Falstaff Member Username: Falstaff
Post Number: 116 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 8:35 am: | |
No cameras allowed in Grant case I don't think the judge has the right to just bar cameras from the courtroom with a really good reason. I don't see how a single pool camera would prevent a fair trail.
quote:Druzinski's decision was in response to a request from WDIV-TV (Channel 4) and WXYZ (Channel 7) to allow live television feeds from the courtroom. WDIV news director Bob Ellis and attorney John Ronayne declined comment Thursday; a WXYZ manager could not be reached. Maybe if WDIV could divert attention away from the new traffic reporter contest, they would step up and challenge this unjust ruling. All three television stations spent lots of money following the antics of Stephen Grant. Now, during the final scene, they all just throw up their hands and cry "Uncle"? Very dangerous precedent. This needs to be challenged to keep our judiciary in check. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3195 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 8:54 am: | |
bullshit the local media rode this case for all it's worth and then some "Very dangerous precedent. This needs to be challenged to keep our judiciary in check." double bullshit - only cameras where removed, not all press nor other observers |
Falstaff Member Username: Falstaff
Post Number: 117 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 9:19 am: | |
Most people get their local news from TELEVISION. The cameras get the pictures which are then shown on TELEVISION. Removal of cameras severely lessens the impact electronic journalist have to tell their stories. Understand? BTW - Being crude doesn't make you witty. |
Craggy Member Username: Craggy
Post Number: 289 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 9:30 am: | |
Most people get their news from television... well, that's the problem, isn't it? |
Falstaff Member Username: Falstaff
Post Number: 118 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 9:58 am: | |
quote:Clearly you don't know the first thing about court room procedures. Cameras are only allowed in the courtroom at the Judge's discretion. Not true. There are RULES that control these situations. Perhaps YOU need to read them:
quote:Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order 1989-1 Film or Electronic Media Coverage of Court Proceedings On order of the Court, the report of the Cameras in the Courtroom Committee having been received and considered, the following exception to the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A(7) is adopted to permit film or electronic media coverage in all Michigan Courts effective March 1, 1989: The following guidelines shall apply to film or electronic media coverage of proceedings in Michigan Courts: 1. Definitions. (a) “Film or electronic media coverage” means any recording or broadcasting of court proceedings by the media using television, radio, photographic, or recording equipment. (b) “media” or “media agency” means any person or organization engaging in news gathering or reporting and includes any newspaper, radio or television station or network, news service, magazine, trade paper, professional journal, or other news reporting or news gathering agency. (c) “Judge” means the judge presiding over a proceeding in the trail court, the presiding judge of a panel in the Court of Appeals, or the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. 2. Limitations. (a) Film or electronic media coverage shall be allowed upon request in all court proceedings. Requests by representatives of media agencies for such coverage must be made in writing to the clerk of the particular court not less than three business days before the proceeding is scheduled to begin. A judge has the discretion to honor a request that does not comply with the requirements of this subsection. The court shall provide that the parties be notified of a request for film or electronic media coverage. (b) A judge may terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or electronic media coverage at any time upon a finding, made and articulated on the record in the exercise of discretion, that the fair administration of justice requires such action, or that rules established under this order or additional rules imposed by the judge have been violated. The judge has sole discretion to exclude coverage of certain witnesses, including but not limited to the victims of sex crimes and their families, police informants, undercover agents, and relocated witnesses. (c) Film or electronic media coverage of the jurors or the jury selection process shall not be permitted. (d) A trial judges decision to terminate, suspend, limit, or exclude film or electronic media coverage is not appealable, by right or by leave. 3. Judicial Authority. Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed as altering the authority of the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, trial court chief judges, or trial judges to control proceedings in their courtrooms, and to ensure decorum and prevent distractions and to ensure the fair administration of justice in the pending cause. 4. Equipment and Personnel. Unless the judge orders otherwise, the following rules apply: (a) Not more that two videotape or television cameras, operated by not more than one person each, shall be permitted in any courtroom. (b) Not more than two still photographers, utilizing not more than two still cameras each with not more than two lenses for each camera, and related necessary equipment, shall be permitted in any courtroom. (c) Not more than one audio system for radio and/or television recording purposes shall be permitted in any courtroom. If such an audio system is permanently in place in the courtroom, pickup shall be made from that system; if it is not, microphones and wires shall be placed as unobtrusively as possible. (d) Media agency representatives shall made their own pooling arrangements without calling upon the court to mediate any dispute relating to those arrangements. In the absence of media agency agreement on procedures, personnel, and equipment, the judge shall not permit the use of film or electronic media coverage. 