(00:00:00) There have been a number of court cases that have caught at least the attention of members of the press in recent months. They have attracted attention because they raised questions about the First Amendment rights of reporters public officials and indeed the right of the public to know those cases include the following the Myron Farber case in which a reporter for the New York Times Myron Farber refused to turn over his notes to a court hearing a murder trial of a physician in New Jersey Farber and the times claimed the court had no right to see his notes. The defense attorney argued that farber's notes contained information that might help exonerate his client Farber refused to turn over his notes and he went to jail on contempt charges and his paper paid heavy fines on his behalf further complicating the matter were rumors that Farber intended to write a book about the case after it was over some alleged that he was withholding his notes for profit another case also dealt with rights of a reporter to keep secret certain information the case which was decided for the plaintiff Colonel Anthony Herbert. Now I'm War veteran involved Herbert's charging that producers of the CBS news program 60 Minutes a done fairly presented him in interviews Herbert charged that CBS ought to have to produce notes and unused film to justify what it did to present in its reports US Supreme Court ruled in his favor in another case recently decided by the high court Senator William proxmire Wisconsin was found to have liable to scientist to whom he had given one of his Infamous Golden Fleece awards for poor use of federal funds and the court found that the immunity from such prosecution normally afforded a public figure like a u.s. Senator did not apply in this case since proxmire was working from an unofficial position when he awarded the dubious distinction and finally in a case that may yet reached the US Supreme Court the progressive magazine published in Milwaukee was prevented recently from publishing an article that proposed to tell readers how to construct an atomic bomb. The court upheld rules against publication of such. Formation as contained in the atomic energy act. We'll all of these are but thumbnail sketches of the cases and there are at least one other there is at least one other case that we will address this morning and to help us talk about the cases and to get some perspective on whether or not these cases constitute an assault on the First Amendment are some guests in the studio with me those guests include Minnesota Supreme Court Justice see Donald Peterson. Mr. John Finnegan executive editor of the st. Paul Pioneer Press dispatch and mr. Marshall tannic and attorney in the Minneapolis firm of tannic and Hines in addition to their respective duties as judge and editor Justice Peterson and mr. Finnegan also serve on the Minnesota press counsel and mr. Tanika in addition to handling a number of media related cases in his private practice as both a degree and experience in journalism. Gentlemen, welcome and thank you for being with me this morning. I'd like to begin by asking each one of you to comment from your own perspectives as judge and newspaperman and Whether or not you think that the Press is indeed Under Siege as some reporters at least would argue as a result of some of these cases and I think I'll begin with you. Mr. Finnegan. Well, I think it's certainly demonstrable that the questions of relating to all First Amendment issues have certain I've been raised and they have appeared in the court to a greater extent. I think in the last decade than in any any prior period that I can remember there has been a an increase in the numbers of specific cases dealing with the shield legislation across the country (00:03:40) that is involved in the (00:03:41) Farber case, of course, and the Farber case was the last definitive reaction of the US Supreme Court to that issue of the ability of the press under the First Amendment (00:03:53) to protect its the confidentiality of its (00:03:56) sources or of its notes and out. Takes a from broadcast tapes or (00:04:02) videotapes and I (00:04:05) think certainly you can detect a (00:04:07) pattern which is in from the point of view of (00:04:10) the press is contrary to what we feel are the First Amendment interest involved and that the court is (00:04:18) in in the libel actions that it is ruled on of recent vintage in the prior restraint cases to a less degree, but (00:04:26) certainly has narrowed the area where the Press (00:04:30) is (00:04:31) required or is found to work and the certainly (00:04:35) those decisions are going to have a somewhat chilling effect on investigative reporting and things of that kind because of the of the as a result of the decisions. (00:04:44) I am not quite in the same. Position the Jack Landau who represents the reporters committee on freedom (00:04:51) for the Press takes which is that after the her (00:04:56) Burt Landau CBS case which was the so-called State (00:04:59) of Mind exploration case in which he said that the (00:05:03) Press will soon have lost the last Constitutional shred of its editorial privacy and it's independent from government. (00:05:11) I think that's an overreaction but I do feel of that the the press in many areas is finding the first amendment being