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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 appropriate 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
supervisory responsibility. (See page 221 of California study.) The study concludes that there will be times when the administrative support system will be burdened when major cases are covered by cameras and microphones. It also concludes that judges will occasionally feel burdened in their decision- making role. (See page 227. ) It is undeniable that these burdens on Minnesota’s trial courts will occur as well. However, the long history of cooperation between the media and the courts is likely to resolve these problems faster than they have been resolved in many other states. It is very possible that Minnesota, in spite of its late entry into this area, will become a model for expanded trial coverage. Should this Court deny the petition, we hope it will state specific facts about Minnesota’s trial courts that make them different from so many of their counterparts. This will enable Petitioners to consider addressing the Court’s concerns in whatever forum is appropriate before bringing the petition again. Dated : March 22, 1989 Respectfully submitted, Patricia Hirl elongstaff License No. 45408 Associate General Counsel Star Tribune 425 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55488 (612) 372-4171 5
Page 1 and 2: Patricia Hirl Longstaff Associate G
Page 3 and 4: In Re Modification of Canon 3A(7) o
Page 5: In Michigan, as in the overwhelming
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 66 and 67:
at the forefront of the "cameras in
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?