Case Title: Order Promulgating Amendments to the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

Citation: 

Docket Number: adm09-8009-0

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 2015-08-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED

STATE OF MINNESOTA
‘August 12,2015
IN SUPREME COURT Orrice oF
‘AvreiaTeCourTs
ADMO9-8009

ORDER PROMULGATING AMENDMENTS TO THE,
MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE

‘The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure
("the Committee”) recommended amendments to Rule 4 of the General Rules of Practice
to authorize a pilot project that would permit, without the consent of the parties, limited
audio and video coverage of certain criminal trial court proceedings. Currently, the
General Rules permit audio and video coverage of criminal proceedings only with the
consent of all parties and by court order. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.02(c). As proposed by
the Committee, the pilot project would allow audio and video coverage of proceedings,
such as sentencing, that occur after a guilty verdict has been returned or a guilty plea has
been tendered.

‘The Committee filed its report and recommendations on July 29, 2014. On
September 19, 2014, the Court opened a public comment period and scheduled a public
hearing for December 16, 2014. Written comments were submitted by 19 organizations
and individuals. Nine individuals spoke at the December 16 bearing, including the Chair

of the Com

 

+; representatives of the Hennepin County Attomey’s Office, the Dakota
‘County Attomey's Office, and the Suburban Hennepin County Prosecutors Association;

representatives of media organizations; representatives of the Criminal Law Section of
the State Bar Association and criminal defense attomeys including public defenders; and
representatives of the Minnesota Coalition against Sexual Assault and the Judicial Branch
Committee for Equality and Justice.

‘The court has considered the oral and written comments, along with the proposed
format of the pilot project. After careful review, the court has determined that a pilot
project should proceed, but only with restrictions on the cases and proceedings in which
‘coverage shall be permitted, and with additional safeguards and conditions to govern that
coverage. Based on all ofthe files, records, and proceedings herein,

ITIS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1, Theattached amendments to the General Rules of Practice be, and the same
are, prescribed and promulgated to be effective as of November 10, 2015,

2. The Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure is directed to
‘work with the State Court Administrator or his designee, and the media coordinators for
Minnesota District Courts, to establish procedures to monitor and report on the pilot
project, On or before January 1, 2018, the Committee shall file a status report on the
pilot project, with recommendations for any further rule amendments; and,
recommendations for continuation, abandonment, or modification of the pilot project, or
for permanent codification of the rules for the pilot project.

Dated: August 12, 2015 BY THE COURT:

 
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT

ADMO9-8009

MEMORANDUM.
PER CURIAM.

In December 2013 following a 2-year pilot project that allowed cameras and other
recording equipment in courtrooms in certain civil proceedings, without requiring party
consent, the court directed the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of
Criminal Procedure (“the Committee”) to review a proposal by media representatives for
4 limited pilot project permitting audio and/or video coverage of certain criminal
proceedings. Promulgation of Amendments to the Minn. Gen Rules of Prac.,
‘No. ADMO9-8009, Order at 2-3 (Minn. filed Dec. 3, 2013). In July 2014 the Committee
proposed amendments to the General Rules of Practice to authorize a pilot project

permitting audio or video coverage, without party consent, of certain criminal trial court

 

proceedings. Specifically, as recommended by the Commitee, such coverage would be
permitted in sentencing and other proceedings held after a guilty verdict has been
retumed ora guilty plea has been tendered.

After careful and thorough review of the Committee’s recommendations, the
written comments, and the public-hearing comments, the court authorizes a limited pilot

project as follows:

‘* Except as limited below, electronic coverage shall be permitted at proceedings held in
the courtroom in the presence of the presiding judge after a guilty verdict has been
returned or a guilty plea has been accepted, provided adequate advance notice of the
intended coverage is given as directed by the trial court.

‘© Regardless of the consent of the parties:

A. No electronic coverage is permitted of any proceeding held with a jury
present,
B. No coverage is permitted in any proceeding held in Minnesota's problem=

solving courts, including drug courts, mental health courts, veterans court, and
DWI courts.

   

C. No coverage is permitted in cases involving crimes of criminal sexual
conduct andor family or domestic violence.

D. No coverage of any testifying victim is permitted unless that vietim, before
testifying, affirmatively acknowledges and agrees in writing to the proposed
‘coverage.

 

‘+ Inall other instances, the presiding judge may limit or exclude media requests for
electronic courtroom coverage based on the interests and safety concems of the
participants to the proceedings, the decorum and dignity of the proceedings, and the
impartial administration of justice.

We adopt the recommendation for a pilot project, with the additional limitations

and restrictions set forth in the rules as amended, for the reasons explained below.

 

1

Proceedings in Minnesota’s courts are, generally, public. See State v. Brown, 815
1N.W.2d 609, 616 (Minn, 2012); Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co, v. Schumacher, 392
'N.W.2d 197, 202 (Minn. 1986) (“[W]hat transpires in the courtroom is public property.”
(quoting Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S, 367, 374 (1947) (A trial is a public event.")); see
also Minn. R. Pub. Access 2 (“Records of all courts... are presumed to be open to any
‘member of the public for inspection”). We have therefore held that excluding the public

from judicial proceedings is justifiable only when there are overriding interests. See, e.g,
State v. Fageroos, $31 N.W.24 199, 203 (Minn, 1995) (remanding for an evidentiary
hearing on reasons for closing the courtroom during the testimony of minor victims);
State v. Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 88, 139 N.W.2d 800, 807 (1966) (holding that the
exclusion of the public from a criminal trial violated the defendant's constitutional right
to public trial).

‘The individual member of the public, generally unable to attend trials for a host of
reasons, depends on the information provided by those who do attend, including media
representatives. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73
(1980) (plurality opinion) ("Instead of acquiring information about trials by firsthand
observation or by word of mouth from those who attended, people now acquire it chiefly

‘through the print and electronic medi

 

). The media’s right to be present at public court
proceedings as a representative of the public is not at issue here. Rather, a narrow
question is presented: whether electronic coverage by the media of public criminal
proceedings in tral courts should be allowed without party consent.! Because we have
faced this question before, we begin by reviewing the history of electronic coverage of
Minnesota court proceedings.

The Minnesota Code of J

 

ial Conduct adopted in 1974 prohibited
“broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom . . . during

sessions of court,” Minn. Code Jud. Conduct 3A(7) (1978), unless the coverage did not,

"Cameras have long been allowed in Minnesota’s appellate courts without party

consent. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 134.10; Amended Order Permitting Audio & Video
Coverage of Appellate Court Proceedings, No. C7-81-300 (Minn. filed Sept. 28, 1983).
distract the participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings; all parties and witnesses

 

had consented; the “reproduction” was not exhibited until after all proceedings, including

a direct appeal, were exhausted; and the reproduction was exhibited only for

 

instructional purposes in educational institutions.” Id. In 1981, media representatives
petitioned the court to amend Canon 3A(7) to allow coverage of trial court proceedings
without regard to party consent. A court-appointed commission took testimony and in a
repor filed January 12, 1982, recommended that “video and audio coverage of trial court
proceedings [be permitted] on an experimental basis for a reasonable period of time.” Jn
‘re Modification of Canon 34(7) of the Minn. Code of Jud. Conduct, No. C7-81-300, Rep.
of the Minn, Advis. Comm’n on Cameras in the Courtroom at 20 (Jan. 12, 1982).