eroded by Court (00:05:23) decision as an editor. Do you feel more pressure than you did say five years ago in covering stories how you cover certain stories? What you put in your newspapers a result of some of these cases. Well, there's no question that my job has changed as a (00:05:38) result of this and in I am spending more time (00:05:42) both before publication (00:05:45) going into the legal problems at a Particular case might raise our story might raise and also examining the the case for potential libel or the story for potential libel and also dealing with people on a legal level now and so I have more and more contact with judges and attorneys today. Then I had five years ago and I don't think that are reporting is worse. I think its better and maybe that's why maybe it's more aggressive and maybe it's we're doing more things right that we should have been doing and I'm not saying that the necess forcing me to be a little bit more careful in to examine things a little bit more into go into some of the legal ramifications of what we do is (00:06:34) necessarily (00:06:34) bad. I'm not implying that at all and maybe these things some of these things I should have been doing to a greater degree before but nevertheless it has changed the the general direction of my job. I am spending perhaps 1/4 of my time on What I would call Freedom of Information or legal issues today as a news executive and I'm sure that that's reflected around the country some in some editors of the I think it's probably more of their time than that, (00:06:58) even in certain (00:06:59) areas of the country and there are other question I guess (00:07:02) is I would hope the other (00:07:05) gentleman might comment on this and I think that the our society is is more willing today to go into court. It's wants to litigate more and more you will find more libel actions and certainly some of the decisions that have come out now are going to encourage that kind of activity. So we are in a society where litigation is often seen as the way out is a remedy (00:07:26) for for quote the (00:07:29) the injured and that we are going to find us from the media point of view in that Medium much more often than we did in the past (00:07:37) just as Peterson from your point of view as a state supreme court judge. Do you think that the press in Minnesota and in the United States is under? Some people might call Siege because of recent court rulings. (00:07:53) I approached this with with no special interest in involved and think that we must set these. issues in context and in Balance we start with the First Amendment its first in number and in some respects first and Primacy an exceptionally important civil right not alone for the Press, but for the public generally because the first amendment is based on the concept that the public must be informed and the more complex society becomes the more important it is that they be fully informed without undue inhibition by the by the Press Irwin can him the farmer and widely respected editor-in-chief of the Christian Science monitor once remarked that the first amendment is the privilege of the press and the right of the people so that it must be set not alone in terms of the rights of the media but the rights of the public that they serve now when you get into the question of the right to withhold or not disclose information in a setting of a person accused of crime, then you have not only the First Amendment but you have the sixth amendment as well that guarantees a fair trial to those accused of crime. And this too is a very important one and these sometimes seem to collide now the courts but not the courts alone have have a keen and the concern and important responsibility for the vindicating of the sixth amendment as well. And so we hold that generally that the people and certainly a criminal defendant has the right to Every Man's evidence. And it's a very difficult sensitive thing to bring these into balance and whether that balance has been imperfectly struck or not. The it it falls far short of being a Siege or an assault on the press in my judgment. Take the Farber case. No, the Herbert case James Reston of the New York Times wrote that the Press generally had grossly over reacted to the decision in that case. Charles see was here recently speaking to the annual dinner of the Minnesota, press Council and I put to the question and he's the Ombudsman for the Washington Post and I put him the question whether he agreed with the James Reston, and he said indeed that he did. Perhaps we can explore this more this Siege in our (00:11:26) discussion. I'd like to do that. I'd like to come back to the point you raised about pretrial investigations and just how far that right to know extends and the conflict that seems to be coming up more and more these days with regard to pretrial hearings and pressure we can get to that in a bit. Alright. Mr. Tanika. I'd like to ask you two to give us your feelings and thoughts to about this matter as far as the press and the people's right to know and some of these recent cases that some people argue at least are going against that right? (00:12:01) Well, I don't think that I'd characterize the decisions of the Supreme Court and other courts in recent years is putting the Press Under Siege, but there has been I think a