Cameras in the Courtroom - November 2007

Lucy Wieland, Chief Judge, Fourth Judicial District
November 14, 2007

Are We Ready for Cameras in the Courtroom?

Here in Minnesota, we don’t have any experience with televised courtrooms. But we all remember watching the OJ Simpson trial with its endless theatrics. More recently, we watched the Anna Nicole Smith case live from the courtroom of the Florida judge who started crying on the bench. Most of us don’t want those kind of courtroom spectacles coming to our local television. Many attorneys and judges are concerned that cameras in the courtroom will threaten the dignity and formality of proceedings where the stakes are often very high. There’s the belief that the media is only going to care about high profile criminal cases, where they’ll videotape a ten-second sound bite of the most dramatic moment of a two week trial, leaving out most of what’s important about the case. Finally, there’s concern about the impact of cameras on jurors, victims, witnesses, and family members. This is one of the few areas where both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys are in agreement; they both think that cameras are a bad idea for the justice system. So why is the issue under consideration?

What many don’t realize is that in 1983, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved an experimental program for audio and video coverage of trial court proceedings in Minnesota with certain limitations. Those limitations included no coverage of juvenile proceedings, child custody or marriage dissolution cases, sex crimes, trade secrets, cases involving undercover agents or police informants, or motions to suppress evidence. The order also precluded filming of jurors, witnesses who objected, hearings outside the presence of the jury and other kinds of limitations. The real kicker in the rule, however, was that both the judge and the parties had to agree to coverage. Over the last 24 years, there have been extremely few cases where the judge and parties agreed to media coverage. Because most of the media interest is in criminal cases, and because both prosecutors and defense attorneys routinely oppose cameras, the agreement of the judge has been beside the point, and it’s never been necessary to consider the limitations that the Supreme Court put on coverage of trial court proceedings. In other words, the experimental program has been a failure.

A petition has now been brought by a group of media organizations asking the Supreme Court to once again consider allowing media coverage of trial court proceedings, and that request is being reviewed by a general rules committee. Many have spoken against expanding the rule, including the County Attorney’s Association, public defenders, civil attorneys, and others. Hennepin County judges have also been discussing the proposal, and have heard from several judges from neighboring states about their experiences. What we’ve heard has been an eye opener for many of us.

What I, and many of my colleagues, didn’t realize is that Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota all allow audio and video coverage of trial court proceedings, and have allowed it for many years. Judges from these states all say that it’s no big deal. When pressed, they have all said that everybody takes it for granted, and it has no effect on the trial or the participants. Those states also have a variety of limitations on the cameras. Only one or two cameras are allowed so it’s not a disruption; judges have the authority to prohibit the recording of a participant upon request; jurors can’t be videotaped; there’s also a presumption that crime victims, informants, undercover agents, juveniles, divorce proceedings, and evidentiary suppression hearings should not be videotaped; and finally the trial judge has the ultimate authority to control media coverage as is necessary to a fair trial, and to end coverage if any rules are broken.

With all these potential limitations, why are so many opposed to cameras? I think it’s fear. It’s fear of the unknown first of all; then fear of exploitation, of media sensationalizing tragedy, of grandstanding attorneys or judges, of sacrificing justice for the sake of the 10pm news. But are those fears justified? The experience of our neighboring states says no; these states have not had these kinds of problems. One group that recently came out in support of cameras in the courtroom is the victim advocacy group Watch. Marna Anderson, the director of Watch, wrote a piece for the Star Tribune in which she supported allowing cameras in the courtrooms in the interest of public information.

Our justice system is a critical part of our democratic government. Every day, in small cases and big ones, we work hard to achieve a fair and just outcome. I feel confident that what those cameras will show is that Minnesota has a justice system that the public can trust.

For further information, contact:

Nancy Peters
Public Affairs
612-348-5022 (phone)
612-348-2131 (fax)
Send an email via our contact form

« Back to "News From Your Court" Home

« Back to 4th District Home

If you have questions, comments or suggestions regarding this web site, please CONTACT US.