‘The Commission majority conclided that Minnesota should “gain some
experience on” media coverage in trial courts, rather than react to the experiences of
other states. Id., Mem. at 1. One member of the Commission dissented because the
  By 1996, the Code of Judicial Conduct had been amended and renumbered, which
“created confusion regarding the status of the experimental program.” In re Modification
of Canon 34(7) of the Minn. Code of Jud. Conduct, No. C7-81-300, Order (Minn. filed
Jan. 11, 1996). On December 18, 2008, the court abrogated the existing Code of Judicial
Conduct, including the canon on electronic coverage of court proceedings, effective
July 1, 2009. Order Promulgating Revised Minn. Code of Jud. Conduct, ADMO8-8004,
Order at 1 (Minn, filed Dec. 18, 2008). Thereafter, as recommended by the Supreme
Court Advisory Committee on the General Rules of Practice, rules regarding electronic,
coverage of trial court proceedings were codified in the General Rules of Practice. Minn.
Gen. R. Prac, 4; see Recommendations of the Minn. Supreme Ct. Advis. Comm. on Gen
Rules of Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Final Rep. at | (Mar. 31, 2008).
“obviated” or could be accommodated without barring “nearly all electronic coverage.”
Hd. 5-6,

‘The court referred the petition to the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the
General Rules of Practice (“General Rules Committee”), which took public testimony

and gathered its own research and information. Finding “insufficient evidence to support

 

relaxation of the current rules,” Recommendations of the Minn. Supreme Ct. Advis.

Comm. on Gen. Rules of Prac., No. CX-89-1863,

 

I Rep. at 6 (Mar. 31, 2008), a
majority of the General Rules Committee recommended that the court retain the existing,

rule without substantial change. ‘The General Rules Committee noted the continuing,

 

‘opposition to electronic coverage voiced by a majority of justice system participants; the

absence of an identifiable benefit to the administration of ju

 

s the potential chilling
effect on the testimony of victims and witnesses; and the potential for increased costs,
borne by the judicial branch, 1d. at 7-8

Three members of the General Rules Committee, noting that the courts “do the
public’s business,” concluded that a more relaxed rule should be adopted unless it could
be shown that doing so “will degrade or detract from the quality of administration of
Justice in Minnesota’s trial courts.” Id, at 20-21. The minority proposed a continuation
of the experimental program, with modified rules to allow individual judges to exercise

their discretion to prohibit electronic coverage. Id.

 

m4,
Following a public comment period and a public hearing, the court directed the
General Rules Committee to develop and propose a pilot project to study the impact of

electronic coverage on victims and witnesses, which in tun would “provide the court
 

with additional information important to any final decision it might make regarding the

 

presence or absence of cameras in the courtroom.” Promulgation of Amendments to the
Minn. Gen. Rules of Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Mem. at 1 (Minn. filed Feb. 12, 2009).°
Pending the General Rules Committee’s recommendation, the existing requirement for

consent of all parties to electr

 

coverage of trial court proceedings was retained.

In March 2011, having considered the recommendations of the General Rules
Committee for possible research studies, the court concluded that “it is time for
Minnesota to move forward with a pilot project allowing cameras in courtrooms in
certain civil proceedings.” Promulgation of Amendments to the Minn. Gen, Rules of
Prac., No. ADM09-8009, Mem. at 8 (Minn. filed Mar. 11, 2011).7 Thus, a 2-year pilot
project permitting cameras in courtrooms in certain civil proceedings with the consent of

just the district court judge was approved. Id, Order at 1-2. Criminal cases and civil

 

cases involving child custody, dissolution, juvenile proceedings, child protection
proceedings, paternity, civil commitment, orders for protection, and trade secrets were

excluded from the pilot, See id., Order at 2; see also Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.02(c)vi).
tice Dietzen concurred, noting concerns about the impact on a defendant's right

ial, the possibility thatthe pilot project may not provide reliable results, and the
impact on the judiciary. Id. at C-1 (Dietzen, J., concurring).

   

Justice Page dissented, concluding that in the face of uniform objections raised by
justice system participants, “changing our rules to allow the expanded use of cameras in
‘our trial court courtrooms will [not] “contribute materially” to ensuring a fair trial” but
“may have the opposite effect.” Id. at D-10 (Page, J., dissenting). Justice Page also
noted that expanded electronic coverage “will do nothing to assis in the elimination of
racial bias from our judicial system and will, in fact, exacerbate the problem.” /d. at D-7.

  

The recommended research studies were not adopted due in part to the Judicial
Branch’s financial constraints. {dat 7-8.
The existing limitations on media coverage of trial court proceedings, which exclude
‘coverage of jurors and objecting witnesses and limit coverage to proceedings in the
‘courtroom and in the presence of the presiding judge, were continued in the pilot.
Promulgation of Amendments to the Minn. Gen. Rules of Prac., No. ADM09-8009, Order
‘at 2 (Minn, filed Mar, 11,2011).

On October 1, 2013, the Advisory Committee on the General Rules of Practice
reported on the status of the pilot project. Recommendations of Minn. Supreme Ct. Advis.
‘Comm. on Gen. Rules of Prac., No, CX-89-1863, Final Rep. (Oct. 1, 2013). Although
noting the “paucity of requests” for electronic coverage in civil trials in the preceding
2 years, the Committee recommended that the court consider either extending the pilot
project or codifying the rules for the project. /d. at 3, 6. The Committee also
recommended that the court consider expanding the pilot to some criminal proceedings.
Id. at 6-7. The Committee offered no opinion on how the pilot could be implemented in
criminal proceedings, but proposed instead that a “thorough examination of the criminal
Justice process” be undertaken to “assess the wisdom of this extension and the
appropriate limits” wo electronic coverage. 1d. at 7

‘On December 3, 2013, the court codified the pilot rules as the “final procedures

 

for requesting, permitting, and using cameras and other recording equipment in certain
civil-court proceedings.” Promulgation of Amendments to the Minn. Gen. Rules of Prac.,
No. ADM09-8009, Order at 2 (Minn. filed Dee. 3, 2013). The court also directed the
Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure to review the

Proposal by certain news media petitioners to expand the civil pilot project “to certain
criminal proceedings where concems previously expressed regarding witnesses and
{jurors are minimized or largely absent, such as arraignments, pretrial hearings, and
sentencing proceedings.” Id.

In response to the December 3, 2013, Order, the Committee filed a report on
July 29, 2014, Report and Proposed Amendments to the Minn, Gen. Rules of Prac.,
No. ADM10-8049 (filed July 29, 2014), A majority of the Committee—I1 of 15
‘members voting—recommended that Rule 4 of the General Rules of Practice be amended
to permit electronic coverage in criminal cases of sentencing and other proceedings held
after a guilty verdict has been returned or a guilty plea has been tendered, regardless of
the consent of the parties."

In summary, Minnesota has allowed electronic coverage of public criminal
proceedings since at least 1983. Practically speaking, however, the requirement for party
‘consent has operated to prevent that coverage.”

0.