significant and marked sliding back of some of the judicial doctrines that have accorded in the past the Press More rights and privileges than they have under some of the recent cases. I guess you have to go back to the landmark case in 1964 the New York Times case which essentially redefined hundreds of years of common law and statutory law concerning liable to some extent privacy. In other cases in the New York Times case the court used the phrase We want to encourage the free uninhibited and robust exchange of opinions essentially hell that in a libel action that press is not liable for damages unless there's actual malice proof of motivation or at least High highly Reckless conduct on the part of the press merely being negligent being wrong making a mistake isn't enough. In the more recent decisions that have evolved since the New York Times case including the ones that you mentioned at the top of the discussion Rich. There has been a sliding back. I think from that. New York Times decision which probably was as close as the Supreme Court has come in the First Amendment and press area to an absolutist position. Although they didn't hold for an absolutist position in that case, but it came awfully close to that. Now the recent decision seemed to slide back from that position. And also I think there's a has been a tendency on the part of the Supreme Court and other courts to hold that the rights accorded the Press under the First Amendment other amendments are not any Greater by virtue of the fact that someone happens to be a member of the press or an institution happens to be a member of the press one significant case that was decided a couple of years ago was the Stanford daily case in which police officers pursuant to search warrant search the offices of the Stanford Daily Newspaper, which was the University newspaper at Stanford University. I happened to be there at the time that incident arose. I was attending law school at Stanford at the time and the early 70s is the case ultimately wound. Way up to the Supreme Court in the mid-70s and the court said basically that the fact that a particular person or an institution is a member of the press does not give that person any greater or different rights under the First Amendment than any ordinary citizen would have the First Amendment rights are essentially the same for any citizen and the other decisions in more recent vintage seem to Accord with that the court is willing to give the press the full measure of its rights under the First Amendment but no greater rights in terms of access in terms of privilege and any ordinary citizen who's not a member of the press would have one corollary to that I think is our own open meeting law for instance in our own state laws, which give a particular person the same right of access as a member of the press. In other words one does not have to have a credential if you will and we don't we don't give Don't license journalists in this country, but one does not have to be a member of an Institutional or established press in order to claim and have those First Amendment rights that an established or accredited press member has so there is that kind of balancing in effect that has I think evolved in the last 15 years from putting the Press on a plateau to bringing them back. If you will to the to within the Ambit of the same rights as everyone else has under the First Amendment (00:15:57) there are reporters though who would argue that and that it's more than that that that they are not simply being put back in their place, but they're being restrained and that they're not being able to get to some of the information that they should get to and I can't cite specific situations and probably should be able to but I'm wondering mr. Finnegan if just working off of what mr. Tanika is just said if you think that reporters ought to have in some senses more Rights of access to information and persons and meetings. Then the average citizen (00:16:36) know I don't I fully agree with the philosophy that the average citizen are the newsman does not have any more really have many more rights than the average citizen does (00:16:48) I you know, we worked on helping to write the amendments to the current open meeting law and that was our (00:16:53) position. We took the position that we were not writing a press law. It was a public open meeting law and that's we feel that that that that is still (00:17:02) the case. However, the there are certain (00:17:05) circumstances where because of the nature of the business and that where the Press is really the surrogate for the public in most of these cases that their eyes I suppose you could argue and I guess I would that you know, the Press has is probably has probably a is should be more public than the public in a great in a great sense, but I don't think (00:17:28) So much the the issue is we have problems now, you know that and a lot (00:17:33) of this I would like to say, I think we should I knock the audience ought to be aware of that in, Minnesota. By and large is a relationship between the media and the courts. Is not as I think as strained as it is around the country and I'm not saying this because judge Peterson is here because it happens to be the case. I think our laws in both in terms of the way. The way criminal courts are handled the