|
|
||
|
|
|
|
                |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
2. I make this Affidavit upon personal knowledge.
3. By this motion, Court TV, a national cable legal news network, seeks to televise the trial in this action. During prior proceedings in this case held in the Su-preme Court, Bronx County before the Hon. Patricia Anne Williams, Regional News Network ("RNN"), a news organization not affiliated with Court TV, moved the Court to televise the trial then anticipated to be held before Judge Williams. Judge Williams denied RNN's motion. In re Regional News Network, No. 1814/99 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. June 4, 1999) (annexed hereto as Exhibit U).
4. We set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law the reasons why Judge Williams' prior decision is not a bar, on procedural or substantive grounds, to the determination of this Court to permit the limited intervention sought and to permit the televising of the trial. I note below the circumstances that differentiate the instant mo-tion from that of RNN.
5. First, circumstances have been radically altered since Judge Williams' decision on the RNN application, in a way that directly relates to the ultimate relief sought here. By decision and order dated December 16, 1999, the Appellate Division ordered this case transferred to this Court for trial. People v. Boss, M7380, M7486 (1st Dep't Dec. 16, 1999) (annexed hereto as Exhibit S). In her earlier decision, Judge Williams had adverted to community passions and pre-trial publicity as one basis counseling against televised cover-age of trials. The effect of the Appellate Division's decision last month, a determination that defendants' could receive a fair trial in this Court, was to remove any claim that could be made that the mere televising of the trial in this case presents risks to the defendants' fair trial rights or otherwise would impair the administration of justice or the dignity of the Court.
6. Judge Williams also emphasized in her prior decision that citizens would be able, as the Court conceded is their constitutional right, to physically attend the trial. Since the trial will now take place one hundred fifty-six miles from where the alleged crime occurred and where the parties reside, residents of the community with the closest connection to the trial will be unable to attend (and surely will not be able to do so on a daily basis). Thus, the request to televise the trial is rendered that much more appropriate given current circumstances.
7. Other factors differentiate this motion from that of RNN. Court TV is a national television network. It seeks here to vindicate both the federal and State consti-tutional rights of all of the public. See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers Co. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73 (1980) (noting that "print and electronic media" function as "surrogates for the public", and according press standing to vindicate constitutional rights of public). RNN, on the other hand, is a local news organization that, on its motion before Judge Wil-liams, sought vindication of its rights under the Constitution of this State only.
Documents Appended Hereto
9. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct excerpt from "News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings With Cameras and Microphones," prepared by the Radio-Television News Directors Association, dated on or about January 1, 1994.
10. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of "Summary of TV Cameras in the State Courts," prepared by the National Center for State Courts, dated on or about May 1, 1999.
11. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Richard B. Kielbowicz, The Story Behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras, Judica-ture, Vol. 63, No. 1 (1979).
12. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of David A. Harris, The Appearance of Justice: Court TV, Conventional Television, and the Public Understanding of the Criminal Justice System, 35 Arizona Law Review 785 (1993).
13. Annexed hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of In re Peti-tion of Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., 370 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1979).
14. Annexed hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of "Report of the Chief Administrative Judge to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Judge of the State of New York on the Effect of Audio-Visual Coverage on the Conduct of Judicial Proceedings," dated in or about March 1989.
15. Annexed hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of "Report of the Committee on Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings" (Hon. Burton B. Roberts, Chair), dated in or about May 1994.
16. Annexed hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of "An Open Courtroom: Cameras in New York Courts 1995-1997" (Dean John D. Feerick, Chair), dated on or about April 4, 1997.
17. Annexed hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a Report of the Federal Judicial Center, entitled "Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil Proceed-ings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two Courts of Ap-peals", dated in or about July 1994.
18. Annexed hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of In re Peti-tion of Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc., 347 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1977).
19. Annexed hereto as Exhibit L are true and correct excerpts from Ernest H. Short and Associates, Inc., "Evaluation of California's Experiment With Ex-tended Media Coverage of Courts," dated in or about September 1981.
20. Annexed hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of "Report from the Task Force on Photography, Recording, and Broadcasting in Courtroom [Cali-fornia Task Force]", dated on or about February 16, 1996.
21. Annexed hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Report of the California Task Force, dated on or about May 10, 1996.
22. Annexed hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of the State-ment of Hon. James Ford, submitted to the California Task Force, dated in or about 1996.
23. Annexed hereto as Exhibit P are true and correct excerpts from "News Cameras in the Alaska Courts: Assessing the Impact," dated in or about January 1988.
24. Annexed hereto as Exhibit Q are true and correct excerpts from "Cameras and Recorders in Arizona's Trial Courts," dated in or about 1983.
25. Annexed hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Cosmos Broadcasting Corp. v. Brown, 471 N.E.2d 874 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
26. Annexed hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of People v. Boss, M7380, M7486 (1st Dep't Dec. 16, 1999).
27. Annexed hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of Defen-dants' Motion to Change Venue in this case, dated November 8, 1999.
28. Annexed hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of In re Re-gional News Network, No. 1814/99 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. June 4, 1999).
29. Annexed hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of In re Clear Channel Communications (Sup. Ct. Albany Co. Mar. 3, 1999).
Jonathan Sherman |
|
|
| Contact Us | U.S. | TRIALS | WORLD | PEOPLE | ON AIR | VIDEO | TALK | ABOUT CTV | SEARCH |
|
© 2000 Courtroom Television Network LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Privacy Guidelines Copyright© 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
