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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. The positioning of the cameras in this instance was excellent. It was out of the peripheral vision of the witness and not distracting. You were only aware of the camera when initially taking the stand. The only suggestion I have is that once the rule is invoked, there should be a remote room for the witnesses, not in the hall where the portable T.V. equipment is located. 6. In regard to having media coverage of the trial, I personnally feel it is against my constitutional rights, due to the fact that the defendant, and possibly the entire nation, may view his accuser while the entire city of Las Vegas may not. Just the fact of having the equipment in the courtroom made me nervous, and I feel that the defense lawyer, knowing he was on T.V., and the fact that I was nervous could have gotten me confused in my statements and made me look bad on local television. This makes me think that I’m being tried and not the subject (the defendant that started this mess). The media coverage also takes away most of my concentration to answer the questions prop’erly and I feel anything that disrupts a testimony is not beneficial to either the plaintiff or the defendant or for the court system. Just for your information, I thought the other witnesses were not allowed to hear each other’s testimony, but with the media monitoring the courtroom, you could hear everything that was being said from outside of the courtroom. If I hadn’t said anything to the assistant district attorney, who moved us from the monitoring area, and if the defense lawyer had found out about this, he might have gotten his client off on a technicality. 7. The witness exclusion rule was more or less nulified by monitors in the hall. 8. I have used the system in court for coroner’s inquest and it possibly .has limited, if any, effect upon either myself or the proceedings. 9. I believe the news media should not photograph officers who testify. 10. I was already nervous enough. The broadcasting, photographing, televising or newspaper coverage only added to my nervousness. I had to watch what I said during the trial for fear it might go public, I would rather none of the media be present to protect myself as a witness. Page 20
11. I feel the presence of camera equipment in the courtroom over dramatizes the trial, adding far too much sensationalism. By picking and chaos ing excerpts to be reported and/or televised, the public is not informed of the total picture. The result is bias. This procedure also tends to intimidate .some lay witnesses. 12. As for media coverage, I think televising a trial certainly helps the state, but as far as a witness is concerned, I personally feel this type of coverage is very painful and unnecessary. A witness is very nervous and scared to begin with, for them not to have any rights when they are helping the state is disgusting to me. I feel each witness should be asked whether they would like to be photographed or not. Personally, this has left me with the feeling that as a resident of this state for 29 years, having always been a law abiding citizen, I will never help out or get involved in any case ever again or as long as my rights are totally ignored. Needless to say, I am very disappointed and have’ lost a vast amount of respect for our court system. 13. Following the trial, I did not like being shown on T.V. V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Major Conclusion A review of the date and evaluation comments indicates an overall positive reaction to ADKT 26. B. Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom Recommendations 1. The Commission recommends there should be a yearly evaluation of Cameras in the Courtroom with a standing committee studying and improving the rules and procedures. The standing committee should report to the Supreme Court. 2. The Commission recommends that the Supreme Court appoint a justice of the peace from Clark County to the Commission. C. Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom Suggested Amendments to ADKT 26 1. The Commission recommends ADKT 26 be amended on s.. page 1, Rule 2, as follows: after “commences”, add “or any time thereafter.” 2. The Commission recommends ADKT 26 be amended on page 2, Rule 4A, as follows: after “guidelines. I’, add “All participants shall be notified.” Page 21
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 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 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?