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

The results and recommendations in this evaluation are related
to and predicated on the rules of the experiment. The evaluation
findings and conclusions only apply in the context of the rules;
any weakening of these rules.would tend to invalidate the appli-
cability of the research results. The generally high marks for
the experiment thus far should not be taken as license to grant
carte blanche access by extended media or to ignore the guide-
lines in the rules.
California's experiment thus far with cameras in the courts
has not been tainted by an Estes or a Hauptman. The safeguards
against turning the judicial arena into a circus arena are
working. Indeed, no "circus-like" atmosphere, to send a clear
signal
controls.
that justice
The threat
is threatened,
to a fair
may occur
trial in the
under 'present
present era of
.
cameras in the courts is a more subtle one. It would take a mixing
of subtle elements to create real problems, and the wrong combination
of elements could result in injustice. For example, cameras
in the courts in the context of an overly aggresive media, a
susceptible judge, a vulnerable witness, and a volatile com-
munity issue could do irreparable harm to-justice in the case=
The structure of Clifornia's rules on extended media coverage
place the judge in a pivotal position. It is up to the
judge to recognize when the wrong combination Of elements is
present and to take steps to diffuse the danger. Because the
judge's role is so central, it should be protected from com-
promise. The media should not assume an absolute right to
access with their cameras and microphones. The burden to
obtain consent should remain with the media: no burden should be
placed on the judge to justify to the satisfaction of the
media that denial of access is appropriate.
-..
-244-