Proceedings in Minnesota's courts are public. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune
Co. v. Kammeyer, 341 N.W.24 $50, 559 (Minn, 1983); State v: Schmit, 273 Minn. 78, 80,
139 N.W.24 800, 802-03 (1966). While the public status of court proceedings is not
“absolute in the sense that everyone who wishes to attend may do so,” Schmit, 273 Minn,

* Four committee members voted against the recommendation for a pilot project,
though one of those members supported the recommended pilot if any pilot was to be
approved.

 

See also Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, $64 (1981) (“Thef] initial guidelines
[for electronic coverage in Florida courts} required the consent of all parties. It
developed, however, that in practice such consent could not be obtained.”).

10
at 81, 139 N.W.2d at 803, we have said that the “general public is free to attend”

   

criminal proceeding, and therefore the “doors of the courtroom are expected to be kept
open.” Id, at 83, 139 N.W.2d at 804-05. ‘The United States Supreme Court has said the

public nature of criminal proceedings is “one of the essential qualities of a court of

 

justice.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 567 (1980) (citation

omitted). ‘The constitutional right to a public tial, see Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6, ensures

   

that an accused is “dealt

 

justly, protected . . . against gross abuses of judicial power

[and] petty arbitrariness” in a proceeding that “hopefully promotes confidence in the fair

 

administration of justice.” Schmit, 273 at 86-87, 139 N.W.2d at 806.07. Public

 

scrutiny of judicial proceedings also provides “a form of legal education.” State v.
Brown, 815 N.W.24 609, 617 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted).

Thus, there “can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in
public trials.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 US. 368, 383 (1979). While the

constitutional right to a public trial is a personal right of the defendant, Kammeyer, 341

 

N.W.2d at 554, the right of the public and the media to attend trials is “implicit in the
‘guarantees of the First Amendment.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at $80; see
‘also id. at $84 (“[T]he First Amendment protects the public and the press. from

abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their

  

‘government, including the Judicial Branch. ..”) (Stevens, J, concurring). To be sure, the
fundamental right ofa defendant to a fair trial takes precedence over the media’s right to
cover a public trial. See Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct of Calif, Riverside Coy, 464 US.

501, 508 (1984) ("No right ranks higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial.”)
But together, these constitutional public-rial rights promote compelling interests in the
fair, open, and impartial administration of justice. ~The value of openness lies in the fact
that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of faimess are
being observed: ...folpenness thus enhances both the basic faimess of the criminal trial
‘and the appearance of faimness so essential to public confidence in the system.” Id. at
508; see also In re Post-Newsweek Stations, Fla., Inc, 370 So. 24 764, 780 (Fla. 1979)
(Ct is essential that the populace have confidence in the [judicial] process, for public
acceptance of judicial judgments and decisions is manifestly necessary to their
“observance.” (citation omitted)).

For 30 years, we have debated the consent requirement for electronic media

 

coverage of courtroom proceedings, The content of the debate has not changed, nor have
the voices in the debate, There is no question that Minnesota's consent requirement
‘operates to effectively bar electronic coverage of public criminal courtroom proceedings.
‘The only question is whether we should continue to allow the parties, through a consent
requirement, to effectively control the nature of media coverage in the courtroom.

‘The objections to electronic media coverage of courtroom criminal proceedings
raise credible concems. Certainly there are instances in which electronic media coverage
‘of courtroom proceedings has prejudiced a defendant's right to a fair trial. See Sheppard
¥, Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 355, (1966) (“Bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial
and newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom, hounding most of the [tral]
participants . . .”); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S, 532, 538 (1965) (“[T]here had been a
bombardment of the community with the sights and sounds [of the hearing] during which

12
the [trial participants] were highly publicized."). But irresponsible media coverage is not
limited to its electronic form, nor does withholding party consent to electronic coverage

of courtroom proceedings prevent prejudici

 

media coverage. See, e.g, State v. Blom,
682. N.W.24 578, 607-611 (Minn. 2004) (noting that “[t]he court indicated that it shared

[the defendant's] concem that he be given a

 

i trial by impartial jurors” in light of
pretrial publicity, and described steps taken to control courtroom procedures during trial
to protect against “prejudicial publicity”); Thompson v. State, 289 Minn. 270, 273, 183,
N.W.2d 771, 773 (1971) (“{T]he news media’s lack of restraint preceding the trial left
‘much to be desired . ..").°

On the other hand, some commentary suggests that responsible electronic
‘coverage and the fair administration of justice can co-exist in the courtroom. See Alex
Kozinski & Robert Johnson, Of Cameras and Courtrooms, 20 Fordham Intell. Prop.
Media & Ent. LJ. 1107, 1114-15 (2010) (reviewing “empirical evidence from the states”
and noting that “[a}necdotally, witnesses, judges, jurors and attomeys report that once a
trial gets under way they tend to forget the cameras are there”); Ralph E. Roberts, J

Comment, An Empirical and Normative Analysis of the Impact of Televised Courtroom

1 New York “forbid{s}” electronic coverage of state court proceedings, N.Y. Comp.
Codes R. & Regs., tit. 22, § 29.1, and electronic coverage of courtroom proceedings is
‘generally not permitted in federal courts. However, an attorney representing a defendant
in federal criminal proceedings in New York courts described written media coverage of
pretrial and trial proceedings as “often marred by false or prejudicial information,”
stating it is “difficult to imagine anything more prejudicial than claiming a defendant has,
been charged with multiple murders when in fact the indictment clearly recites only one
count of RICO conspiracy.” John C. Meringolo, The Media, the Jury, and the High-
Profile Defendant: A Defense Perspective on the Media Circus, 55 N.Y.L. Sch. Rev. 981,
1006 (2010),

 

 

B
Proceedings, 51 SMU L. Rev. 621, 631 (1998) (“The [study of a pilot allowing cameras

in certain federal civil cases] found that the district judges who had some type of

 

experience with cameras in the courtroom believed that the cameras had a minor effect on
the trial” and were “nearly unanimous that the presence of cameras did not create a lack
‘of courtroom decorum nor . . . have a negative effect on the attomeys.”). We are
reluctant, however, to take comfort in “anecdotal” reports from other states, which

to assess the merits of commenters’ concerns and the

 

illustrates the problem: our al
effectiveness of measures that address those concems is hampered by the absence of
actual experiences and outcomes in Minnesota courtroom proceedings. See Roberts,
supra, at 621 (“[T}here has been very litle empirical analysis by the legal community to

determine the real effects of televised court proceedings.”

 

j; Jeflrey $. Johnson,
Comment, The Entertainment Value of a Trial: How Media Access to the Courtroom is
Changing the American Judicial Process, 10 Vill. Sports & Ent, LJ. 131, 149 (2003)

(“Although there is some concrete evidence on the effect of television cameras on certain

 

parties, much of the commentary is mere speculation based on hypothetical situations.
‘Thus, although we share the concems about the potential for intrusive,

disrespectful, or even prejudicial electronic coverage of criminal proceedings, we cannot

 

see that a party-consent requirement is the only means to protect against those risks.

