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

.
instance the melee of media behavior in the courthouse
created a concern for safety. The judge emerged from
the experience recommending that the California Rules
of Court govern the behavior of media, particularly
television cameramen, within the courthouse, on the
courthouse grounds, and in juror parking areas as well
as in the courtroom. Additionally, the judge observed
that the issue of media coverage consumed over two days
of discussion in chambers before the start of jury se-
lection. This is the only instance in which the issue
of efficiency impairment due to media coverage was raised
by an interviewee.'
A serious incident involving cameras in the courts during
the experimental year occurred as a result of a television
camera peering through the courtroom door. A still
camera was inside the courtroom, having duly obtained
consent, but the television station had not completed
the request and consent process. A witness, who was
later characterized by the judge as "unstable to begin
with" was testifying without obvious'problem until she
saw the television camera operating through the courtroom
door. At this point she became hysterical. The television
crew was reprimanded and in deference to the witness,
the still camera was removed from the courtroom for the
remainder of her testimony. This anecdote reinforces
the need to control actively extended coverage of court
proceedings. Certainly, obtaining camera shots through
courtroom door windows is contrary to the intent of EMC
guidelines and restrictions.
Gran+&ng courtroom access to the media's cameras and
microphones gives the California court system an oppor-
-2380