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

PHYSICAL DISRUPTION
CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
In its order, filed December 23, 1981, the Supreme Court of
Arizona provided in the guidelines that all persons engaged in
coverage conduct their behavior in a manner that was not
distracting to the participants or the dignity of the
proceedings. Furthermore, the Court set forth in the
guidelines that television or still cameras which were
distracting shall not be permitted. In response to the
questionnaire in this regard, the following findings were
achieved:
1. 93% of the jurors/witnesses responding said during the
trial the presence of the media equipment did not distract them.
2. 82% of jurors/witnesses responding said the amount of
media equipment would not affect the dignity of the proceedings.
3. 92% of the jurors/witnesses responding said that the
amount of media equipment they saw did not cause them any
inconvenience.
4. 81% of the Court personnel responding said the
equipment and the operator present in the courtroom did not
distract them during the trial.
5. _,72% of the Court personnel responding said the
presence of the media equipment would not effect the dignity of
the trial.
--