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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

. tunity to negotiate with the media on certain practices and behaviors in the corridors and courthouse generally. Whether additional governance of media in this regard is embodied in rules or achieved by presiding judges at specific events, the opportunity to make progress towards a mutually agreeable set of ground rules for covering the courts outside the courtroom should not be ignored. The results of this evaluation offer some assurance that, under the guidance of specific rules, the courts . and the media were able to neqotiate relatively satis- factory agreements which minimized obtrusiveness and other potential problems posed by the presence of EMC inside courtrooms. If courthouse and courtroom EMC issues can be linked and if, in the negotiation process of granting such coverage, greater restraints on or control of obtrusiveness and other problems outside the courtroom can be achieved, then the courts and the media together will have made rational headway in resolving some of the real sources of‘ occasional media obtrusiveness and subsequent ill-feelings. 2. "Type C" Effects A model,depicting the "universe" of potential effects of electronic/photographic court coverage is presented in Section I.B. (p.10 ). In placing this study in the context of that model, it was stated that few issues within the "Type C" Effects could be addressed. 5Pe C Effects are those 'effects of broadcast and publication of EMClproducts which occur after the completion of the proceeding being covered, of both a short-term and long-term nature. -2390
a I I 1 I R I . 1 I I I I I I I I This evaluation inquired as to "fear of harm" to jurors witnesses, and defendants, but no follow-up has been possible to determine if any harm actually ensued (physical, psychological, reputational, or financial). Only a few jurors, witnesses, and defendants expressed any sense of "fear of harm" due to EMC and some of these responses referred as much to a general opinion that EMC could facilitate harm as much as any specifically defined fear. Defendants raised the only specific "fear of harm" opinion. A few feared retribution from prison inmates for the type of crime they committed le. g- rape) and two politician defendants sensed possible damage to their reputations. Otherwise, the "fear of harm I) issue did not seem significant. Another unaddressed area warranting further study is that of community reaction to televised trials and published photographs of trials. What is the immediate result of EMC on the public? Do they feel better in- formed on the case than they would have with conventional- only coverage? Does the broadcast of trials cumulatively serve to educate the public on the judicial process? , The answers to these questions are related to the ques- tion, how does the media present stories from EMC trials? . Clearly, this issue was of concern to interviewees among all participant types. Although the evaluators did not formally research opinions on the quality of the broadcast product, the interviewees offered opinions and reactions on this subject quite frequently. These comments may be categorized in three broad groups. -240- .
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 82 and 83: permanent basis, it is the opinion
Page 84 and 85: Media coverage of judicial proceedi
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?