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

l In three-fourths of all EMC events during the
year, judges reported little or no increase in
their supervisory responsibility. Ten percent
(10%) of judge respondents reported definite or
extreme increase to their supervisory responsi-
bility.
l Observational data confirm interview data in the
conclusion that EMC generally was not distracting
to participants. These data show that courtrooms
were "calm" environments with both EMC and con-
*
ventional-only media presence.
l Observational data indicate that potential sources
of distraction other than EMC (conventional media,
court personnel, trial participants, audience,
and external noises) were approximately equal to
EMC in causing distraction and disruption. All
these factors generally cause little problem inside
the courtroom.
l The ability of judges, attorneys, and witnesses to
"effecitvely communicaten generally was not impaired
by EMC.
l Large majorities of attorney and juror interviewees
perceived no change in judge behavior due to EMC
although some defense attorneys and jurors (26% and
14% respectively) perceived a negative change.
l Judges, opposing counsel, and jurors generally saw
no change in attorney behavior due to EMC although
a few in each group (lo-15%) perceived a negative
change.
l Judges, attorneys, and jurors generally saw no
change in tritness behavior due to EMC although some
(12%, 22%, and 16% respectively) perceived negative
'changes due to EMC.
l Judges overwhelmingly saw no effect of EMC on juror
behavior but 18% of attorney respondents saw negative
effects.
l There is a distinct trend in interview response data
which may be labeled: Transference of Responsibility.
That is, .a particular participant group tended to
see greater negative effect on other participant
groups than on their own group.
-221-