MARTINEZ, Calif. (AP) - A student journalist said he's pleased prosecutors backed down in their efforts to force him to turn over unpublished photographs of a campus crime scene.
Soren Hemmila, 20, photo editor of the Advocate, the newspaper of Contra Costa College, was in a journalism class at Contra Costa College on Sept. 25 when he heard of a shooting on campus. He rushed to a plaza where 21-year-old Christopher Robinson of Richmond had been gunned down in what police called a gang retaliation slaying. Three men have been charged with murder in the case.
"I feel really good about this decision. Our rights are protected," Hemmila said.
Hemmila had been subpoenaed by prosecutors to turn over the photographs, which police said could provide evidence.
Hemmila refused, invoking California's shield law, designed to help news organizations protect sources and information from outside forces, including law enforcement.
However, at a hearing in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Deputy District Attorney Bill Clark withdrew the subpoena, which he said was filed in the belief photographs had been taken before police arrived.
Hemmila's attorney, James Wagstaffe, said there was no evidence supporting that belief
Three of Hemmila's pictures were published in the Advocate, but police wanted to look at the rest.
The murdered man's mother, Linda Cavaness-Robinson, who attended Wednesday's hearing, was not happy with the decision not to pursue the photographs.
"It might show evidence," she said. "If they (police) feel it will show evidence, any parent would say, 'Hand them over,' " she said.
Cop Steals NewsPapers
Ukiah Police officer Peter Hoyle liked his photo by Jane Freeman, of
the Ukiah Journal, in the paper so much, he stole three copies of that edition
from a news rack and was subsequently suspended for theft. The case sparked
heated debate throughout the community for weeks afterwards. Hoyle was later
placed on paid administrative leave for investigation of assault against
a citizen in an unrelated case.
Camera and the Courts
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Leaders of the state's judges have narrowly voted to oppose a ban on cameras in the courtroom.
The California Judges Association's executive board voted 10-8 Saturday against endorsing the proposed ban, which is to be considered Feb. 23 by the Judicial Council, policy-making body for the state courts.
That vote was close to the breakdown of judges' opinions in a statewide survey that has not yet been relesed, said the association's president, Paul Boland, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.
The board then voted unanimously to recommend adoption of uniform guidelines for judges to decide whether to allow cameras.
The Judicial Council adopted a rule in 1984 allowing television and still cameras into California courtrooms, but giving judges broad authority to exclude them in individual cases.
Gov. Pete Wilson has asked the council to ban cameras from criminal trials, saying the spectacle of the televised O.J. Simpson trial degraded the justice system in the public eye. A bill to ban cameras is also pending in the Legislature.
Media groups have opposed a ban and called for broader access, saying cameras provide a public window on the legal system.
The Judges Association, a voluntary organization that represents nearly all California judges, normally plays an influential role in Judicial Council affairs but has been closely divided on the camera issue.
Before the board vote, the association's Criminal Law and Procedure Committee overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on cameras, the Civil Law and Procedure Committee voted narrowly to recommend a ban, and the Court Administration Policy Committee voted overwhelmingly to continue camera access but add standards for judges' decisions.
"No one wants to see a repeat of Simpson," said the association's secretary-treasurer, Orange County Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald. "However, judges need to be careful not to give up their discretion. To give up that discretion is to admit that we cannot exercise control over our courtrooms. With appropriate guidelines, judges can effectively control their courtrooms."
Board member J. Steven Czuleger, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, said cameras have no place in the courtroom.
"An eight-second spot on the evening news holds little educational value to the public, and cameras change the entire courtroom and courthouse environment," he said.
---------
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - News organizations clashed Monday with Gov. Pete Wilson and a group of Los Angeles judges over camera access to courtrooms in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial.
Media representatives turned out in force for an all-day hearing of a state Judicial Council task force, established in response to Wilson's call to ban cameras at criminal trials. They disputed the governor's claim that cameras are disruptive and invade the privacy of trial participants.
"The public has a right to see its court system at work," said Royal Oakes, lawyer for the Radio and Television News Association of Southern California.
Stan Statham, executive director of the California Broadcasters Association, representing the state's 84 licensed television stations and 426 radio stations, attacked "misguided politicians and self-appointed experts" who would prevent the public "from seeing those (court) proceedings where they work or in their living rooms."
Wilson's legal affairs secretary, Daniel Kolkey, said cameras distort the truth-seeking function of a trial and diminish public respect for the courts.
"When you transform a trial into a form of entertainment, you undermine the solemnity and dignity of the process," Kolkey said. He also said a defendant "is entitled to a trial in a court, not in a stadium."
The governor's opposition was carried one step further by a committee of Los Angeles Superior Court judges, formed to examine the effect of cameras. Speaking for the committee, Judge Mary Ann Murphy called for a ban on all electronic coverage of court proceedings.
