MN Supreme Court allows for more cameras in trial courts in 2024, at judges’ discretion

Josh Verges, Pioneer Press
·3 min read
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Defendants and attorneys no longer will have the power to keep news cameras out of courtrooms during criminal trials and pretrial hearings under new rules adopted Wednesday by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Instead, it largely will be up to the judge in each case to decide when audio and visual coverage is allowed.

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote that the new rules for the state’s trial courts, which take effect Jan. 1, “will promote transparency and confidence in the basic fairness that is an essential component of our system of justice in Minnesota.”

In June 2021, during a pandemic that made the court system more comfortable with cameras, the justices began a review of the 5-year-old rules governing audio-visual coverage of criminal proceedings.

The old rules allowed cameras during criminal trials only “with the consent of all parties;” they also contained a presumption that sentencing hearings would be open to cameras unless the judge had good reason to block them.

In the first seven years since Minnesota district courts began experimenting with cameras in 2015, news cameras were allowed at around 200 sentencing hearings. But requests for camera access prior to a guilty plea were denied 30 times and allowed just once – not counting the high-profile proceedings involving ex-police officers Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter.

Last June, most members of a Supreme Court advisory committee recommended against major changes to the rules. They noted that while news media and their allies support increased camera coverage, most attorneys, judges and victims advocates oppose it.

“Asking people to relive the worst moments of their lives and then broadcasting it will have an impact, and it will make it more difficult to get justice,” the committee wrote.

However, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with the news media, observing that most public comments they received favor increased access to the courts.

“The public commenters advocated in favor of more transparency, greater public trust, and broader accessibility, all of which are important factors to consider here,” Gildea wrote.

She noted that even under the new rules, Minnesota still will be providing less access than many other states.

Access limitations

Although Wednesday’s order opens the door to greater access, it still will be up to the judge in each case, and there is no presumption that cameras will be allowed in prior to sentencing.

Further, the justices added more protections for certain people involved in court proceedings.

Going forward, the judges must consider whether the victim wants camera coverage, not just the attorneys and defendants.

Witnesses and sex crime victims still will have the power to keep cameras out during their testimony, and cameras never will be allowed to cover any minor victims, defendants or witnesses.

Judges also must keep cameras out in situations where there’s “a substantial likelihood that coverage would expose any victim or witness who may testify at trial to harm, threats of harm, or intimidation.”

“Ultimately, district court judges retain broad discretion to allow or disallow visual and audio coverage under the modified rules,” Gildea wrote.

The Supreme Court’s order Wednesday includes a dissent from Associate Justice Anne McKeig. She wrote that camera coverage could negatively impact communities of color, who make up a disproportionate share of criminal defendants, and she noted that attorneys and judges overwhelmingly oppose increased access.

“It is difficult to support expansion of camera access in the courtroom when the practitioners who regularly encounter these rules do not support expansion,” she wrote.

Related Articles