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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 relaxations 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 relaxations 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 It is not suggested that any of the equipment and operator criteria be specifically repealed.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 .
ules which permits artificial lights or some other relaxation of the rules at the discretion of the judge might be advisable. The occassional relaxation of the standards'for equipment and operator presence would then not be a technical violation of the rules. Recommendation. Rule 980.2 shou2d be amended to permit at the discretion of the judge a re2ajcation of the restrictions on EMC equipment and operator presence. The reasons for any rule reZa=ation in this regard shsu2d be articulated on the record. c. Related Issues * This report has documented the process of applying rigorous evaluation techniques to the study of California's experi- ment with extended media coverage of courtroom proceedings. The evaluation has focused on specific inquiries which encom- pass many but not all of the issues involved. Among the issues not addressed, the research process has identified . . three key concerns which warrant direct comment. 1. Cameras in the Courthouse It has not been the purpose of this study to analyze media coverage of courtroom proceedings generally, except in the observation of in-court conventional media presence for comparison with extended media presence. Left unaddressed is the issue of hallway/courthouse media coverage practices. In the course of attending highly publicized courtroom proceedings and interview- ing participants, the opinion was offerred several times that "hallway pandemonium" and media aggressiveness outside the courtroom (yet inside the courthouse) was much more of a problem than in-court coverage, parti- cularly with respect to the issue of media obtrusiveness. -2360
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 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 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?