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

In Michigan, as in the overwhelming majority of other states, the states
highest court evaluated carefully the burden on trial judges as well as the
effect on participants. They were, undoubtedly, also influenced by the modi-
fications to Canon 3A(7) which were approved the the American Bar Asso-
ciation’s (ABA) House of Delegates on August 11, 1982. The new rule reads as
follows :
(7) A judge should prohibit broadcasting, televising,
recording or photographing in courtrooms and areas
immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court,
or recesses between sessions, except that under rules
prescribed by a supervising appellate court or other
appropriate authority, a judge may authorize broad-
casting, televising, recording and photographing of
judicial proceedings in courtrooms and areas immediately
adjacent thereto consistent with the right of the
parties to a fair trial and subject to express
conditions, limitations, and guidelines which allow such
coverage in a manner that will be unobtrusive, will not
distract the trial participants, and will not otherwise
interfere with the administration of justice.
This rule clearly indicated a new view by the ABA in regard to expanded
cove rage. It acknowledges the fact that courts can, in fact, draft rules that
protect the administration of justice. In New York, this is being done by the
legislature. A proposal to make the experimental period authorized by the
legislature is currently being debated. See Exhibit C.
There is no reason to believe that the experience of so many other states
will be different in Minnesota. Indeed, in the few cases where expanded
coverage was used here, the results have been favorable according to the
parties involved. None of the dire consequences predicted by opponents of this
petition have occurred.
3