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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Result D: The presence of the electronic media appeared to have minimal proceedings effects, on positive trial. or negative, on the quality of the Twenty-eight percent of the judges said the presence of operators and equipment slightly increased the dignity of the proceedings.. Fifty-six percent of the judges, 76 percent of attorneys, 89 percent of the media and 77 percent of witnesses reported no effect (IV Results, Section A, Table 2). In addition, 84 percent 56 percent of of the media the judges, reported that 76 percent operators of and attorneys equipment and did not at judges all disrupt proceedings. reported a slight disruption Twenty-eight in proceedings percent of the and 85 percent of the Section media A, Table reported 3). a moderate disruption (IV Results, The majority of judges, 88 percent, reported that the presence of the media did not make the attorneys better prepared (IV Results, 88 percent, make them Table 1). Section B, Table 3). The majority of attorneys also report that the presence of the media did not prepare their cases better (IV Results, Section C, Result E: The presence of cameras and the media did not make the majority of judges, attorneys or witnesses nervous or self-conscious. 83 percent Statistics of attorneys indicate that and 81 percent 76 percent of witnesses of did judges, not feel only slightly felt self-conscious (IV Results, Section A, iible 7). Result F: Judges reported a strong tendency of witnesses to become distracted by operators of equipment. Although 44 percent of judges reported that witnesses were not at all distracted by equipment and operators, 48 percent of judges reported that witnesses were extremely distracted (IV Results, Section B, Table 9). Result G: Almost half of the judges reported that a party or witness objected to the media’s presence in the courtroom. Forty-four percent of the judges reported objections (IV Results, Section B, Table 3). Result H: Witnesses definitely did not want to see or hear themselves in the media. s- According to the data, 71 percent of witnesses did not want to see or hear themselves in the media (IV Results, Section A, Table 12). Page 2
Result I: Knowing that the proceedings or trial might be televised did not affect the majority of witnesses’ desire to participate in the trial or their respect for the courts, For the majority of witnesses, 81 percent, knowing the proceeding might be televised, did not affect their desire to participate (IV Results, Section E, Table 5). Eighty one percent report that the presence of the media had no affect on their respect for the courts (IV Results, Section E, Table 4). IV. RESULTS A. Comparison Questions Table 1 Overall, would YOU favor or oppose allowing photographic or radio coverage in the courtroom? Completely in Favor Slightly in Favor No Opinion Slightly Opposed Completely Opposed No Response Total Judges Attorneys Witnesses 75% 11% 29% 41% 16% 13% :: 0 4% 6% 6% 182 0 26% 19% 26% 0 100% 100% 100% Table 2 television, To what extent did the presence of operators and equipment in the courtroom affect the dignity of the proceedings? Greatly Increased Slightly Increased No Effect Slightly Decreased Greatly Decreased No Response Total Judges Attorneys Media Witnesses Page 3 2081 0 0 6% 1,;; 56% 76% 8;: 77% 8% 6% 0 12% 0” 0” 8% 0 7% 0 100% 100% 100% 100%
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 24 and 25: APPENDIX SURVET SUMARY TABLE OF CA?
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?