  

Rather, we conclude that a better balancing of the compelling interests in the fair, open,
‘and impartial administration of justice can be achieved when electronic coverage of
courtroom proceedings is permitted under the conditions we set out today and subject to

the control of the presiding judge, In reaching this conclusion, we do not ignore the

4
‘examples of irresponsible media coverage that underlie the commenters’ concems. See,
g., Nancy S. Marder, The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom, 44 Ariz. St. LJ.
1489, 1550 (2012) (reviewing state criminal trials “that serve as warnings” about “what

But the potential for

 

prejudicial media coverage is not eliminated simply because electronic coverage is
excluded from the courtroom, or because we vest control over the decision to allow that
coverage in the hands of the parties. Nor do we foster public confidence in the sound and.
fair administration of justice by limiting electronic coverage of criminal proceedings to
the images captured and the statements delivered outside the courtroom by
representatives ofthe media, the prosecution, and the defense.

We conclude that there is good reason to lift the blanket exclusion of electronic
coverage of public criminal proceedings so that we can study the impact of electronic
coverage of those proceedings. Thus, with the amendments promulgated today, we lift
the consent requirement in limited circumstances.

Mm.

‘The dissent criticizes the court for permitting a pilot project without first
“requiring thatthe asserted benefits [of camera coverage] be established with evidence”
Based on the potential adverse consequences that could flow from expanded electronic
courtroom coverage of certain criminal proceedings, the dissent concludes the pilot
project can only facilitate irresponsible and prejudicial media coverage. With respect to
the dissent, we disagree.

1s
First, in demanding that the benefits of courtroom coverage initially be established

‘with compelling evidence, the dissent ignores the purpose of the pilot project: to gather

 

data that will assist us in fairly evaluating the asserted benefits and potential
consequences of electronic courtroom coverage in certain Minnesota criminal
proceedings. ‘The need for data from Minnesota proceedings was acknowledged in 1982,
see In re Modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Minn. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rep. of the
Minn, Advis. Comm'n on Cameras in the Courtroom, Mem, at 1 (Jan. 12, 1982) (“{U}t

ight be remiss not to gain some experience on this subject in the trial courts of this state

”), and the debate over electronic courtroom coverage in the intervening years

 

continues to press the same opposing positions.'' These competing positions convince us
that we need concrete evidence drawn from Minnesota proceedings to evaluate the

strength of those positions, We cannot simply choose one side and require the

 

proponents of the other position to “prove” their case. In addition, we made the policy

decision, 25 years ago, to permit cameras in Minnesota's courtrooms, albeit subject to

"For example, while the dissent contends the benefits of electronic courtroom

coverage are easily refuted, the experiences of other jurisdictions show that the “adverse
impacts [of camera coverage] on witnesses and jurors are not universal”. Report of the
Comm. to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland,
at viii (2008), available at _hitp:/Wwww.courtsstate.md.us/publications/pdts/
mediacoveragerepont08.pdf. See also Marjorie Cohn & David Dow, Cameras in the
Courtroom 63 (1998) (“{A}Il the studies arrived at the same conclusion: that camera
coverage did not affect [courtroom] proceedings negatively.”); Cathy Packer, Should
Courtroom Observers Be Allowed to Use Their Smartphones and Computers in Cowt?
An Examination of the Arguments, 36 Am. J. Trial Advoe. 573, 592 (2013) ("The results
from state studies were unanimous: electronic media coverage of courtroom
proceedings—whether civil or eriminal—has no detrimental impact on the parties, jurors,
counsel, or courtroom decorum.”

 

16
party consent, Our decision today does not reverse that policy decision; it modifies it
We authorize a pilot project designed to do just as the dissent suggests: gather the
concrete data to evaluate the pros and cons of electronic courtroom coverage, but without
the party consent requirement that has thwarted the collection of such data

‘Second, our decision to use a pilot project to gather data—rather than pre-judge

the question—is consistent with our past, cautious approach to electronic coverage of

 

public judicial proceedings, as well as the approach taken by other jurisdictions. We

began with a pilot project in 1983, reinstated the pilot in 1989, and approved a different

 

pilot project, for civil cases, in 2011. The federal judiciary has used a similar approach."*

 

Other states have also used pilot projects to evaluate a change in their policies for
electronic courtroom coverage."® The data-gathering tool of a pilot project is a well-

established approach for evaluating different methods of implementing our decision to

 

permit limited electronic courtroom coverage. See, e.g Chandler v. Florida, 449 US.

$60, $82 (1981) (*{UJnless we were to conclude that television coverage under all

 

conditions is prohibited by the Constitution, the states must be free to experiment.”).

Although it declined to continue electronic courtroom coverage when its study

period ended in 1994, by 2010 the Federal Judicial Conference had “authorized a pilot
project to evaluate the effeet of cameras in district court courtrooms, of video recordings
of proceedings therein, and of publication of such video recordings.” Report of the
Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States at 11 (Sept. 14, 2010)
‘available at hitp:/\www.uscourts gov/about-federal-courts/reports-proceedings-judicial-
conference.

© See In re Extended Media Coverage in the Circuit Courts of Minois on an
Experimental Basis, MR. 2634 (Ill. Jan. 24, 2012) available at
hitp:/www.illnoiscourts gov/supremecour/announce/2012/012412; In re Pilot Project
for Electronic News Coverage in Indiana Trial Courts, 895 N.E.24 1161 (Ind. 2006).
Third, in assuming that the only result of electronic courtroom coverage is
unbalanced, prejudicial, and iresponsible journalism, the dissent fails to appreciate the
guidelines that will gover this pilot. The exclusions from coverage far exceed the
limited opportunities for post-guilty plea or verdict coverage: no coverage with a jury
present, no coverage in any problem-solving court, no coverage in cases involving
charges of criminal sexual conduct or family or domestic violence, and no coverage of
any testifying victim who does not affirmatively consent, in writing, to that coverage.
Further, all coverage is subject to the presiding judge’s authority to limit or exclude
coverage based on case-specific concerns and the impartial administration of justice, The

pilot will allow us to determine whether these prudent measures will lead to balanced

 

coverage while protecting the interests of all participants, including the defendant.

While we disagree with the dissent’s conclusions, we respect Justice Page's
observation that in reporting on criminal matters, disproportionate media coverage of
communities of color, particularly African American community members, has negative
repercussions. We will be alert to any such concems during the pilot and will monitor
the pilot coverage.

We remind all who attend courtroom proceedings thatthe right of access to public
courtrooms “is not absolute” and that the trial court judge “must have control of its
courtroom.” Kammeyer, 341 N.W.2d at 559. Trial court judges have a “grave
responsiblity” and “broad discretion” to “oversee{] and regulai{¢] courtroom conduct and
procedures during .. . criminal trials.” State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.24 652, 658

(Minn. 2001). It bears repeating that the concems of victims and other justice system
participants are serious. No less important are the concems of a defendant who, even
after a guilty verdict has been returned or a guilty plea accepted, expects and deserves the
fair administration of justice. See Press-Enter. Co., 464 US. at 508 (°No right ranks
higher than the right of the accused to a fair trial.”); Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427
US. $39, 560 (1976) (“It is not asking too much to suggest that those who exercise
First Amendment rights in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises direct some effort to
protect the rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors."). ‘Thus, while we are
‘mindful that the content of the coverage falls within the media’s realm, see, €.,
Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 448 U.S. at 576-77, we firmly embrace the judicial branch's
responsibility to control the time, place, and manner of the media’s access. Id. at S78
(Subject to the traditional time, place, and manner restrictions . . . a trial courtroom is

public place where the people generally—and representatives of the media—have a
right to be present”); see also Stacy Blasiola, Say Cheese! Cameras and Bloggers in
Wisconsin's Courtrooms, | Reynolds Cts. & Media LJ. 197, 206 (2011) (“{HJaving
access to courtroom with a camera or recording device does not necessarily mean a

reporter has an absolute right to stay.”)!*

 

' ‘The Minnesota District Judges Association submitted written comments in

‘opposition to the Committee's recommended rule amendments. In our experience,
district court judges carefully exercise their responsibility to control the courtroom. We
are confident that they will be able to do so under this limited pilot project, particularly
with the assistance of the media coordinators who have experience with electronic
‘coverage in civil cases.

