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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8798 (804) 253-2000 * Edward 8. McConnell President February 3, 1988 MEMORANDUM REF. NO. IS 88.002 BY: Michael A. Haas RE: TV in the Courts, Evaluation of Experiments The Information Service was asked to provide information about states that have conducted experiments with television in the court and have evaluated such experiments. In November, 1979, the Florida Judicial Planning Coordination Unit of the Office of the State Courts Administrator completed A Sample Survey of The Attitudes of Individuals Associated with Trials Involving Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage in Selected Florida Courts Between July 5, 1977 and June 30, 1978. Copies of the tables of generally favorable responses from attorneys, witnesses, court personnel and jurors (pp 22 through 25) and Appendix A, showing the number of responses, are enclosed. On April 12, 1979 t,he Supreme Court of Florida made permanent its permission for the coverage and reporting of judicial proceedings by electronic media, in accordance with adopted standards and subject to the authority of the presiding judge. In 1978, Cameras in the Courtroom--A Two-Year Review in The State of Washington was released by the Washington State Superior Court Judges' Association Committee on Courts and Community. This generally favorable report has some negative comments which might have been obviated if the number of cameras permitted in the courtroom had been reduced. Nevada experimented with cameras in the courtroom for twelve months beginning in April 1980. The enclosed final report from The Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom, which was submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court on May 7, 1981, contains generally favorable questionnaire evaluations and comments. The report of an 18-month study, Evaluation of California's Experiment With Extended Media Coverage of Courts, was submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts by Ernest H. Short and Associates Inc. in September 1981. The conclusions and recommendations section is enclosed. The report states that with strict adherence to the rules under which the experiment was conducted, there were no significant adverse consequences from the extended media coverage in the courtroom. .
The report also emphasizes the pivot01 role played by the presiding judge in controlling the media coverage. A permanent rule permitting electronic media coverage of court proceedings was adopted by the California Judicial Council effective July 1, 1984. Arizona's 1983 report on its 1982-83 experimept is in Cameras and Recorders in Arizona's Trial Courts, An Evaluation of the Experiment by Rob Raker. The generally favorable response to the experiment led to the rules being made permanent in 1983. A summary of the evaluation is enclosed. The report of the Minnesota Advisory Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom to the Minnesota Supreme Court of January 11, 1982, is also enclosed. This favorable report recommended that the Supreme Court permit video coverage of court proceedings on an experimental basis. Also enclosed is the Report on Pilot Project on the Presence of Cameras and Electronic Equipment in the Courtroom compiled by Judge Guy E. Humphries, Jr., Division B, Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana. Again, the evaluation favored the use of cameras, noting that the fears often expressed about the presence of cameras were unfounded and that no loss of dignity or decorum was apparent. In addition to state evaluations, recent articles have tended to favor use of video equipment. Enclosed are: 1. "Cameras in Court" (1985 Report.to the Governor and Legislature, Judicial Council of California, pp. 23-27). This report prints the text of the California Rule allowing video coverage and points to minor problems such as elimination of shutter noise caused by still cameras and close range photographs of jurors. 2. "Digest (Iowa)" (State Court Journal, volume 8, November 4, p. 34). After four years of experiments with cameras in the courtroom of 190 trials, no serious problems-were reported, with jury exit polls showing media coverage had little effect on trial participants. 3. "Florida Survey Concludes Electronic Coverage Doesn't Interfere with Justice" (Court News, Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System, Volume 2, Number 11, 1978, p. 14). This survey of more than 2000 jurors, witnesses and court employees reported that televising courtroom proceedings did not disrupt trials or interfere with judicial administration. A negative reaction to courtroom cameras can be found in "'No' on Courtroom Cameras" (State Bar of Michigan Newsbriefs, Volume V. Number 8, September, 1982>, which is also enclosed. While this was a national survey of 600 attorneys, disapproval of cameras was greatest where used least and among older lawyers. MAH:caw Encl.
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: supervisory responsibility. (See pa
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?