 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Fall 2007 Bulletin
Minnesota Considers Cameras in Trial Courtrooms
The Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on General Rules of Practice considered a proposal to improve electronic media access to courtrooms at two meetings this fall. A coalition of media organizations, including the Minnesota Newspaper Association, Broadcasters Association, and Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), petitioned the state Supreme Court in March 2007 asking for a change in the rule.
The current Minnesota rules allow cameras or other electronic media only if the judge and all the parties consent. According to the media coalition, that amounts to a complete ban on still cameras, video cameras, and audio recorders in Minnesota’s courtrooms because attorneys are reluctant to change the status quo.
“[E]xperience demonstrates that virtually all of the criticisms once leveled at [electronic media] coverage are largely lacking in substance. Indeed, such coverage has been shown to produce distinct dividends, not simply for the news media, but for the public and the courts as well,” the petition said. According to Rick Kupchella, a reporter for KARE-11 and SPJ member, 36 states have less restrictive laws governing electronic media access to courtrooms.
“It’s been 20 years since the Supreme Court last looked at the issue,” said Mark Anfinson, a lawyer for the media coalition at the Sept. 21, 2007 committee meeting. “The current rule just doesn’t work.”
Judge Patrick R. Grady, a trial judge in Iowa’s Sixth Judicial District, told the advisory committee that Iowa’s rule allows electronic media access to court proceedings without disrupting the judicial process.
Iowa’s rule, adopted in 1984, provides: “Broadcasting, televising, recording, and photographing will be permitted in the courtroom and adjacent areas during sessions of the court ... .” Iowa Court Rule, chapter 25, gives the judge authority to remove the cameras, but requires the reason for removal be included in the record. The rule prohibits media coverage of juvenile cases, jury selection, and other proceedings where rules or statutes require privacy.
Grady praised the rule for its emphasis on judicial discretion and ability to enhance public confidence in the judiciary by showing the public how real courts operate. He said the public’s impression of the judiciary comes from watching “Judge Judy” on television. “They think we’re the most caustic, abusive, sarcastic group of people,” he said. “We look better the more people know about us.”
Cameras do not lead to grandstanding lawyers or fearful witnesses, Grady said. Good judges keep control of their courtrooms with or without an electronic media presence, he added.
Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and committee member Barry Anderson asked Grady whether the media provided enough coverage to give the public an accurate impression, or simply showed emotional testimony without substance. Grady acknowledged that two minute spots condensing hours’ worth of testimony were “the nature of the beast.” But he said he believed the media provided fair coverage of judicial proceedings in Iowa.
Sawyer County Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Norman L. Yackel told the committee at its Oct. 24, 2007 meeting that Wisconsin’s rule vested discretion in judges to allow or prohibit cameras.
He said new technology has allowed for the unobtrusive presence of cameras in courtrooms. He cited remote operated video cameras mounted behind the judge to film the attorneys, defendant, and audience as well as “mufflers” to silence the “click, click, click” from the still photographers.
“It’s no big deal. No one even thinks about it,” he said.
Yackel presided over the 2005 trial of Chai Soua Vang, the Minnesota deer hunter who killed six people in the woods near Hayward, Wis. in November 2004. The incident, and ensuing trial, brought national media attention to Sawyer County, population 16,000 Yackel said. Court TV broadcast much of the trial live and provided film to other journalists.
Like Grady, Yackel said the rule works because it leaves the judge discretion to manage the courtroom and provides for a “media coordinator” to ensure all interested journalists gain access to the footage. Both Wisconsin and Iowa establish a media coordinator for each district to coordinate press pools and access to footage. Both states appoint a local journalist to the position.
Yackel said that electronic media access worked well in Wisconsin, but Minnesota must make decisions about access on its own. “Every State is different, every legal community is different, and I am sure you will do what’s best for you,” he said.
After Yackel concluded his comments, committee chairwoman Elizabeth Hayden, a Seventh District Judge in Stearns County, asked for comments from committee members. Steven Cahill, a Seventh District Judge, said it was time for Minnesota to join its neighbors and allow electronic media access to court rooms.
However, other members voiced reservations and called for more meetings and comments from the public and attorneys in states where cameras are allowed. Many committee members suggested a restriction on access to juvenile proceedings, family court, and jury selection. Others worried about how to define a journalist, and who should be able to take pictures and record audio in courtrooms.
“We need to get on the table what kind of restrictions we think are appropriate,” Anderson said.
The committee will hold a public hearing on Jan. 11, 2008, from 9 a.m. to noon.
Anderson said he hoped the committee would find speakers who opposed a rule change for the next meeting. He said the committee should not rush to a decision and should work to hear all sides of the story.
- Michael Schoepf, Silha Research Assistant
 |
 |
 |
Home | About | Events | Bulletin | Resources University of Minnesota | College of Liberal Arts | School of Journalism and Mass CommunicationCopyright © 2003 Silha Center at the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
|