   

19
IV.

 

‘We repeat a comment first made in 1982: itis time for Minnesota to gain some
experience with electronic coverage of public courtroom criminal proceedings in the
context of proceedings in Minnesota courts, with participants subject to the strict
guidelines of a pilot and the rules of Minnesota courts. In re Modification of Canon

34(7) of the Minn, Code of Jud. Conduct, Rep. of the Minn. Advis. Comm. on Cameras

 

in the Courtroom, Mem. at | (Jan. 12, 1982), The pilot project authorized now is limited
to proceedings that do not include a jury and that occur after guilty verdict has been
returned or a guilty plea accepted.'® In addition, given the fundamental right of a
defendant to the fair administration of justice, and the profound privacy and safety
interests of tral participants, we conclude that further limits on the scope of permitted
coverage are necessary."

First, no coverage is permitted of proceedings held with a jury present, held after a
auilty verdict is vacated or reversed and a new trial is ordered, or held after a guilty plea
is rejected or withdrawn,

 

The Committee recommended that electronic coverage be permitted after a guilty
plea has been “tendered.” Consistent with Minn. R. Crim. P. 15, we use the designation
“accepted” to establish the point in the proceedings after which electronic coverage is
allowed.

     

the district court in the county in which the conviction was had,” Minn. Stat.
$590.01, subd. 1 (2014), and are within the scope of the pilot. On the other hand,
notwithstanding the public status of some juvenile delinquency proceedings, see Minn.
Stat. § 260B.163, subd. 1(c) (2014), all juvenile proceedings are excluded from the
permitted scope of electronic coverage. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.02(¢)(i).

20
Second, no coverage is permitted in any of Minnesota's problem-solving courts,
including drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, and DWI courts, or of any
juvenile proceedings.

Third, no coverage is permitted in cases involving charges of criminal sexual
‘conduct brought under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.293-352 (2014), or in cases involving charges
of family or “domestic violence,” as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16 (2014).

Fourth, no coverage is permitted of any victim who testifies at a post-vendict or
ppost-plea proceeding unless that victim affirmatively acknowledges and agrees to the
coverage in writing, before testifying.

Fifth, we remind all criminal justice system participants, and particularly the
‘media, that the pilot project authorized here is subject at all times to the authority and
broad discretion of the trial judge to control the decorum of the proceedings and ensure
the fair administration of justice is preserved."”

Finally, we remind all participants that we authorize a pilot project only.
‘Therefore, the Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure is directed to
‘work with the State Court Administrator or his designee, and the statewide media

‘coordinators for Minnesota District Courts, to establish procedures to monitor and report

"The pilot project is also subject to existing requirements and limits in the rules for

timely pre-coverage notice to the tril cour, and as directed by the court, to the attorneys,
land witnesses; existing limits on the type and number of equipment and equipment
‘operators; and requirements for pooling. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 4.04. We also
acknowledge the invaluable assistance provided thus far by the statewide media
‘coordinators in facilitating media coverage in certain civil matters. We therefore direct
‘the media and trial courts to continue to work with those representatives for purposes of
the pilot project in criminal proceedings.

a
‘on the pilot project. The monitoring should, to the extent feasible, collect data on
requests for coverage; the conditions under which coverage is permitted; the reasons for
excluding coverage when requests are denied; and to the extent available from attorneys,
victims, and other courtroom participants, information on the impact if any or reaction to
the permitted coverage. On or before January 1, 2018, the Committee shall file a status
report on the pilot project, with recommendations for continuation, abandonment, or
‘modification of the pilot project, the reasons for the recommendations, and any proposed

‘amendments to the rules governing the pilot project.
 

(TS TO THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE
District Courts
[Note: Deletions are indicated by a line drawn through the text; additions are undertined.}

RULE 4. PICTURES AND VOICE RECORDINGS

Rule 4.02 Exceptions

(@) A judge may authorize the use of electronic or photographic means for the

 

presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record or for other purposes of judicial
administration,

(b) A judge may authorize the broadcasting, televising, recording or
photographing of investitive, ceremonial or naturalization proceedings.

(©) A judge may authorize, with the consent of all parties in writing or made on

the record prior to the commencement of the trial in criminal proceedings, and without

 

the consent of all parties in civil proceedings, the photographic or electronic recording

‘and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following con

 

(i) There shall be no audio or video coverage of jurors at any

 

ring the tial including voir die.
(i) There shall be no audio or video coverage of any witness who
objects thereto in writing or onthe record before testifying

(ii) Audio oF video coverage of judicial proceedings shall be limited to

proceedings conducted within the courtroom, and shall not extend to
activities or events substantially related to judicial proceedings that occur in
‘other areas of the court building.
(iv) There shall be no audio or video coverage within the courtroom

during recesses or at any other time the trial judge is not present and

 

presiding.
() During or preceding a jury trial, there shall be no audio or video
coverage of hearings that take place outside the presence of the jury.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence, such hearings in
criminal proceedings would include those to determine the admissibility of
evidence, and those to determine various motions, such as motions to
suppress evidence, for judgment of acquittal, in imine and to dismiss. ‘This
provision does not prohibit audio or video coverage of appropriate pretrial
hearings in civil proceedings, such as hearings on dispositive motions

(si) There shall be no audio or video coverage in eases involving child
custody, marriage dissolution, juvenile proceedings, child protection
proceedings, patemity proceedings, civil commitment proceedings,
petitions for orders for protection, motions to suppress evidence, police
informants, relocated witnesses, sex crimes, trade secrets, undercover

agents, and proceedings that are not accessible to the public.

(d) Criminal proceedings: pilot project. Notwithstanding the lack of consent

 
ea has been accepted or a guilty verdict has been retuned. wi
is good cause to prohibit coverage of the proceeding, or any part of it, the judge must
consider (1) the privacy, safety, and well-being of the participants or other interested
: (2) the likelihood that coverage will detract ignity of
3) the physical facilities of the court; and, (4) the fair administration of justice.
Coverage under this paragraph is subject to the following limitations:
ji) No_audio or video coverage is permitted when a jury is_presen

including for hearings to determine whether there are aggravating factors that would
s mt jdelines, or r trial
proceedings after a reversal on appeal or an order for a new trial

i)_ No coverage is permitted at any proceeding held in a problem-solvin;

 

i) No coverage is permitted in cases involving charges of criminal sexual
conduct brought pursuant to Minn, Stat, §§ 609.293-,352, or in cases involving charges of

er jc” violence as_defines tutes sect

subdivision 16,
iv)_No audio or vi ving victim, as

defined in Minn, Stat. § 611A.01(b), unless that person affirmatively acknowledges and

es in writing before testifving to the ‘coverage,
 

Rule 4.03. Procedures Relating to Requests for Audio or Video Coverage of
Authorized District Court €ivit Proceedings

‘The following procedures apply to audio and video coverage of civil district court
proceedings where authorized under Rule 4.02(c), or in criminal proceedings subject to

lot project authorized cour

(a) Notice. Unless notice is waived by the trial judge, the media shall provide

written notice of their intent to cover authorized district court eivit proceedings by either

 

audio or video means to the trial judge, all counsel of record, and any parties appearing,
without counsel as far in advance as practicable, and at least 10 days before the
commencement of the hearing or trial. A copy of the written notice shall also be
provided to the State Court Administrator’s Court Information Office. The media shall
also notify their respective media coordinator, identified as provided under part (c) of this
rule, of the request to cover proceedings in advance of submitting the request to the trial
judge, if possible, or as soon thereafter as possible.

