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

permanent basis, it is the opinion of the evaluators
that it should do so without a criminal case party
consent requirement. .The result of such a requirement
would be to stifle the extended media process to the
extent that it may as well not be allowed at all.
Since the evaluation has not produced evidence to indi-
cate the necessity of reverting to a complete prohibi-
tion of extended coverage, it is recommended that the
rules continue with no party consent required, given
that the trial judge has the ultimate authority to
allow or disallow EMC.
Recommendation. Rule of Court 980.2 should remain as
present2y formulated in requiring onZy the consent of
the judge before ENC may take place.
5. Equipment and Operator Criteria
In Section III of this report, it was noted that several
instances of rule "relaxations" occurred. (Rule relaxa-
tions are sanctioned occurrences which are contrary to
the letter of the rules.) Most prominent among these
instances were the use of artificial lights and the
admission of three or more cameras. These rule relaxa-
tions were permitted at the discretion of the judge and
occurred under controlled conditions. None of them
resulted in chaos, a "circus-like" atmosphere, or obvi-
ous disruption or distraction.
To the extent that these relaxations of the rules occurr
there exists an inconsistency in rule requirements and
actual-EMC practice. It is not suggested that any of
the equipment and operator criteria be specifically
repealed. However, the addition of a clause to the
-2350
.