The Judicial Council's 1984 rule, allowing camera access at the trial judge's discretion, was "a bold experiment that failed," Murphy said.
She said the committee, whose survey excluded the Simpson trial, found judges around the state who "described their courthouses as under siege by the electronic media." Virtually every judge who had allowed television coverage reported that lawyers were playing to the cameras and that witnesses and other trial participants were distracted, Murphy said.
She said television exposed potential witnesses to inadmissible evidence and made already-fearful jurors even more reluctant to testify.
But her views were not shared by all judges. The California Judges Association has not taken a formal position on the issue, but spokeswoman Judith McConnell, a San Diego Superior Court judge, said the association's traditional stance favored letting judges decide to allow cameras in individual cases.
Television is "the only key to the courthouse door for many citizens," she said.
James Brelsford, a lawyer for several news organizations and a professor of media law at the University of San Francisco, said the Judicial Council's 1984 rule was based on a four-year study that found no significant ill effects of camera coverage. The Simpson case notwithstanding, he said, there has been no documented evidence to the contrary since then.
The task force was appointed last October by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, chairman of the Judicial Council, to recommend possible changes in the 1984 rule. Members include nine judges, two court administrators, a prosecutor and a public defender.
Media witnesses contended that the trial judge, who has near-absolute power to veto camera access, can guard against abuses. If the current rule is changed, they said, it should specify that cameras will be allowed unless the judge states compelling reasons to exclude them.
"Judges in the courtroom are the best-equipped to make this decision," said James Ewert, lawyer for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. Oakes, representing Southern California broadcasters, said advocates of a ban were suggesting that judges couldn't be trusted.
Even in the Simpson case, "there was very little indication that any lawyers or witnesses were playing to the camera, and no evidence that the camera's presence affected the testimony or the outcome," said attorney William Bennett Turner, representing the Society of Professional Journalists.
"Flamboyant lawyers like Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey behave the same way with or without cameras," he said.
But a representative of San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne said television cameras and commentators "inevitably influence the participants."
"The public's right to know must take a back seat to limitations that guarantee a fair trial," said Patrick Mahoney, chief trial deputy in Renne's office. He said the goal of educating the public would be adequately served by prohibiting the telecast of court proceedings until the end of the trial.
Task force member John Clarke, executive officer of the Los Angeles Superior Court, asked why broadcasters couldn't wait six days - the average length of a trial in the county - to show court footage. Statham replied that no such restrictions are imposed on newspapers.
---------------
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Leaders of the state's court system, reconsidering television coverage in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial, are pondering rival proposals to bar cameras from courtrooms, expand access or set new guidelines.
The opposing sides gather today for a hearing by a state Judicial Council task force, established in response to Gov. Pete Wilson's request to ban cameras at criminal trials.
The Judicial Council, policy-making body for the state courts, adopted a rule in 1984 allowing television and still cameras at the trial judge's option. Virtually all states allow some form of television coverage in their courts, but federal courts bar cameras.
The California rule gives judges broad discretion to exclude cameras or impose restrictions, like prohibiting photographs of jurors.
Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, chairman of the council, announced the formation of the task force last October to recommend possible changes in the rule by early 1996. The task force is chaired by Justice Richard Huffman of the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego and includes eight judges, two court administrators, a prosecutor and a public defender.
Wilson called for a ban on cameras at criminal trials hours after Simpson's acquittal of double murder. The governor said the trial showed how television can affect the behavior of courtroom participants, invade privacy and reduce public respect for the justice system.
A ban has also been endorsed by the Criminal Law and Procedure Committee of the California Judges Association. The full association takes no position on the issue, however, calling instead for rules that would give judges more guidance without tying their hands.
Prosecutors also stop short of calling for a ban but say they want to increase judges' authority to exclude cameras. Gregory Totten, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association, says prosecutors are concerned about "the tendency of the television media to use a trial for entertainment purposes as opposed to pure hard-news purposes."
But news organizations are calling for more access, saying television increases public understanding of the courts. One proposal by the California First Amendment Coalition, a news media group, would allow cameras unless the trial judge found a strong reason to exclude them.
One defender of courtroom cameras, Steven Brill, chairman of the company that owns Court TV, has stirred controversy among the media with proposed access rules and coverage standards. They would include allowance of only a single pool camera, which would stay in place for the entire trial, although each organization would decide what to show.
Brill also says reporting should not center on which side supposedly won or lost during a particular day, and commentators should reveal whether they watched the proceedings they were analyzing. Courts should consider whether a station followed those standards when deciding whether to allow access, he said.
Other news media representatives call those proposals unworkable and
constitutionally questionable.
Richard Allen Davis gives the camera the "bird" reactions....
