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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

at the forefront of the "cameras in the courts" issue. In authorizing a rigorous evaluation of the experiment, the findings of which are summarized below, California has contributed,to the' acquisition of greater knowledge about the ramifications and consequences of permitting extended media in‘the courtroom. 2. Summary of Case Specific Data Analysis Participant interview and evaluator observation data contributed conclusions greatly.to . about both the formulation major research of findings questions. and Sec- tion IV contains 28 tables summarizing the responses of interviewees and results of observational data analysis. The following series of statements further distill the findings and conclusions in that portion of the report. l Generally speaking, the response patterns of attorneys are more negatively disposed towards EMC than other participant types. Among attorneys, defense attorneys clearly are the most negative toward EMC. Judges' and witnesses'rcsponse patterns are generally more positive towards EMC than other participant types. Jurors' response patterns are more positive towards EMC than attorneys and more negative towards EMC than judges or witnesses. l The presence of EMC equipment and operators generally was not distracting to proceeding participants. Only 10% of participants interviewed said that EMC was either somewhat, . definitely, or extremely distracting. s Over 80% of interviewed judges and attorneys perceived no impairment to "dignity and decorum" because of EMC. About 10% of respondents detected '-slight 'impairment and 10% detected more than slight impairment due to EMC. -222-
Judges were evenly divided in characterizing their experience with EMC as positive or neutral. Only a few respondents (7%) reported that their experience was negative. Attorneys show a similar split although a greater percentage (27%) reported hav- ing a negative experience. In terms of personal preference, about one-fifth to one-fourth of all judge, witness, and juror respondents said they would have preferred EMC not be present. Over one-third (38%) of all attorney respondents so . indicated. Half of all judge respondents concluded that EMC had virtually no effect on the proceeding. One-fifth said it had a positive effect, another fifth said it had mixed positive and negative effects, and a few (8%) said it had a negative overall effect. Jurors were more negative in their assessment of overall impact: 21% perceived a negative effect from elec- tronic or photographic media presence. The above summary statements are based upon interview and observational data, which together establish clear patterns regarding the effects of EMC. Throughout the interview data (and to a lesser extent the observational data) there exists a reservoir of skepticism or reported negativity about EMC. In gross terms, this reservoir can be said to hover around the 10% level. The discussion in Section IV attempts to describe the specific substance of the negativity found in interview and observational data. In the opinion of the evaluators, EMC never was responsible for a "travesty of justice". In only a few instances did experienced attorneys present a specific theory that EMC did or very well could have altered case outcome or otherwise impeded the fair ad- ministration of justice. In several other interviews, a more'.-general speculation about negative EMC impacts was offered, without arguing that these negative effects occurred in the case in question. -2230 .
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 44 and 45: 5. The positioning of the cameras i
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?