criminal rules of justice and so forth on the handling of pretrial hearings and so forth in Minnesota are reasonable. They are not under the latest decision. I think that came out of depasquale and in the the US Supreme Court decision, which in effect said left it to the total discretion of the judge without any hearing without any evidence of a need to close these pretrial hearings to close them and in the last 30 days 39 pretrial hearings and and actually eight trials have been closed on the basis of that Supreme Court decision and the fear that you know, people say maybe we overreacted the fear that I evidence the first day that that decision came down was that this is precisely What would But the Supreme Court was inviting closed pretrial hearings and the dish would be the easy way out for a judge and that's exactly what's happened. As I say around the country. Not a Minnesota. Minnesota rules are fairly well handle but what's happened is I see it is that in this question of access and so on the Supreme Court has the present Supreme Court has come down very firmly and said that there is no right under the First Amendment for an individual to gather news. That is the first amendment does not say Finnegan. You have a right to go out and gather the news and therefore everything has to be open to you and that if Government closes everything down anything down, that's a violation of the First Amendment Supreme Court said no, that's not right. But Supreme Court has said and (00:19:29) certainly the judge may want to (00:19:33) disagree with this but I think the Supreme Court has said that we do uphold your right to publish what you get. But we don't have to uphold your right to get it and under the First Amendment so that if you can get information you can publish it the Nebraska case I think was within a clear evidence of that in terms of the price of the prior restraint. They said you can't have a prior restraint except under very extreme circumstances and laid out some some guidelines then in the recent cases. However, the Supreme Court has said now that we said that we aren't going to restrain you from access. We are now going to not let you have access to the courts and we are going that is at least we are going to restrict that access even more. So what the Supreme Court gave it took away in a great sense. That's the kind of pattern you have. I think that the the present Supreme Court has been developing. It has been restricting and narrowing as as you said since the times versus Sullivan has been restricting a narrowing the areas within which the the Press did have more freedom prior to the current Society George Peterson like to comment on this matter. Of the closing of pretrial hearings and I might say that dry kind of garden has said that the Minnesota Supreme Court has been fairly good on this I think from the standpoint of the media that the word ought to be exceptionally good because we have a corded wide openness and right of prompt review of any closure proceedings when we talk about closing pretrial hearings. What we are usually talking about is a situation where there is a confession of a criminal defendant. There is a pre-trial hearing under our criminal rules of procedure promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court at which it is determined whether the confession was voluntarily made and will be admitted into evidence at the trial or whether it was not voluntarily made made under some coercive situation. And so that it must be denied admission. Now the problem is this If that is reported in the Press what the confession is, and then it is excluded. and this is published there are jurors that are going to have to be selected in the trial which follows and those jurors are in danger of having knowledge of something that they ought not to have knowledge of and that's the sensitive problem. Now we have provided that by our rules in this state that if that the judge May in very exceptional circumstances close that hearing if there is a high degree of risk that it will be published and that there will not be self-restraint by the media. Not only have we put that inhibition upon it that criteria of a high degree of probability, but also that the press and we recorded them a special status in that respect that they may immediately appeal to our court and that we will promptly act upon it and we have done so and in the cases that have come to us we have reversed the trial court on on those cases. So much for the closing of the judge made the pre-trial I might go ahead. Yeah sure you get away from that issue and I as I said before I you know, I welcome the that difference between the Minnesota approach and what I see is the u.s. Supreme Court approached you I would you care to make any observations as to why the US Supreme Court was as wide open. Now there was a there was a 5-4 and it was a very close decision. So obviously there was a good deal of dissension on the court or disagreement on the court over that issue and even Blackman was on the other side and wrote a dissent on that case. I'm not sure whether you read all of the decisions in forward, but do you have any field? Why would they white at MIT leave it wide open like that without any guidelines of any innocence any real guidelines that would restrict or inhibit judges from