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

jurors are more negative towards EMC than judges and
witnesses (although less negative than attorneys).
Attitude data show them to be suspicious of media
coverage of court proceedings by both conventional
and electronic/photographic means. Jurors are some-
what more skeptical towards EMC than conventional media
coverage although their apprehension diminishes after
an experience with EMC. Many jurors support the intro-
duction of cameras in the court room, but just as many
predict negative impacts of EMC on the case or on them-
selves. A total ban on EMC of jurors would go far to
alleviate the apprehension of some without compromising
the ability of the media to thoroughly cover the story.
Recommendation.’ Ru2e 980.2 should be amended to prohibit
--
extended coverage of jurors. Emphasis shou2d be p2aced
on prohibiting side or front face shots of a??y juror.
3. Notice Procedures
The rules require submission of written requests for EMC
a reasonable time in advance of the proceeding for which
it is being requested. Throughout the experimental year,
the requirement that.the request be written proved to be
an effective means of instilling structure into a request
process which could easily become informal and "loose".
As it was, some judges disregarded or never were cogni-
zant of this aspect of the rule and permitted cameras
without a written request. The "reasonable time in
advance" requirement also proved successful; the absence
of a specific time period permitted a measure of flexi-
bility in the negotiations and arrangements between
courts and the media. What constituted a.reasonable
s.*
time in advance'varied greatly with the nature of the
-232-