Arguments about whether or not camera access should expand inside Minnesota courtrooms reached Minnesota's top court on Tuesday morning.
The decades-old topic has once again come to the forefront after the highly publicized trials of former police officers Derek Chauvin and Kimberly Potter. Hennepin District Court judges Peter Cahill and Regina Chu ultimately allowed cameras in those cases, citing the overall public interest and the restrictions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ramsey County District Court judge Richard Kyle told the court that an advisory committee of Minnesota judges, attorneys, and other court personnel overwhelmingly supported keeping cameras out of courtrooms, with just a few exceptions.
"The committee's recommendations if they're adopted by this Court would offer unprecedented media access and coverage to criminal proceedings in Minnesota, even without party consent," Kyle said.
In Minnesota, broadcast television cameras are not allowed inside Minnesota courtrooms unless prosecution, defense attorneys, and the judge agree to it.
Kyle said exceptional circumstances like the Chauvin and Potter trials would be instances where cameras would be allowed.
"A worldwide pandemic or a case with such high profile that it goes beyond the borders of Minnesota, across the country, and perhaps beyond the country's borders. Really Chauvin and Potter's cases come to mind."
Those cases would need to be considered by a list of factors, which were presented to the Court. The committee did submit a two-step process for a District Judge to decide when there's a notice in front of them.
"Are their due process rights going to be violated? In the committee's view, that was the most important factor to be considered," he said. "We also felt it was important for the judge to decide if there's any substantial likelihood that there'd be any physical or psychological harm to any of the parties if camera coverage was granted."
Several media groups spoke in favor of embracing the technology, similar to how neighboring states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and North Dakota have done.
Mark Anfinson, a first amendment attorney, spoke on behalf of the Minnesota Newspaper Association and Minnesota Broadcasters Association.
"If the court should adopt the committees recommendation to now allow cameras, it will deprive the public and the court system itself of real and important benefits, with few if any countervailing benefits to that decision."
Mankato Free Press managing editor, Joe Spear, also works as the media coordinator for the Fifth Judicial District and two counties in the First and Third District taking part in the cameras in the court pilot program.
"I've observed all requests for cameras in the courts in those districts and have heard no complaints from victims, witness, lawyers, judges or other where cameras were allowed," Spear said.
Spear added that his interaction with judges and court personnel have been great when it comes to media requests and access.
"We've worked really well with the judges and attorneys about getting on the same about about what we're going to do," he said. "We plan ahead and go in a couple hours ahead of time to set-up the cameras. We're all on the same page about that the purpose is. I think it's very respectful and I can't think of a single conflict that we've had in the seven or eight years that we've done that."
Most, if not all, of those requests, according to Spear, have been for sentencing procedures.
"They're very rare that we even request pre-sentencing coverage because it's very difficult."
Tuesday's arguments lasted just over an hour. The court is expected to make a decision at a later date.