Excerpts from the Contra Costa Times, San Jose Mercury News and San Francisco Chronicle Santa Rosa Press Democrat staff photographer John Burgess could have make life a lot easier in many newsrooms. He could have blown the shot. Burgess, the only still pool photographer in the courtroom after when the murder verdict came in against Richard Allen Davis. The judge had given Burgess and KPIX photographer Don Fernandez the ground rules: they could film only while court was in session. Moments before the final gavel, Burgess said he still "just needed a shot of his face." Davis, who had stared straight ahead through the proceedings, turned. The pool photographer's Nikon started clicking off five frames per second. The killer of Polly Klaas then winked, puckered his lips and made obscene gestures with both hands. Burgess caught it, in focus. And the debate was on. An overwhelming majority of callers and letter writers have objected to front-page play of the Davis photo. The moment captured by Burgess' Nikon added new dimension to the story. The page-one photo packed an offensive jot, but it was not gratuitous. It was an integral element of the story. Mercury News Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos said, "I think that the Mercury News had made the right decision in publishing on the front page a large photograph of Richard Allen Davis making an obscene gesture. As I explained to readers in a note accompanying that picture, I thought the photo gave some insight into the character of the man who killed Polly Klaas. In my 15 years at the Mercury News, I can't remember a response nearly as big to any other news event or journalism decision. While news decision can't be made by referendum, I found it interesting that 817 readers agreed with our decisions and 431 didn't." The photo ran in the Contra Costa Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, the San Jose Mercury News and Oakland Tribune. The Sacramento Bee, Marin Independent Journal and the New York Times did not run the photo. More than 100 people called the Contra Costa newspapers. Many of them were angry and threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Most said they found the photo unnecessary, obscene and something they would have to hide from their children. This despite many of them seeing the same image repeatedly on television the night before. But the decision that, journalistically, had to be made, said Tom Goldstein, an expert on media ethics and professor at U.C.-Berkeley School of Journalism. "It's a close call, depending on your paper and your audience," Goldstein said. "I err on letting the audience know what happened, so I'd do it. It's an amazing image." Goldstein recalled that a photo from the Oklahoma City bombing, where a firefighter was holding a bloody baby, was the source of a lot of editorial hand wringing. Some papers refused to publish it. The photo went on to win a Pulitzer Prize. Burgess said, "I read it differently. It looked like a very well thought out, deliberate act on his part. I think it's him demanding the death penalty." The Santa Rosa Press Democrat is considered the hometown newspaper and it decision to run the photo was especially difficult. "There was a lot of talk about it, a lot of consideration for the family, County," Sharon Roberts, assistant managing editor in charge of the design for the paper. Roberts said talk centered on how to run the photo - inside, on the jump page, front page, above the fold, how large, everything was considered. A television camera in the courtroom also the caught the event. Although all the Bay Area TV news programs used the images , sometimes repeatedly, KRON Channel 4 digitally blurred Davis' finger. "We didn't want to keep barraging people with this image," said Stan Hopkins, news director at the station. KRON used the unedited version during its 11 p.m. newscast. "We thought it was appropriate for a later broadcast and in context with a full reporter piece. That will be the only you'll see it."
Excerpts from Matier and Ross Report of the Chronicle:
The photographer who captured the image of Richard Allen Davis flipping off Polly Klaas' family has found himself bounced from the murder trial for refusing to turn over his photo outtakes to the judge and his staff - not as evidence, but for souvenirs. The banning of Santa Rosa Press Democrat photographer John Burgess is the latest twist in the ongoing love-hate relationship between Santa Clara County Judge Thomas Hastings and the media. On the one hand, Hastings has allowed pool TV and photo coverage of the verdicts. In his latest spat, however appears to be far more personal and petty. It all began a month ago when Press Democrat Managing Editor Robert Swofford received a message on his voice mail from the judge's media representative, Judy Peterson, asking for proof sheets of all of Burgess' unpublished courtroom shots. It seems the judge and his staff wanted some as private mementos of the high profile case. Swofford informed Peterson, via phone message, that it was against the newspaper's policy to release anything other than the two photos that made it into print. The next you know, photographer Burgess found himself replaced as the pool photographer for the reading of the verdict in the penalty phase of the trial. The Press Democrat's Swofford shot a letter to Peterson, via fax, questioning the photographer switch, and wondering whether it was related to the paper's refusal to provide the photo outtakes. Peterson replied in writing the next day, denying that the photographer had been sacked as "retribution" but made it clear that the Press Democrat's "position on releasing proof sheets is contrary to the spirit of cooperation I have tried to maintain between the media and the court."
Excepts from the Mercury News from Sunday June 23 by Executive Editor Jerry Ceppos:
I think that the Mercury News had made the right decision in publishing on the front page a large photograph of Richard Allen Davis making an obscene gesture. As I explained to readers in a note accompanying that picture, I thought the photo gave some insight into the character of the man who killed Polly Klaas. In my 15 years at the Mercury News, I can't remember a response nearly as big to any other news event or journalism decision. While news decision can't be made by referendum, I found it interesting that 817 readers agreed with our decisions and 431 didn't.