Well, first of all, they are that the that court is undertaking to strike a balance and they are human beings and who may have different points of view of those of others. Now we have we have the counterpart of the First Amendment and the sixth amendment in our Minnesota Constitution and we are free to apply it more restrictive Lee than the United States Supreme Court, which is dealing with the first and sixth amendment of the Federal Constitution. I don't know that I could otherwise comment on it. We tend to personalize these judges where you said even Justice blackmun descended now, I don't know quite what that means. I like to think they're in on it. I like to think that these are decent Honorable Men of Integrity different points of view, of course and different backgrounds who are doing their best whether we agree with it or not to interpret and to apply and vindicate these great historic constitutional rights. I don't know that I can add anything beyond that. I would like to yes, I would add this. As a backdrop, but as I started out to say earlier, the first amendment is is of vital importance to not the Press alone, but more importantly the people in a free Society. And we know from poles that are regularly run over the years that the confidence of the public. In the press in the courts to and in other institutions is at a rather alarming low degree. And this is It's terribly important for us to inform the public of the of their stay in a free press and in free speech and free religion. Because of the public is hostile or at least in different then the the these constitutional guarantees are endangered the great judge hand speaking of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights generally commented in a speech. He made the spirit of Liberty that that when the public and I'm freely translating loses confidence in these in these rights, no court. No Constitution can save them. And so that's a that's a very real concern ought to be to all of us not to the press and not to jurists alone. So but then but then these are not absolutes the Justice Douglas in the late Justice black were absolutists on these but these are not totally unfettered obscenity. For example, the court has has has said has no First Amendment values in the sense that it doesn't inform. It doesn't add to public debate or public understanding and hence is not recorded these kinds of freedoms. I'm afraid I wandered a little (00:27:58) bit. I want to go back to what you said a few minutes ago. Just as Peterson about the pre-trial hearings and what goes on here in Minnesota with regard to allowing reporters into those. You mentioned that there were some I'm criteria. Yes, in (00:28:13) fact, you you if your pardon there was a There was something I wanted to add that I was leading up to. Not not we must deal not only in terms of Rights, but its corollary responsibility. And the media has great power and it's as old as the tocqueville that in any area of life that power tends to corrupt or tends to become arrogant. And there is a feeling of Broad and this is spoken by by a number of journalists. Who said that that the Press is in lowest state with the people and that there is this feeling of arrogance. There is a to those of us who have great rights and great responsibilities. There is a duty of self-restraint not restrained him posed by government. That's the great danger but a self-restraint now when we have a trial that has been made more difficult poor sometimes really quite impossible because of the infection of prejudicial publicity. The Press may walk away from that and said we asserted our right so we've published everything we've learned. But something has has suffered from the lack of self restraint. Maybe we can change venue. But in this day of particularly broadcasting where news is not locally localized but goes throughout the entire state it we put in Hazzard the right of a fair trial in the most awesome power of the state is to incarcerate a man and we must end and the courts have attempted to vindicating the Constitution to close him with protections against those things that will interfere with the clinical atmosphere in which a decision should be made free of prejudice free of inflammatory information. The Press generally in this state has been good. We have not only a very free but a highly responsible press in this state. I have no question about that. But sometimes we do are and it creates problems for the courts trying to trying to protect the rights of those accused of crime, which could be you could be me sometime. (00:30:49) Mr. Tanika. It seems to me that you as an attorney and as a former journalist might have a difficult decision to make we're talking about pre-trial situations. Where do you come down on that issue? I suppose it's conceivable that you could have a client to going into a pre-trial situation might have attracted some attention on the part of the press. How would you feel about having the Press cover a pre-trial hearing of a client of (00:31:16) yours as a Justice indicates a very difficult problem in taking a look at it from the perspective of the criminal defendant and his attorney. There are often times very Sound and quite strong reasons why that criminal defendant is going to want to have as much of the proceedings. If not, all of the proceedings