(b) Objections. If a party opposes audio or video coverage, the party shall
provide written notice of the party’s objections to the presiding judge, the other parties,
and the media requesting coverage as soon as practicable, and at least 3 days before the

 

commencement of the hearing or tril in cases where the media have given at least 10

 

days’ notice of their intent to cover the proceedings. The judge shall rule on any
objections and make a decision on audio or video coverage before the commencement of

the hearing or trial. However, the judge has the discretion to limit, terminate, or

 

temporarily suspend audio or video coverage of an entire case or portions of a case at any
time.

(©) Witness Information and Objection to Coverage. At or before the
‘commencement of the hearing or tral in cases with audio or video coverage, each party
shall inform all witnesses the party plans to call that their testimony will be subject to
audio o video recording unless the witness objects in writing or on the record before
testifying.

(@) Appeals. No ruling of the trial judge relating to the implementation or
management of audio or video coverage under this rule shall be appealable until the
underlving matter becomes appealabletsia}hes-been-completed, and then only by a party.

(©) Media Coordinators. Media coordinators for various areas of the state
shall be identified on the main state court web site, The media coordinators shall
facilitate interaction between the courts and the electronic media regarding audio or video

coverage of authorized district court eivit-proceedings. Responsibilities of the media

 

‘coordinators include:
(i) Compiling basic information (c.g., case identifiers, judge, parties,

attomeys, dates and coverage duration) on all requests for use of audio and video
coverage of authorized eivittrial court proceedings for their respective court

location(s) as identified on the main state court web site, and making aggregate

 

forms of the information publicly available;
ii) Notifying the Minnesota Court Information Office of all requests for
audio and video coverage of eiviHtrial court proceedings for their respective court

location(s) as identified on the main state court web site;

 

i) Explaining to persons requesting video or audio coverage of eivittrial
court proceedings for their respective court location(s) the local practices,
procedures, and logistical details of the court related to audio and video coverage;
(jv) Resolving all issues related to pooling of cameras and microphones
related 10 video or audio coverage of eivil-trial court proceedings for their

respective court location(s).
DISSENT
PAGE, Justice (dissenting).
| respectfully dissent. ‘The court’s decision, which authorizes a pilot program that
‘would allow, without the parties’ consent, audio and video coverage of certain criminal
trial court proceedings, is fundamentally wrong and poor public policy. What research
there is on how cameras inthe courtroom affect criminal proceedings suggests that there
is little if any, benefit to the public. At the same time, we know that the potential for
harm to participants in the criminal justice system is real

In 2009, I outlined two primary concems in opposing the development of a

 

program that expanded camera use in our district court courtrooms. First, prosecutors,
public defenders, private attomeys, advocates for victims, and our racial fairness
committee all expressed concer that changing our rules to allow the expanded use of
cameras in our state’s courtrooms would not “contribute materially” to ensuring that a
defendant receives a fair trial. See Promulgation of Amendments to the Minn. Gen. Rules
of Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Mem. at 2 (Minn, filed Feb. 12, 2009) (Page, J., dissenting).
In fact, these groups suggested that expanded camera access could negatively impact a
defendant’s fair trial right. /d. Second, given the media’s documented treatment of
Affican Americans and other people of color accused of crime, 1 concluded that
‘expanding the use of cameras would erode the court's ability to prevent “unjustified and
mistaken deprivations.” Id. at 6-10, Notwithstanding these concems, the court
‘concluded that “itis time for Minnesota to move forward with a pilot project allowing,

‘cameras in the courtrooms in cert

 

civil proceedings.” See Promulgation of

DA
Amendments to the Minn. Gen. Rules of Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Mem. at 8 (Minn, filed
Feb, 12, 2009), The camel's nose was officially in the tent. Since 2009, research has
heightened the concern that expanding the use of cameras in our courtrooms provides
litle benefit while creating a great deal of potential harm. Yet the court has no qualms

fer of the camel into the tent,

 

about escorting the rem
1

Proponents of expanded usage of cameras in courtrooms frame the debate in terms
of a cost-benefit analysis. They contend that the primary cost—interference with the
Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial—has not been proven with empirical evidence,
‘They then assert that the primary benefit—the achievement of public education and
public confidence in the judiciary—is an unrefuted certainty. In adopting the proponents”
view without requiring that the asserted benefits be established with evidence, the court
justifies the potential for harm by asserting that irresponsible media coverage and
prejudice will persist with or without expanded camera access to criminal proceedings.
‘That the media might be irresponsible is no reason for the judiciary to facilitate them. By
failing to assess the validity of the proponents’ arguments, the court, relying on
‘unsupported assumptions, will be complicit in any prejudice to the administration of
Justice that results from irresponsible use of cameras in our courtrooms.

According to the proponents, video coverage of trial proceedings is the only way
to reach the larger populace and educate them about the judicial system. Such a

contention is easily refuted, however, because television news coverage with live footage

 

does not significantly increase viewer retention of content relative to print, audio, or

D2
 

footage-free television coverage. See Cristina Carmody Tilley, J Am A Camera:

Serutinizing the Assumption That Cameras in the Courtroom Furnish Public Value by

 

Operating As A Proxy for the Public, 16 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 697, 697-98 (2014). Thi

 

true for two primary reasons. First, studies suggest that the gap between television’s

educ

 

nal potential and its actual inferiority to print results from limits on the human
ability to process divergent informational cues. Id. at 729. Second, research also
suggests that the media tends to focus its coverage more on entertainment than education,
Nathan Braverman et al, Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of
Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland (2008). ‘This realty casts doubt on the potential
educational benefits that video coverage of trial proceedings might provide.

Be

Jing with the cognitive limitations associated with television’s educational

   

potential, one theory is that when an individual is required to process inconsistent verbal

and

 

‘and visual cues, that individual default

 

ill exceed his or her processing capaci

 

to the verbal cue. See Tilley, supra, at 729. This often occurs in the media as the images,
chosen frequently reflect “the person and place concrete details of news stories,” rather
than the issue being presented. Id. As one television pioneer remarked, “comings and

goings make easy pictures; the issues usually do not.” Id. With these inconsistent

 

signals, viewers lack the capacity to retain key information and educate themselves,
Research supports this theory. For example, one study of 68 undergraduate students
found that viewer retention from print sources was significantly higher than viewer
retention from audio sources, and that viewer retention from audio sources was

significantly higher than viewer retention from television sources. A. Furham, & B,

 

D3
Gunter, Sex, Presentation Mode, and Memory for Violent and Non-violent News, Journal
of Education Television, 99, 100-01 (1985), Similarly, one study has found that
participants who watched television news did not have significantly higher
comprehension scores than those who did not watch television news, while participants

‘who read newspapers had significantly higher comprehension scores than those who did

 

not read newspapers. John P, Robinson & Dennis K. Davis, Television News and the
Informed Public: An Information-Processing Approach, J. Comme'n 106, 112-14
(1990).

