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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nancy Reid, reporter, KDLH-TV, Duluth, describing use of the cameras in courts in Superior, Wisconsin Reid Johnson, News Director, WCCO-TV, describing TV coverage in the metropolitan.area Mark Durenberger, Minneapolis and St. Paul, audio consultant, describing the available audio equipment John Finnegan, Executive Editor, St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press, speaking of the responsibility or editors of the metropclitan papers Chuck Bailey, Editor, Minneapolis Tribune, speaking of the procedure and respons-' oility or newspaper editors Clinton A. Schroeder, President, Minnesota State Bar Association, giving the history of the Association's opposition to cameras in the courtroom, describing the Association's concern about the possible impact of cameras on witnesses and jurors and setting forth his opinion th...z cameras be permitted as they now are in the Supreme Court but not in the trial courts Justice Jack G. Day, Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Cleveland, Ohio, testifying as to his experience in opposition to the allowance of cameras in the courtroom Rick Lewis, Station Manager, KSJM, a public broadcasting station, describing the function of radio broadcast of trial proceedings Irving Fang, Professor, University of Minnesota, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, describing the training given by the University to journalism students, especially those specializing in broadcasting Dr. James L. Hoyt, Professor, University of Wisconsin, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, testifying as to experiments with mock trial. situations in favor of the allowance of cameras in the courtroom William Kobin, President, Twin Cities Public Broadcasting, KTCA, Channel 2, emphasizing that cameras in the courtroom . would edu_c_ate the public Judge Edward D. Cowart, Associate Dean, National College of the Judiciary, Reno, Nevada, formerly Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, testifying by telephone interview about the background of the esperinent in Florida in favor of allowing cameras in the courtroom
I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I D I 1 I t- _.. Charles Hvass, Jr., President, Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association, testifying in opposition to cameras in the courtroom, describing his concern about possible effect on litigants, witnesses and jurors Carol Grant, Representative of the Criminal Bar, testifying against cameras in the courtroom, especially her concern about its possible effect on victims of assault, rape, etc. Joel Hirschhorn, Attorney, Miami, Florida, who represented Chandler both in the trial court and on the appeal testifying in detail as to his opposition to cameras in the courtroom Judge Thomas E. Sholts, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida, testifying n opposition to cameras in the courtroom, describing his experience in the courts in Florida Judge Noah S. Rosenbloom, Judge of Brown County, testifying in opposition to cameras in the courtroom Harold LeVander, former Governor of the State of Minnesota testifying as to his experience with the media, and expreksing ,- his opposition to cameras in the courtroom Marjorie Burton, counselor for Sexual Offense Services of Ramsey County, testifying in opposition to cameras in the courtroom, describing her concern about its possible effect on rape victims Judge Ryan Segell, District Court Ramsey County, testifying in opposition to cameras in the co&troom .Judge Otis M. Godfrey, Jr., District Court, Ramsev Countv testifying in opposition to cameras in the courtroom . J Judge Thomas H. Barland, Circuit Judge Branch 1, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin, testifying as to his experience in Wisconsi; courts in favor of allowance of cameras in the courtroom In addition to the foregoing testimony, exhibits were received and marked as Exhibits 1 through 33. A list of exhibits is attached to this report. Briefs-were filed by the Petitioners and by Judge Otis H. Godfrey, Jr. in opposition to the Petition. Judge Hyam Segell filed a letter together with the items referred to therein as a supplement to Judge Godfrey's brief.
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 94 and 95: Minnesota State Bar Association; th
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?