closed secret. That's true in many civil context as well oftentimes the parties would like and there are valid reasons underlying why they would like to have closed proceedings particular in the criminal context because of the Prejudice that can can flow before a jury is selected. And once those arguments are presented the court has very difficult problem balancing those rights. I think that it's the case that judge has faced with this problem are going to necessarily be very very sensitive to the problem posed by prejudicial publicity vis-à-vis a criminal defendant for a number of reasons by training by by their Ocean by previous experience as well as by the possibility of reversal on appeal. The judges are going to be very careful to give the criminal defendant necessarily every benefit of the doubt in a in that kind of context as the justice points out. We have reasonable feasible alternatives to raise those questions promptly and expeditiously in Fairly before before the high court in our state. I think one of the most frustrating problems faced by a journalist in the area of access generally as mr. Finnegan said and I agree with him that the import of many of these cases is to tell the Press you can print it if you can gather it the Gathering is a problem. Once you're into a Judicial setting a Judicial Forum. There are as I mentioned methods of resolving those disputes, but there's a frustration I think that occurs even before you get there and that is getting access to records documents and the like from The people who maintain and hold and provide ministerial task with respect to those documents some of the fine investigative reporting that's been done and mr. Finnegan's papers as well depends at the first instance often times on getting access to governmental bureaucratic documents that can pose a very substantial problem. If you're denied access, the Press has certain rights under the various data privacy acts open meeting X, but if they're turned down if the door is closed in their face, they have a difficult decision to make whether to take that matter into the judicial setting the matter is compounded by the likely cost and going into court it that kind of chilling effect can be pronounced particularly on smaller less affluent media. If the large Metropolitan papers want to contest a denial of access to records of meetings, they certainly have the resources to make a rational decision as to whether to proceed some of the smaller media the weeklies the monthly Publications magazines have a very difficult problem and just facing up to the cost of having to contend with going into court to secure access to something. They deem to be there. Right and oftentimes these cases aren't brought principally because of the economic consequences or economic effect of going into court, which is costly (00:34:58) like to add just one PostScript to this matter and perhaps we've discussed it more than you wish about the access of the press to pre-trial hearing in criminal cases are card is committed to the proposition that the judicial business is public business and that the Press should have Access to it and and and if there were this self-restraint that would not immediately publish the information that is learned that it would it would solve it would create no problem. Whatever that is to say our court things and I think that the Press ought to ought to be there. And that because being public business it can as the surrogate for the public call attention to what may maybe a miscarriage of justice and under our rules. Even where we would permit an extraordinary cases the closure of the pre-trial hearing we provide that that every word must be recorded and a transcript subsequently supplied to the Press. So that after the fact they would not be in doubt as to what occurred now that's that's that's not a total equivalent to being present and here the spoken worked about it. It indicates the length that we want to go the balance that we want to strike and that we impose a heavy burden upon. Those who would deny access to the Brass I am I'm all for public business being done. Openly. It's interesting at that before we get away from the pre-trial question that again relating to cases outside of the state of Minnesota, which I think we should remember who we're dealing with a with a federal court to decision. And what impact is that Federal Court decision had and it certainly could have a similar effect in Minnesota. I did we had we not a I think a very responsible and responsive Supreme Court and Judiciary overall in this state which is conscious of that of that balance in the necessity received that balance more I think than this the in the US Supreme Court as its presently constituted does and but nevertheless our court may not be as it is presently constituted forever and the fact of the matter remains that it could change its mind. Next year or in the next case that comes up and decide to follow the the US Supreme Court rulings and what has happened in some areas, for example, and I would like to just say the couple that has happened since the US Supreme Court decision in Albany New York, the Almani County court on a drug illegal drug possession case. The defense counsel asked that the pre-trial hearing be closed to the Press but not the public. In other words the