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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1. Still Camera Shutter Noise Observational and interview data both reveal a distrac- tion problem with the shutter noise of still cameras. While this problem does not occur in a majority of cases, it does occur frequently enough to warrant action. The cameras causing the problem are among those in the list of approved makes and models attached to the Rules. The control of still camera obtrusive- ness is the only area in which the rules are not "tough" enough. . Rarely did the evaluators observe or receive reports of the use of a blimping device which completely mutes the noise of still cameras. In the People v. Robbins trial, a sheath was used to mute still camera noise, but even this did not completely eliminate the problem. The use of a blimping device represents an additional cost or convenience factor which evidently the media generally prefers to avoid, particularly since the rules do not require their use so long as an approved camera is used. The Judicial Council has available alternative approaches to dealing with the still camera noise problem should it decide to do so. It may refine the list of approved cameras to include only those with relatively quiet shutter clicks (such as the Leica model). Or, it may require the use of a blimping or sheathing device on all still cameras having shutter click noise louder than the quietest models. Or, it may leave the rules as is Znd rely'upon the discretion of an informed judge to control the problem. -230-
Recommendation. Rule of Court 980.2 ehouid be amended to strengthen its control over stiZt camera shutter noise. BZimping devices ehouZd be mandatory on at2 but the quietest camerae presently on the approved camera6 list. 2. Juror Anonymity The rules presently prohibit "close-up" coverage of jurors. In only a few instances was this rule violated by the media but in several other instances an unavoid- able "gray area" was broached. The most common TV camera placement i's "over the shoulder" of the jury, a placement which makes any shot of the jury a close up of at least the most proximate jurors. This fact, coupled with the fact that jurors generally desire complete anonymity in the performance of their duty, suggests a possible revision of the rules. In some trials, the judge invoked a complete ban on juror coverage. This restriction occurred in "sensa- tional crime" type EMC events, the type of case in which the media has great and constant interest. In the opinion of the evaluators, these instances of re- strictions on juror coverage were appropriately invoked and well received by the jurors in the case. A rule amendment creating a total ban on extended coverage of jurors is worth considering. Jurors would be assured that the justice system had taken every pre- caution to preserve their anonymity and safety. The evaluation interviews show jurors to be an outspoken grouprand although theerange of opinions is wide, jurors appear to be moderately skeptical about the effects of EMC of court proceedings. As a group, -231-
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 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 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?