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

Table 5
To what extent did the presence of television, photographic or
radio coverage in the courtroom inhibit the witness?
Not at all 35%
Slightly 47%
Moderately
Very i
Extremely
No response los%
Total 100%
Table 6
Comments by Attorneys
1. The media coverage in the courtroom was professional and
insofar as I was able to determine, in all respects adhere2
to the order of the judge.
While as a defense attorney, prior
cameras in the courtroom, I was
that such would restrict or inhibit
to actual experience
against such because
the likelihood of
with
I felt
a fair
trial. After having participated in more than one capacity
to a limited extent with cameras
experiencing the highly professional
media have performed their function
in the
manner
and strictly
courtoom,
in which
adhered
and
the
to
the orders
cameras in
allowed in
of
the
the
the court,
courtroom.
courtroom
I am wholeheartedly in favor
They should continue to be
on a case by case basis, with
of
only
the
judge in each case being required to review the situation
and place such conditions and restrictions as are necessary
to insure a fair and orderly proceeding.
2. I am strongly opposed to media coverage such as television
and radio in the courtroom for the following reasons:
a. Negative
witness.
effect on participants, judge, myself and
b. The resulting coverage and grossly distorted and
thereby extremely misleading information, to anyone not
present at the hearing.
3. The methodology and locating of media representatives is
more important to concern rules with than the approval or
disapproval of their access. Great care must be taken in
keeping the media presence as subtle as possible.
Page 13
I