discrimination against the press in this case that they could not appear but the Press cannot appear but the public could and he was upheld by the prosecutor objected but the judge upheld that and so ordered now that's under appeal. But here you have the Press being kept out and not even a court of the same rights. As a member of the public would have I surely wouldn't undertake to defend that kind of a decision. This is what's happening judge and it's you know, it's it's a little frightening when you and I talked about the the implication that there may be an attack on the press this seems to underscore that in some other jurisdictions and I so I think we have to be be worried about that another it does not happen just once or twice but it's happened in several other states in this in this whole thing in one case is matter of fact, the judge came in from another another courtroom and went in and closed another judges trial because they were somewhat related and he thought that if the news accounts got out about this one trial that he was going to have trouble in jury selection for the second trial. And there was no hearing held he just came in and shut her down and the the Press had no, no, no appeal process right away. And so they know by the time I'm sure by the time the court gets to that and rules one way or the other and I suspect that judge will not be upheld in this kind of a blatant exercise of arrogance. If you will Authority, it's all irrelevant because the case has already been heard in the position of been taken. I'm a weird arrogance was not mine, but somebody I know I know it wasn't good and I've heard it and I think there is certain amount of arrogance in in the press as there is in I think in some areas of the Judiciary and and the legal profession and many other areas of government and our institutions today and I think we have to be concerned about (00:39:58) that. Oh, mr. Finnegan. Do you accept the the the request really it sounds like to me from Justice Peterson that the court that the that reporters rather exercise this self-imposed restraint with regard to pretrial (00:40:14) coverage l in certain instances over the Ten years. I know of cases where one or two cases at least where our reporters have done exactly that and been there and been aware of what's going on in the courtroom or in the judge's Chambers is a matter of fact in the meetings with the attorneys over some particular issue and not reported it until later after the trial was under well under certain time constraints whether it's after the trial is finished or after the jury's been selected and empanelled and and but yeah, we have done that on occasion now it's a rare occasion, but we have done it so I know we recognize I think and at least in this area again that these kinds of responsibilities do exist. However, having said that it's not something that I would urge all of our court reporter say, oh, you know always do this. I mean to me it's one of these things where you've got to weigh the problems in the and the issues involved. It's a Delayed Action release if you will, it doesn't mean we're being blocked out, but it does mean That you are the the issue is a matter of timeliness and and how important that might be in a particular case and I think each has to be approached on its merits and I certainly would never issue a blanket ordered any of my reporters that you know, this is how you ought to conduct your operation in your uncovering uncovering this area. But you know in some cases I've had a judge call me up and a murder case and say that he was concerned that if we release the which is our normal policy, if we release the names of the jurors as they are selected in this murder case before their empaneled and before the evidence is being presented to them in the witnesses get up that he was afraid there might be some pressure put on them by the defendants relatives or that he had at least he had a fear in this area Jack. We have a both held until you know for a for a Time certain that publication and so we know we recognize these problems do exist and when we deal with them the case-by-case issue I'm told and I don't asserted as a fact because I'm not certain that it is so there was a couple of years ago litigation civil litigation between two major broadcasters involving the transfer of a person. On camera person from one station to the other and that the two stations joined in a request to the Ramsey County court that the proceedings be closed. Is that true? I had heard that same that same allegation, but I think it was request of one that it be closed. I don't know that the other one agreed to it and I don't know there was ever closed. I believe it was close it close. At least I recall not to reading or hearing any of the dirty linen washed publicly. (00:43:11) These were two television stations. Yes that had explained a little bit. I'm not sure I follow exactly what (00:43:20) process alleged proselyting of one television personality from one station to the other and the other that was like I said, I remember the basis was on the I think the at the request made was made by the part of one of the station's as I recall it now that it would be giving up in effect Trade Secrets if this was public And that therefore they were asking for the court to be closed. So the