5. Sound and Light Criteria. (a) Only television, photographic, and audio equipment which does not produce distracting sound or light shall be utilized to cover judicial proceedings. Courtroom lighting shall be supplemented only if the judge grants permission. (b) Only still camera equipment which does not product distracting sound or light shall be employed to cover judicial proceedings. No artificial lighting device of any kind shall be employed with a still camera. (c) Media agency personnel must demonstrate in advance, to the satisfaction of the judge, that the equipment proposed for utilization will not detract from the proceedings. 6. Location of Equipment and Personnel. (a) Television camera equipment and attendant personnel shall be positioned in such locations in the courtroom as shall be designated by the judge. Audio and video tape recording and amplification equipment which is not a component of a camera or microphone shall be located in a designated area remote from the courtroom. (b) Still camera photographers shall be positioned in such locations in the courtroom as shall be designated by the judge. Still camera photographers shall assume fixed positions within the designated areas and shall not move about in any way that would detract from the proceedings. (c) Photographic or audio equipment may be placed in, moved about in, or removed from, the courtroom only during a recess. Camera film and lenses may be changed in the courtroom only during a recess. (d) Representatives of the media agencies are invited to submit suggested equipment positions to the judge for consideration. 7. Conferences. There shall be no audio pickup, broadcast or video close up of conferences between an attorney and client, between co-counsel, between counsel and the judge held at the bench at trial, or between judges in an appellate proceeding. 8. Conduct of Media Agency Personnel. Persons assigned by media agencies to operate within the courtroom shall dress and deport themselves, in ways that will not detract from the proceedings. 9. Nonexclusivity. These guidelines shall not preclude coverage of any judicial proceeding by news reporters or other persons who are employing more traditional means, such as taking notes or drawing pictures. |
Falstaff Member Username: Falstaff
Post Number: 119 Registered: 09-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 10:35 am: | |
read the case law |
Clark1mt Member Username: Clark1mt
Post Number: 106 Registered: 06-2005
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 11:09 am: | |
Does anyone think the media circus surrounding this case is justified over, say, any other murder? Everything about the trial will be on the public record anyway. Maybe the reporters could actually do some work to cover the case. |
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 711 Registered: 08-2006
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 11:47 am: | |
Im sick and tired of hearing about this stupid case. The guy is a complete waste. Why not focus some attention to unsolved cases involving poor people? What a pipe dream.... Oh yea and how can you refer to the "news" organizations that cover the trial as news! Local news is so terrible now. I knew it hit a new bottom when they announced call in contests during newscasts! |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1306 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 11:58 am: | |
Pray tell, how does adding a video camera in the courtroom serve to "to keep our judiciary in check"? Also IMHO, given all of the increasingly lightweight fluff and sensationalized reports that are routinely delivered on local television "newscasts", TV news reporters are no longer worthy of the title "electronic journalists". |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 4348 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 12:16 pm: | |
These sensationalized cases make a lot of money of for media, TV in particular. It is like getting a free serial for very little costs that translates into a lot of ratings and ad revenue. I would like to see a law of some sorts where the rights to those valuable assets are sold by the court. If millions are made off unpaid [and unwilling] actors, like jurors getting $15 a day, then the public deserves a good chunk of that money. Our courts and penal system are a huge weight on our tax structure and need all the funds it can generate. Otherwise, and with all due respect to the public access rights, send reporters with paper and pencil and let them sit and take notes quietly. |
Jrvass Member Username: Jrvass
Post Number: 342 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 1:23 pm: | |
I agree with Miesfan & Lowell. Whether Grant gets 1st or 2nd degree murder isn't worth intense TV coverage just to sell cat food and Wallside Windoze. TV news is pitiful. They tell you less in an hour than they did in 15 minutes, 40 years ago. (Message edited by jrvass on December 08, 2007) |
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 6612 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 1:58 pm: | |
Bring on the courtroom sketch artists again. |
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 3995 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 2:01 pm: | |
The Defense Calls Godzilla To The Stand |
Gnome Member Username: Gnome
Post Number: 438 Registered: 08-2007
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 6:06 pm: | |
A portion of all proceeds raked in by the news buzzards should be set aside for the Grant children. Poor things. |
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz
Post Number: 4001 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 6:33 pm: | |
According to the first paragraph, protecting the Grant children is the reason for the ban on electronic media. Yeah, maybe the rest of the press should voluntarily chip in something for them. |
|