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

Media coverage of judicial proceedings has always
entailed the presence of reporters, cameras, micro-
phones, and equipment operators in the hallway out-
side courtrooms and in and around the courthouse gen-
erally. The bigger the story, the larger the size of
this press corps, and in the high publicity cases, this
gathering can include a dozen TV cameras, numerous
still cameras, and dozens of reporters. When consid-
ering the issue of media obtrusiveness in covering
judicial proceedings, the presence and behavior of
media in the corridors and courthouse generally stands
out as a much greater problem than in-court presence
and behavior.
In several EMC events, judges and attorneys offerred
unsolicited information to the evaluators regarding
the corridor/courthouse issue. Among the concerns are:
l intimidation or harrassment of witnesses or defend-
ants as they circulate in the courthouse:
.
l influence on jurors who are cognizant of the media
"commotion" in the corridor, inadvertent exposure
to biasing input from media in the courthouse, and
harrassment of jurors after the trial by media
aggressively seeking interviews:
l disturbance of surrounding courtrooms by media
hallway commotion; and
l improper conduct in obtaining camera shots through
the courtroom door.
In one major trial (People v. Robbins) the conduct of
the press outside the courtroom was a serious problem
in theopinion of the judge. Harrassment of the defend-
ant in seeking camera coverage and interview responses
became an issue before the court and in at least one
-2370