assertion the assertion of giving up a trade secret which would be sensitive would be on a plane but hardly on this High Plain As the creating a Prejudice for a criminal defendant. I've just wondering assuming that were true would you defend it? No. No, dude. No, I should be open (00:44:12) gentlemen in the few minutes that we have left. I'd like to talk just a bit about cameras and microphones in the courtroom. They have also or the presence of those items have raised questions of First Amendment rights. And as far as I know Minnesota and the Supreme Court in Minnesota is still experimenting to some degree with microphones and cameras in the courtroom. And I'm wondering just as Peterson if you can tell us a little bit about where that experiment is going and whether we might see more of the proceedings of the Supreme Court and perhaps other courts in the state as well covered in that matter (00:44:47) opened up. Yes in Minnesota. We have permitted the broadcast media to be present with cameras in the Supreme Court proceedings and that has been exercised under some ground rules established by a joint Bar Association media committee. And the one of the one of the time-honored concerns would be about the distraction and disruption of the proceedings now, it's not a great problem in the in the Supreme Court proceedings and the experiments have established that the cameras can be quiet and they are doing it on a pool arrangement with one still Cameron one television camera in place and its technological feasibility has been established without any The larger question with respect to ours or any other proceedings is the value educationally of what they have done with it. I'm speaking now on the commercial side rather than on public broadcasting size with side because in a minute and a half, which I understand is the maximum that will be given by either radio or television. It has fallen in my judgment far short of being very educational to the public that of course doesn't say that they shouldn't be there. I would hope that experiments might indicate something that would be more enlightening to the public now when you get to the trial court, and we have not gone experimental e there. You have a more difficult problem there you have witnesses who are cameras under the best of circumstances and the question is adding, you know, the harsh I of television or radio which pretty awesome experience for the uninitiated the will that inhibit will the giving of testimony or with respect to the jurors? There have been experiments across the country the attitudes or reactions of those who have experienced it are mixed the we still have it under advisement and I can't speak for the cart. I think there may well be experiments in the future with the consent of the council for the party. Certainly in a criminal case by the defendant and maybe consented by the witness in a particular case of they closed off the camera for a particular witness. But when you get it when you get it piecemeal highly fragmentary how valuable it will be to the public how detrimental it might be to a defendant remains to be seen (00:48:14) are we likely to see the kind of coverage of Court proceedings that Florida is now seeing in the next three or four years in Minnesota. (00:48:25) Well, I think I think it's I think trial coverage cameras broadcast is going to have to come I think it's you know, I we're sticking our heads in the sand with apologies to judge seagull if we take a position that it's never going to happen and trial courts in Minnesota. I think ultimately it's got to come it's part of our society today and I think it I think it can be a useful tool for educational purposes. I agree. It has not been shown us such and I think broadcasters have to take a look at the way they deal with this kind of news. This kind of operation procedure may be the minute and a half. You know, this is an old thing that's been around for a long time maybe Trials of significance not just Sensational trials and that's one other problem. We get into that the significant trial whether it might be a murder trial or it might be a civil action of some kind which might you know should be tried. There should be there should be 5 minutes or 10 minutes or a half hour segment every week or something of that kind of what's going on in this particular case. We shouldn't and I don't think broadcasters ought to and I think perhaps maybe they're a little derelict in this approach as well. Do it has we've always done it that they should be thinking in terms of how can we do it by effectively and do it better and not just try to cram it into half a minute. Minute and a half and bring in or excerpts and just use the the the what they might call the media material that comes out of it that the procedures and techniques of (00:49:55) Trials and so on ought to be a little bit better (00:49:58) explain. I think it's going to come but I I agree we hug we have to do it better and find ways to present it better if it can be if it can be informative rather than things right exactly all (00:50:07) the to go. Mr. John Finnegan executive editor of the st. Paul Pioneer Press and dispatch Justice see Donald Peterson of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Marshall tannic an attorney from Minneapolis. Thanks for being with me this morning.