In 2007, the Maryland Judicial Conference established a committee (the
Committee) to assess whether video coverage was appropriate for criminal trials in
Maryland, See Braverman et al, supra, at 22. The Committee found that the public
education benefits of extended media coverage were “more aspirational than real”:

In actuality, audio-visual coverage of trial proceedings restricts, rather than

enhances the flow of information about the legal process. It typically

consists of litle more than sound bites and snippets, lacking in context and

content, intended more to entertain than to inform, This results in a

dangerous potential to distort what actually happens inside the courtroom.
Id.

‘The Committee also examined a 1994 study on a pilot program of cameras in
federal courts conducted by the Federal Judicial Center (FIC). Id at 14. The Committee
highlighted the FIC study’s findings that

broadcast stories about proceedings covered by electronic media used an

average of 56 seconds of courtroom footage per story, but that reporters

narrated over 63% of that footage. This left only 21 seconds of actual
courtroom audio for use in a typical news story. .

D4
With respect to the nature of information conveyed, the study found
that plaintiffs and their attomeys were given more air time than defendants
and their counsel; 95% of first day stories neglected to mention that the
proceeding was civil rather than criminal; almost three-quarters failed to

 

‘mention the next step in the litigation process.
Id. at 24-25, Based on these and other factors, the FIC concluded:
[T]he stories did not provide a high level of detail about the legal process in
the cases covered. In addition, the analysis revealed that increasing the
proportion of courtroom footage used in a story did not significantly
increase the information given about the legal process.

Ia at 25.

 

Moreover, the Committee also highlighted the results of a 2002 comparative

analysis of the contents of 279 newspapers articles and 719 television newscasts from
five media markets:

[There is unmistakable, if somewhat subtle, evidence that news
organizations do prefer to report on what will interest us, regardless of its
importance or implications for us, and they are partial to stories and sources,
that are most accessible and therefore easiest to cover. The most frequent
subjects of coverage are violence and the unusual, while cases with broader
consequences or that happen more routinely are neglected. * * * Our study
suggests that audiences can gain some knowledge of the judicial process
through the media, especially newspapers. However, they are likely to
Jeam about the most unusual eases that have the least significance to the
community or the public.

 

Id. at 26 (citing C. Danielle Vinson & John S. Ertter, Entertainment or Education: How
Do the Media Cover the Courts?, 7 Harv. Int’ J. Press/Politics 80, 94-95 (2002)
‘The Committee further expressed particular concer regarding the coverage of

sentencing proceedings:

Ds
[Slentencing proceedings are the most vulnerable to commercial
exploitation, largely at the expense of victims of the violent crimes to
which the media devotes the most attention. By their nature, sentencing
hearings are emotional affairs. For the first time in the case, the judge, the
jury in a capital case, and the general public are permitted to hear heart
rending vietim impact testimony, including medical and psychological
information and testimony from family members and survivors of the
victims. Rules of evidence are also relaxed for defendants at sentencing
hearings, and they are also permitted to offer testimony regarding highly
personal and often traumatic details of their lives in an effort to mitigate the
sentence or establish their prospects for rehabilitation,

 

See Braverman et al, supra, at iv-v. The Committee determined that sentencing
proceedings are not legal matters of public concer and, from the standpoint of public
‘education, may be the least informative of all criminal proceedings because such intimate
details typically consist of “nothing of interest to the general public beyond that of
prurient voyeurism.” Id. After its review of the relevant information, including oral and
‘written testimony from the public, the Committee unanimously concluded that the current
statutory ban on cameras in criminal trial courts in Maryland should remain in effect, 1d
The findings in Maryland are consistent with what little we know about our
experience in Minnesota. For example, in 2011, the court approved a two-year pilot
program that permitted cameras in courtrooms in civil proceedings with the consent of
the trial court judge alone. At the conclusion of that pilot program, the Advisory
Committee on the General Rules of Practice filed a status report with the court discussing
the results of the program. The Advisory Committee concluded that “{tJhe most striking
aspect of the impact of the Court's 2011 Order has been the paucity of requests for
camera coverage in the trial courts.” Recommendations of the Minn. Supreme Ct. Advis,

‘Comm. on Gen. Rules of Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Final Rep. at 3 (Oct. 1, 2013). The

D6
Advisory Committee found that over the two-year period, the media made approximately

 

20 requests to cover civil proceedings.’ Id. Calling this amount of coverage “anemic,
the Advisory Committee also determined that “Minnesota's experience appears not to be
unusual.” Jd, at n3. Such lackluster interest from the media in civil proceedings
suggests that the media's true intent is covering only the most notorious cases. In other

words, if the proponents are correct—that expanded camera access is primarily about

 

advancing public education—then relaxing the camera restrictions in civil proceedings
should have resulted in the media covering significantly more matters. But it did not.

‘The court counters by asserting that I “ignorel] the purpose of the pilot project: to
gather data that will assist us in fairly evaluating the asserted benefits and potential
consequences of electronic courtroom coverage in certain Minnesota criminal
proceedings.” While data gathering is ostensibly the purpose of pilot programs, it is the
court that ignores the fact that “camera” pilot programs have persisted in this state for
nearly 30 years.” and during that time have produced little in the way of meaningful data.
‘The data that has been produced suggests that any benefit from permitting cameras in our
courtrooms will inure to media outlets while working to the disadvantage of due process,
and justice.

' Of those requests, approximately half resulted in some electronic coverage being

allowed. Recommendations of the Minn, Supreme Ct. Advis. Comm. on Gen. Rules of
Prac., No. CX-89-1863, Final Rep. at 3 (Oct. 1, 2013),

In 1983, we approved the first pilot program allowing audio and video coverage in
ial courts so long as all of the parties consented. That program expired in 1987. Then,
in 1989, we reinstated the 1983 pilot program, which was allowed to continue until 2011
Finally, in 2011, we approved a 2-year pilot program permitting cameras in courtrooms
ivil proceedings with the consent of the trial court judge alone.

  

 

 

ba
I

In addition to the fact that the alleged benefits of electronic media coverage are
illusory, the court also ignores the damaging consequences of expanding the use of
‘cameras in our courtrooms. One such effect relates to witnesses who feel nervous or who
refuse to testify before cameras. See Nancy S, Marder, The Conundrum of Cameras in
the Courtroom, 44 Ariz. St. LJ. 1489, 1510 (2012). In 2008, Judge Jan DuBois, who
participated in the FIC pilot program, expressed concem before the Senate Judiciary
Committee that 64% of the judges participating in the FIC pilot program found that
cameras made witnesses more nervous; 41% of the judges found that cameras led to
witnesses who were distracted; 46% of judges thought the cameras made witnesses less

willing to appear; and $6% of the judges found that the cameras violated witnesses”

 

privacy. Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2005: Hearing on S. 829 Before the S.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 14 (2005) (statement of Jan E. DuBois, Judge, U.S,
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). There is nothing to suggest that

the Minnesota experience will be any different.”

