Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

March 25, 2011 

141996(39) 

In re PEOPLE v LARRY KING. 

_________________________________________ 

ERIC L. VANDUSSEN, SC: 141996 

 Appellant. COA: 294682 

Shiawassee CC: 09-008600-FH 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 3, 

2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

 MARKMAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order denying leave to appeal because the Court of Appeals 

decision not to permit the videotaping of its proceedings in this case is in compliance 

with Adminstrative Order 1989-1, “Film or Electronic Media Coverage of Court 

Proceedings.” However, I write separately to express my concerns regarding this Order, 

in particular as to its impact upon the videotaping of Court of Appeals proceedings. 

Administrative Order 1989-1 provides in relevant part: 

 2. Limitations. 

 (a) Film or electronic media coverage shall be allowed upon request 

in all court proceedings . . . . 

 (b) A judge may terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or 

electronic media coverage at any time upon a finding, made and articulated 

on the record in the exercise of discretion, that the fair administration of 

justice requires such action . . . . The judge has sole discretion to exclude 

coverage of certain witnesses . . . . 

 * * * 
2

 (d) A trial judge’s decision to terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude 

film or electronic media coverage is not appealable, by right or by leave. 

 3. Judicial Authority. 

 Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed as altering the 

authority of the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, trial 

court chief judges, or trial judges to control proceedings in their 

courtrooms, and to ensure decorum and prevent distractions and to ensure 

the fair administration of justice in the pending cause. 

The appellant in this case, a free-lance reporter preparing a documentary film on our 

state’s new Medical Marihuana Act, was denied the opportunity to videotape what he 

viewed as pertinent proceedings in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals stated, 

 The Court orders that the request for film and electronic media 

coverage of the oral arguments in this matter is denied. 

In response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals then stated, 

 Underlying this Court’s October 14, 2010, order denying Eric 

VanDussen’s request for media access under Administrative Order 1989-1 

was our finding that the fair administration of justice is best advanced by 

the exclusion of media coverage of oral arguments in this appeal. 

I have the following concerns about Adminstrative Order 1989-1: 

 (1) Given that every oral argument before the Michigan Supreme Court has been 

made fully accessible to the public on Michigan Government Television, what is the 

justification for making Court of Appeals oral arguments accessible to the public on such 

radically different terms? 

 

 (2) Is the “fair administration of justice” a coherent standard in determining 

whether the videotaping of Court of Appeals proceedings will be permitted in a particular 

case? What does the “administration of justice” mean in the context of allowing or 

prohibiting the videotaping of an appellate proceeding? Does this standard effectively 

afford the Court of Appeals unfettered discretion as to whether videotaping will be 

permitted in a particular case? 

 (3) Should there be some obligation of articulation upon the Court of Appeals in 

denying a request to videotape its proceedings based upon the “fair administration of 

justice?” 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 25, 2011 

d0322 

 

3

 

 (4) Should there be any appellate remedy where a request to videotape has been 

denied by the Court of Appeals? If so, how can an effectively standardless decision be 

reviewed for the “abuse of discretion?” 

 

 I have requested that a new administrative file be opened by this Court concerning 

the continued workability of Adminstrative Order 1989-1, as it concerns the Court of 

Appeals. After nearly a quarter of a century of technological change, and changing 

attitudes concerning public access to the operations of government, I believe that review 

of this order is warranted at this time. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration.