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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Minnesota State Bar Association; the Hinnesota District Judges Associati the Municipal Judges Association; a the Minnesota County Judges Association the Minnesota Association; Trial Lawyers Association; the Minnesota the County Attorneys Council; the American County Civil Attorneys Liberties a Union; the Defense Attorneys Association; and the Joint Bar, Press, Radi u and TV Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Said notice, dated August 25, 1981, and duly mailed on said date, Ii set September 10, 1981, as the date by which such agendas and witness lists must be filed. A press release containing such notice was also distributed on August 28, 1981. I Pursuant to further notice duly given to those parties who respond a to the notice of August 25, a conference of the Commission and tives of such parties was held on September 21, 1981. an agenda and witness list was adopted. A few individuals who had not received and therefore not responded to the notice of August 25 were nevertheless permitted to file statements and/or appear as witnesses by I consent of the Commission without objection from Petitioners or Interes' Parties. 9 With the consent of the Commission and pursuant to a request filed 1 ~ by Petitioners Commission's with the Supreme Court, proceedings was authorized. video and audio coverage of the 1 Hearings and 20, 1981. were held before said Commission on October 5, 6, 12, 13 The hearing on October 5 was held in Room 1321 of the I Ramsey County Courthouse, and the hearing on October 6 was held in Room I L 1753 of the Hennepin County Government Center for the purpose of giving r I I I' ~
the Comission first-hand experience with video and audio coverage in different courtroom settings. The Commission also visited, but did not hold hearings in, -Ramsey County District Cour troom 1409 in order to see first-hand a smaller courtroom with darker decor and a lower level of lighting. The remaining hearings were held in Senate Hearing Room 15 in the State Capitol. Petitioners were represented by Paul R. Hannah and Catherine A. Cel?.a of the law firm of Oppenheimer, Wolff, Foster, Shepard and Donnelly There were no formal appearances in opposition, but Judge Hyam Segell appeared as an Interested Party informally in that capacity on behalf of the Minnesota District Judges Asscziation. At the aforesaid hearings,the following witnesses testified: Curtis Beckmann, News Director, WCC0 Radio, Minneapolis, outlining the four- year history of efforts of the media to secure permission of cameras in the courtrooms Kent Kobersteen, Minneapolis Tribune photographer, demonstrating still photo equipment Ron Handberg, General Manager, WCCO-TV, representing Midwest Radio TV, Inc., discussing the good reputation of the local media and requesting the opportunity to demonstrate it Stan Turner, reporter and anchorman, video equipment KSTP-TV, demonstrating t?ayne Ludkey, Kews Director, KTTC-TV, Rochester explaining the experience in Tv'isconsin and describing ant;cLpated court coverage by the metropolitan television stations Bob Jordan, News Director, KSTP-TV, St. Paul, discussing the, Florida expe rience and anticipated court coverage by the metropolis-an television stations Chuck Biechlin, News Director, WTCN-TV, the experience in Oregon and California tiinneapolis, describing Joyce Holm Strootman, News Director, KWLM-AM, Willmar describing the anticipated court coverage by rural radio stations
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 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 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?