Opinion ID: 1599736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Media Interference with Attorney-Client Consultations.

Text: The final assignment of error is that the placement of media microphones at the counsel table violated Douglas's due process rights and his right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV. Our review is de novo on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Gregg, 464 N.W.2d 431, 432 (Iowa 1990). We have granted expanded media coverage by our rules. Broadcasting, televising, recording, and photographing are permitted in the courtroom during sessions of the court under certain conditions. See Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(2). Subparagraph (f) provides: There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of conferences in a court proceeding between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel, between counsel and the presiding judge held at the bench or in chambers, or between judges in an appellate proceeding. An exception to subparagraph (f) is provided in subparagraph (h) as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of any of these procedural or technical rules, the presiding judge, upon application of the media coordinator, may permit the use of equipment or techniques at variance therewith, provided the application for variance is included in the advance notice of coverage provided for in Rule 3b. Objections, if any, shall be made as provided by Rule 3c. Ruling upon such a variance application shall be in the sole discretion of the presiding judge. Such variances may be allowed by the presiding judge without advance application or notice if all counsel and parties consent to it. Subparagraph (i) authorizes the court to alter the expanded coverage to fit a changing situation as a trial progresses. It states: The judge may, as to any or all media participants, limit or terminate photographic or electronic media coverage at any time during the proceedings in the event the judge finds (1) that rules established under this Canon, or additional rules imposed by the presiding judge, have been violated, or (2) that substantial rights of individual participants or rights to a fair trial will be prejudiced by such manner of coverage if it is allowed to continue. Douglas's trial counsel, Angela Simon and David Hammer, vehemently objected to the presence of live microphones at the counsel table. At the hearing on the media's application, counsel Simon stated: We have tested the microphones ourselves this morning and discovered that they are so sensitive that even at the far reaches of the counsel table they can pick up a whisper. We consider this an unwarranted and unlawful intrusion into the attorney-client relationship. We're unable to carry on a full and frank discussion with our client. Matters that might come up in the course of the trial we're not free to discuss. Defense counsel noted that the microphones were equipped with cut-off switches but complained that it placed an unfair burden on counsel to perform trial duties and to have to remember to operate microphones simultaneously. In fact, to deactivate a microphone it was necessary to continuously hold the cut-off down. A response was given by media personnel that confidential discussions between counsel and the defendant detected by the microphones would not be publicized. Unassuaged by this, defense counsel said, They have no right to hear anything from counsel table in the first place. Counsel Hammer was twice told that the media people would act responsibly and would not publish in any manner any confidential communication and he should have no concern. The district court overruled the objections and permitted the microphones. After the second day of trial, defense counsel Simon heard a television news broadcast by KCRG at night discussing developments in the Douglas trial. On the screen she observed the image of herself conferring with co-counsel. She believed she heard co-counsel Hammer's voice during the broadcast. Knowing that co-counsel had not participated in the questioning that day, she concluded that a confidential communication had been broadcast. Defense counsel complained to the trial court and sought verification. A copy of the news broadcast was requested from KCRG by counsel Hammer's office, which was informed that the tape of the broadcast would have to be subpoenaed. The trial judge orally notified Grant Price, the overall media coordinator, of the concern about this broadcast. Price indicated that since objection had been made at the inception of the trial, the court could expect no cooperation from the local media coordinator in charge, and request for a copy would have to be made to KCRG itself. Dean Bunting of KCRG was named as the person to contact. When that was attempted, the judge was informed that Bunting was busy in other matters and could not talk to the judge. The next day, November 2, 1990, when the judge called again, he was told that KCRG would cooperate but would like the request backed up with a subpoena. The court issued a subpoena directing that a tape of the news broadcast by KCRG at 10:00 p.m., October 31, 1990, be in the court's possession by November 7 for an in camera inspection. On November 9, a tape was delivered to the court by Emery Worldwide Service. It was not of the broadcast; it was some taping by KCRG of the crime scene on June 22, 1990. Upon inquiry, the court was informed that KCRG did not keep tapes of their news broadcasts more than seven days. The court noted that it orally requested the tape the day after the broadcast in order to alert KCRG to what was wanted before too much time had passed. KCRG also claimed that it did not have a tape of the broadcast, that such things are kept by national news networks but not by local news networks. The facts recited above were made of record by the trial judge and defense counsel at a postjudgment hearing. We have said that to establish prejudice a defendant can request a posttrial evidentiary hearing to show adverse impact or injury. State v. Webb, 309 N.W.2d 404, 408 (Iowa 1981). In the Webb case, we also adopted the prejudice standard enunciated in Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 582-83, 101 S.Ct. 802, 813-14, 66 L.Ed.2d 740, 757 (1981), for resolving challenges to expanded media coverage premised on the Iowa Constitution. The Chandler case held that the constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with a program for expanded media coverage absent a showing of prejudice of constitutional dimensions. The Supreme Court said that a defendant might show that broadcast coverage of his particular case had an adverse impact on the trial participants sufficient to constitute a denial of due process. In Webb, we found that no evidentiary hearing had been requested and no adverse effect was shown. Applying the standard in State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 424-26 (Iowa 1982), we again held that expanded coverage did not result in depriving defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Defendant's reliance to prove prejudice due to harassing phone calls, exposure of the trial judge to a media display during trial, and defendant's decision not to testify because of expanded coverage failed to meet the high standard required. In the instant case, the complaint made initially and at the posttrial evidentiary hearing was that the presence of live microphones at counsel table intruded on defendant's right to private communication with his counsel and on their availability to concentrate on trial matters without media interference. Although clearly a nuisance, the microphone's presence do not appear in this case to have prevented or even impeded Douglas's counsel in the presentation of his defense. Not a single instance is cited where the defendant's claims or evidentiary proof were adversely affected from this cause. A reviewing court cannot predicate error on speculation. See State v. Ritchison, 223 N.W.2d 207, 212-13 (Iowa 1974). We find that prejudice to Douglas's constitutional rights as claimed herein because of expanded media coverage has not been established. Nevertheless, we view with alarm the disdainful attitude displayed by the media in this case. The impression given is that once expanded media coverage was granted, media conduct was above reproach and beyond review. Despite assurances of responsibility, the media representative's promise to not broadcast confidential communications was apparently violated. Efforts to verify this were met with the media's reaction of outright rejection, delay, delivery of a substituted tape, and destruction of evidence. Claims of a willingness to cooperate with the court in providing a tape of the broadcast had the hollow sound of pretense when combined with the media's prerequisite of a subpoena. The professional standards professed by the media were badly undermined by this episode. It is clear that the presence of live microphones at the counsel table creates a real potential for prejudicing a defendant's constitutional rights. Further complicating this issue is the fact that proving a negative, i.e., that counsel was prevented from adequately representing the defendant, is difficult. Having in mind that the irreducible charge of the trial court is to assure a fair trial, careful consideration to these constituents must be given in deciding if expanded coverage is warranted. Viewed in retrospect, the trial court would have been well advised in denying the media's request for the type of live microphones at the counsel table used in this case. Our rules allowing expanded media coverage have been drafted to give the public increased access to judicial proceedings. This access is, nevertheless, subject to the duty and authority of the presiding judge to control the conduct of proceedings, to prevent distractions, and to ensure the fair administration of justice. See Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A(7). Subsection seven specifically includes electronic media as being allowed in public judicial proceedings but makes them subject to the trial judge's supervision. With that in mind, we encourage trial judges to assiduously exercise their authority over the judicial proceedings in order to assure a fair trial to the parties. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.