trial and the fundamental
right of free press that causes most judges to adopt an open--wait
and see--position.
-CGNCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Two years have produced some initial data concerning the
affect of news media equipment in Washington state courtrooms. Althougl
It is too early to make a final judgment on the issue, the data at this
point appears to support a continuation of allowing cameras in the
courtroom.
The Courts and Community Committee should continue to monitor
"cameras in the courtroom" activity and serve as an information gather-
ing task force for trial courts. The committee should make periodic
reports to the Judges for information putiposes and encourage continued
consideration of this important constitutional matter.
Judge James A. Noe
9/n/78