Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices 

# 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, th e motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 3, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.

M ARKMAN , 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 1 989-1, “Film or Electronic Media Coverage of Court Proceedings.” However, I write separately to express my concerns re garding this Order, in particular as to its impa ct upon the videotaping of Co urt of Appeals proceedings. Administrative Order 1989-1 pr ovides in relevant part:

2. Limitations.

(a) Film or electronic media covera ge shall be allowed upon request in all court proceedings . . . .

(b) A judge may terminate, susp end, limit, or exclude film or electronic media coverage at any time upon a finding, made and articulated

on the record in the exercise of discre tion, that the fair administration of justice requires such action . . . . The judge has sole discretion to exclude coverage of certain witn esses . . . .

* * *2

(d) A trial judge’s decision to term inate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or electronic media coverage is not appealable, by right or by leave.

3. Judicial Authority.

Nothing in these guidelines sh all be construed as altering the authority of the Chief Jus tice, the Chief Judge of th e 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 ju stice in the pending cause.

The appellant in this case, a free-lance re porter preparing a documentary film on our state’s new Medical Marihuana Act, was deni ed 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 fo r reconsideration, the Court of Appeals then stated,

Underlying this Court’s Oct ober 14, 2010, orde r denying Eric VanDussen’s request for media acce ss under Administrative Order 1989-1 was our finding that the fair administ ration of justice is best advanced by the exclusion of media coverage of oral arguments in this appeal.

I have the following concerns ab out Adminstrative Order 1989-1:

(1) Given that every oral argument before the Michig an Supreme Court has been made fully accessible to the public on Mich igan Government Tele vision, 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 jus tice” a coherent standard in determining whether the videotaping of Cour t of Appeals proceedings will be permitted in a particular case? What does the “administration of justic e” mean in the context of allowing or prohibiting the videotaping of an appellate pr oceeding? Does this standard effectively afford the Court of Appeals unfettered disc retion 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 proceedi ngs based upon the “fair administration of justice?”I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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, ho w can an effectively standardless decision be

reviewed for the “abuse of discretion?”

I have requested that a new administrative file be opened by th is Court concerning the continued workability of Adminstrative Order 1989-1, as it concerns the Court of Appeals. After nearly a quarter of a ce ntury of technological change, and changing attitudes concerning public access to the operati ons of government, I believe that review

of this order is warranted at this time.

M ARILYN K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration.