Opinion ID: 1810757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: survey of the florida conference of circuit judges

Text: As earlier noted, judges were not included in the sample survey conducted by OSCA because the Conference of Circuit Judges had previously conducted a survey of its membership. Those survey results were included as an appendix to the report filed in this cause by the Conference. There was a 54% response to the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents (96-50) indicated some experience with electronic media during the pilot program. Of these, thirty-six indicated positive reaction, twenty-nine negative reaction, and thirty-seven neutral. The circuit judge under whose direction the survey was administered reported that the neutrals generally made favorable comments as `I am neutral but the press were professional, no disturbances, etc.' [30] In response to questions 6, 7, and 8 of the survey, it was the reaction of the circuit judges (90 to 95%) that jurors, witnesses, and lawyers were not affected in the performance of their sworn duty by the presence of electronic media. [31] Although the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges takes a position in its filed report in opposition to any change in Canon 3 A(7), the empirical data collected in its survey, particularly from respondents who experienced electronic media coverage, does not seem to support the formal position taken. As stated by Circuit Judge Arthur J. Franza in his survey recapitulation and analysis: From the whole, I think Courts do not object to the use of cameras in the courtroom now that they have had some experience. However, in certain areas, some Judges have strong opinions. Paramount being: 1. That the presiding Judge have control of his courtroom. 2. That confidential or undercover agents who are witnesses, victims of crimes, family especially children of the convicted, and juvenile proceedings not be photographed. [32]