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

Indeed, if one separates out the arguments that appear to be based on
assumptions that the media (1) are evil and/or (2) have no business in trial
courts anyway, the only argument that remains to be addressed is that of
scarce judicial resources. It is undeniable that the first time a trial judge
deals with this procedure it will take more time. He or she will have to read
the rules and meet w lith a media representative. However, in other states this
has proven to become routine and less time consuming as the practice continues.
For example, the Arizona study (at page 29) found that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
82% of the attorneys responding said the presence of
the media and its equipment did not obstruct or delay
the orderly conduct of the court’s business.
90% of the judges responding said they did not have to
reschedule any hearings as a result of the media
problem.
95% of the court personnel responding said that the
presence of the media did not delay the orderly
conduct of the court’s business.
83% of the judges and attorneys responding said that
media coverage requests were made within an appro-
priate amount of time.
91% of the judges responding said that there was
proper advance notification by the media to allow
appropriate time for the presence of the media in the
courtroom, prior to the convening of the trial.
72% of the attorneys responding said the amount of
people involved with coverage of the proceedings from
the media stationed outside the courtroom did not
cause the attorneys to be concerned.
55% of the judges and attorneys responding said that
objections to the media were raised during the
proceedings.
Similarly, the California study found that in 75% of trials where expanded
media coverage was used, the judge reported little or no increase in their
4