 

The court cites the Maryland Committee Report, Braverman et al., supra, at vii
support its assertion that “the experiences of other jurisdictions show that the ‘adverse
impacts [of camera coverage] on witnesses and jurors are not universal.” * (Quoting
Braverman et al., supra, vii.) While it may be true that the adverse impacts of eamera
coverage on witnesses and jurors are not “universal,” the court misses the point. An
adverse impact on tral participants need not be “universal” to create an unacceptable risk
of harm to the criminal justice process. Notably, the Maryland Committee reached this
very conclusion, unanimously recommending that the ban on cameras in criminal trial
courts continue, notwithstanding the Committee's observation that adverse impacts are
“not universal,” {dat i, 50. Similarly, after @ 3-year federal pilot program for civil
cases, the Federal Judicial Conference declined to permit camera access to federal civil
proceedings because “the potentially intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses

 

     

D8
Moreover, in 2008, our Advisory Committee on General Rules of Pract

 

‘explained:

Even if cameras were limited to prevent their use in particular categories of
ceases . . . crime victims and witnesses, and other interested parties, would
be deterred from reporting crimes or from agreeing to testify. This is a
icant problem that cannot be readily mitigated; the mere fact that
camera coverage of court proceedings is generally known to exist is,
according to witnesses before the committee, likely to cause crime and
domestic abuse victims and witnesses to decline to report crimes and to
refuse to come forward to testify. This chilling effect on victims and
witnesses occurs even in types of cases where cameras are not likely to be
allowed, as the victims or witnesses would have the impression that being
in court subjects one to camera scrutiny.

 

 

Recommendations of the Minn. Supreme Ct. Advis. Comm. on Gen. Rules of Prac. CX-
89-1863, Final Rep. at 7 (Mar. 31, 2008).

This phenomenon is especially disconcerting in the context of gang-related
offenses and trials. In a 2007 survey of more than 600 teens from high-crime
Massachusetts neighborhoods, more than two-thirds of the survey participants mentioned
fear of retaliation as the primary reason why their classmates and neighbors fil to report
‘gang crimes to authorities. National Center for Victims of Crime, Snitches Get Stitches:
Youth, Gangs, and Witness Intimidation in Massachusetts 25 (2007). For many citizens

@ number of communities, the risk run by cooperating with law enforcement is real,

 

 

and jurors was cause for considerable concer in that it could impinge on a citizen's right
to 8 fair and impartial tral." Statement of Hon, John R. Tunheim, Judge, United States
District Court for the District of Minn., on behalf of the Federal Judicial Conference,
HR. Jud. Comm. Hearing on H.R. 2128, \N0th Cong. (Sept. 27, 2007) (emphasis added,
* This report is available online at_hitp://victimsoferime.org/docs/
RoovSnitchesY20FINAL pdf?sfvrsn=0,

D9
and expanded camera usage in criminal proceedings will unnecessarily increase that risk
‘and prevent even more witnesses from coming forward with testimony.

‘Another effect is the impact that the expanded use of cameras in our trial courts
‘would have on people of color who use our judicial system, In my 2009 dissent, 1
‘concluded that the expanded use of cameras would exacerbate racial bias in our judicial
system. This point bears repeating as studies continue to indicate that the media
‘consistently portrays African Americans who are accused and/or convicted of crimes in a
‘more negative light than their Caucasian counterparts. For example, analyses of
television news indicate that African American males are overrepresented as perpetrators
and underrepresented as victims, compared to their Caucasian male counterparts. Dana
Mastro etal, The Influence of Exposure to Depictions of Race and Crime in TV News on
Viewer's Social Judgment, 3 J. Broad. & Elec. Media 615, 616 (2009). In the surveyed
news stories, African American suspects were more likely than Caucasians 10 be
portrayed as nameless, menacing, and in the grasp of the police. id. Further, even the
text of crime-related news stories has been found to vary depending on the race of the
perpetrator. Jd. For example, research reveals that statements containing, prejudicial
information about criminal suspects, such as prior arrests, were significantly more likely
to be associated with African American (as opposed to Caucasian) defendants,
particularly in cases involving Caucasian victims. 1d.

More recent studies have continued to show that television news gives
disproportionate coverage to crime stories involving Affican American suspects.
‘According to averages of arrest statistics from the New York City Police Department for

D0
the past four years, African Americans represented 54% of murder arrests, 55% of theft
aurests, and 49% of assault arrests, Daniel Angster & Salvatore Colleluori, New York
City Television Stations Continue Disproportionate Coverage of Black Crime (Mat. 23,
2015, 9:34 AM).° But between August 18 and December 31, 2014, 74% of murders,
84% of thefts, and 73% of assaults covered by the four major broadcast television
stations in New York City involved African American suspects. /d. Similar data has
been collected in other regions. See Travis L. Dixon & Daniel Linz, Overrepresentation
‘and Underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos as Law-breakers on
Television News, $0 J. Comm. June 2000, at 144 (a random sample of local television
news programing in Los Angeles and Orange Counties showed that African Americans
‘were presented as the perpetrators on television 37% of the time but represented
only 21% of arests); Trina T. Creighton etal, Coverage of Black Versus White Males in

Local Television Lead Stories, 4(8) J. Mass Comme’n Journalism 216, at 4 (2014) (a

 

study of news coverage by Omaha's four local television affli

 

(es over a 3-month period
in 2012 showed that 69% of crime-related lead stories featured an Affican American
ale as the perpetrator, while African American males represented only 39% of arrests,

‘over the same time period).*

* Study available online at: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/23/report=
new-york-city-television-stations-contin/202553
© Study available online at: http://omicsgroup.org/jourals/coverage-of-black-

vversus-white-males-in-local-television-news-lead-stories-2165-7912.1000216 pdf.

 

Di
In an analysis of the effects of race and reporting, communications professors have
explained that consuming reporting that over-represents Aftican American erime can
have a negative effect on the perception of Affican Americans as a group:
[Consuming the persistent overrepresentation of Black males in crime-
related news stories strengthens the cognitive association between Blacks
and criminality in the mind of consumers such that the connection (i.e.
Blacks and crime) becomes chronically accessible for use in race-related
evaluations. Notably, as the research on media priming illustrates, even a
single exposure to these unfavorable characterizations can produce
stereotype-based responses.
‘See Mastro, et al., supra, a 616.
Professors Robert M. Entman and Andrew Rojecki, who analyzed various forms
of television programming to determine how the perception of African Americans is,

affected by their portrayals on television, explain that the “accumulated impression from

 

these images is that race alone suffices for comprehensive identification of criminals —

 

that being African American is almost tantamount to guilt.” Robert M. Entman &

‘The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America 8

    

ims that irresponsible media coverage and prejudice will occur with
for without camera use in criminal proceedings, but it does not follow, as noted

ly, that the judiciary should play a role in facilitating such coverage and

 

prejudice, This is especially true when the purported benefits of allowing cameras in our
courtrooms are, at best, speculative and, at worst, nonexistent.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent,

D-12