Support the Timberjay by making a donation.
REGIONAL— In a judicial order issued March 15, the state Supreme Court has loosened longstanding rules that had limited audio and visual coverage of cases in Minnesota courtrooms. The change, …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
REGIONAL— In a judicial order issued March 15, the state Supreme Court has loosened longstanding rules that had limited audio and visual coverage of cases in Minnesota courtrooms.
The change, in an eight-page order signed by Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, will allow judges in the state considerably more discretion about whether to allow cameras or other recording devices in their courtrooms during criminal proceedings. In the recent past, judges had been authorized to open their courtrooms to such devices, but only with the consent of both parties in the case. It was that relatively rare exception that allowed television coverage of the Derek Chauvin trial held in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.
The change in the rules, which takes effect next January, means that judges can determine, with or without the consent of the parties involved, to make their courtroom open to recording devices.
There will still be restrictions during some portions of the legal proceedings, such as during jury selection or certain witness testimony, or if the judge determines that coverage could subject some individuals to intimidation or harm.
Chief Justice Gildea acknowledged that the new rules will create some challenges, but she concluded that the public good would outweigh them.
Even with the changes, Gildea argued that the rules in Minnesota will remain more restrictive than in many states, where cameras are routinely allowed in courtrooms during criminal proceedings. Even with the change, it’s unlikely that cameras will be seen regularly in Minnesota courtrooms any time soon.
Recording or broadcast devices will remain prohibited in cases heard in drug courts, mental health courts, or veterans courts, without the consent of participants.
Several media organizations and groups that promote government openness advocated for the change. Associations for state prosecutors, public defenders, the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault and other survivor advocacy groups opposed the changes or urged caution.
Minnesota Public Radio contributed to this story.