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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX SURVET SUMARY TABLE OF CA?VXAS IN fHt COUMKWX * I. Nurrbtr of Responses 2. Nusb8r of 3. Number of 8. Number of 5. Number of 6. Number of Supcflor court Jud~ts survcY@d l nd nccelvrd 000s) 111 Judacr atport SnC No tspcr9*ncr 70 Judccr R-porting at Lrost tnc Esprrlcnct 01 Posltlr; Rrsponrra (lnc3udrd ln r3 tbnvt) 3, Ut~atlvr Rrrponscs (lncludtd In f3 bbovt) t Tot41 Esptrlcncrs Reported so - b0 WASNIUCTOM STATE SUPERIOR COW? JUDGES REPORTING AT LEAST ONE EXPERIENCE YITN NEWS ?lEDlA EQUlPflENt JN THE COUKTKOOR DUKIIJG A COURT SESSION: . Judge f : JUdKt Judge :: JtIdl,* 65: Judct Gerry Alrxandtr, hurston-Mason County Frank Dbkcr, Thurston-Wason County Dennlr J. Srltt, Snohonlah County Vllll8m L. Brown, Jr., Plcrct County Robert J. Drp8n, K1 ts8p. County JudRt Vwrcn Chmn, King County Judge Harold D. Cltrkt. Spok8nt County 2 JudEt Carolyn R. Dlmmlck. King County 9. Judgt J8mes J. Dort. K(ing County Judct Barnan Durh8m, King County if: Judac Marsh811 Forrest. Wh8tcoh County JudGt Harry Follm8n. Sk8@t County ::: Judtt William C. Goodloc. Xlng County Judge Bruct ?. HanS@n, Y8kjN county ::: Jud~c Alan Hallowell, Coultt County JudKt Htwitt A. Wnry. ThUrStOn-n8SOn Countr ii: Judge nOW8r.d tiettiRJ$tr, Y8kim8 COUCtJ lUd@ N8ncy Ann Wo>nan, Klnc County 19: Judrr Erlt Horswlll (drccared), King Count7 Judfr D8nltl C. Krrshncr, Snohonlsh CoUntJ 2’:: Judct 8111 Xohlr. Okanog8n-Ftrry County '32. JudfCt Themes Lodtt , Clark County Judge Jamrs Z. Raddock, Kltrrp Count? 2 . JUdKC Jim Mtehe:l, V8118 Wallr County Judge J. Dean ?lorgan. Clark County 2: Judge J8mts A. Not, King County 27. Judge Donald N. Olson, Spokanr County Judcc now8td A. Patrick, Island-San Juan County . i,“: Judut Rlchwd G. Patrick.. Benton-Franklin County Judae Norman Y. Quinn. King County ,‘f : Judgt Gtorgr W. Revrllt, Kin6 County Judge Jack Schol~lrld, King County ::: Judge Gtr8rd Shrllm, Klny County JudCt John Sklma, Clark County ::: JudBr Horton Smith, King County Judp Stanlry C. Sodtrland, Xlng County 3:: Judat Frrd Staplts, Brnton-Franklin County Judge Urldo ?. Stont, Pierce County :;: Judtt David Y. Soukup. KlnK County 40. Jud&t Robert Vlnsor, King County 81. JudCr Albert J. Yeneoprl. Btnron-Franklin County SUNWARY OF JUDICIAL DISTRICTS AND NUMBER OP JUDGES urn EXERIENCE: Benton-?r8nhl in ClrrK cov11ta !s)md-San Juan King Kitsap Okanogbn-FrrrY ?Jrror Skqlt Snohoml rh fpokmc thvrston-P.8son Ubll8 u8lla wmtcoa, Y8klm8 . -
I . I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I 1 I I ,-.. I I. INTRODUCTION FINAL STATISTICAL REPORT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM IN NEVADA established courtroom. In April of 1980, the Supreme Court of Nevada an experimental rule governing cameras in the The rule is referred to as ADKT 26 - Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Electronic Media and Still Photo Coverage in effect of Judicial for a Proceedings (See one-year period: Attachment April 1980 A). to It has been April 1981. A set of questionnaires was developed to evaluate the rule’s effectiveness (See Attachments B, C, D, and E). The recommendations of the Commission were decided upon at its final meeting, from the respectfully 1981. held May 1, 1981 (See Attachment J). This final Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court on report is to May 7, II. METHODOLOGY Evaluation questionnaires were sent to every court in Nevada. Courts were instructed to return forms after every proceeding that involved photographic or radio coverage. Four groups were surveyed: judges, attorneys, media representatives and witnesses. Twenty-five judges, 17 attorneys, 27 media representatives and 31 witnesses responded. In addition to evaluation forms, reports were received from the Second and Eighth Judicial Districts, the Washoe district attorney and the Reno Evening Gazette (See Attachments F, G, H and I). III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Result A. The majority of judges and attorneys surveyed support the experimental rule. As a group, judges are the most supportive of the rule, with 75 percent completely in favor and 11 percent slightly in favor. slightly Seventy favor percent the rule of the (IV Results, attorneys Section completely A. Table favor 1). or Result B: Witnesses are least likely of the groups surveyed, to support the experimental rule. Twenty-six percent of the witnesses have no opinion on allowing media coverage and 45 percent are slightly or completely opposed to media coverage (IV Results, Section A, Table 1). Result C: understand. According to the media, the rule is fair and easy to One-hundred percent of the media said the rule was verv or extremely fair. Eighty-six percent said the steps to obtain permission were extremely or very easy to understand (Results IV, Section D, Tables 1 and 2).
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 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 118 and 119:
The charge to the jury was somewhat
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?