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

function of jurors and demonstrate that past experience and
present safeguards minimize the likelihood of EMC-related I
problems. This EMC-orientation could be accomplished in a
neutral fashion without advocating and promoting EMC as a
inherently good or bad; The EMC phenomenon when it occurs
can and should be treated as simply one more aspect of court
I
life about which jurors need and should have briefing prior
to service.
D. Conclusion
One Of the most intriguing aspects to this evaluation has been the
perspective gained from in-court observation. The evaluators were I
able to see for themselves if witnesses were nervous, if prosecutors
"played up to the camera", if jurors were distracted, and if judges I
.
were unable to keep order. In general, none of the postulated
disturbance-distraction-decorum effects occurred. There seemed I
little reason, in event and after event, to have many fears about
the presence of EMC equipment and personnel inside the courtroom,
I
under the controlled experimental conditions.
The experiment was highly structured, heavily monitored and tightly
I
controlled. Media representatives were asked to conform to strict
rules and procedures, request in writing to cover a news event, I
wait for approval, and then gather their news under controlled
conditions. As the experiment developed, it would have been quite 8
unexpected and shocking if grossly disruptive or wildly distracting
episodes had occurred. The rules and resultant structure virtually I
eliminated all possibility of extreme immediate impact. In response,
the evaluators developed
analyze behavior attributes
increasingly
and verbal
refined discriminations to
comments from interviews+
I
The "ordinariness"
major finding.
v-
of EMC at court
The lack of extremes
proceedings, is,
in behavioral
of courser a
and environmental
I
impacts is important.
-243-
I