http://www.twincities.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=

People huddled around televisions to watch Chai Soua Vang tell jurors how he gunned down eight hunters in the Wisconsin woods in a confrontation over a tree stand. Vang said he shot in self-defense, but jurors - and viewers - later heard him say one of his victims deserved to die, "because he was the one who confronted me and called me names, and that's who he is."

It was a pivotal point in the trial, and cameras in the courtroom let millions of people see it. Media groups say it's time for Minnesota to follow Wisconsin's lead and allow cameras in its courts.

Several media groups have filed a petition to change the rules governing cameras. The Wisconsin judge who presided over the trial that resulted in Chai Soua Vang's conviction has agreed to speak to the Minnesota Supreme Court on behalf of the media.

"It isn't 1900. It's 2007," Sawyer County Circuit Judge Norman Yackel said. "I've had cameras in the courtroom without any difficulty. There was no problem with letting cameras in for the Vang trial. I've even let private videotapers in the courtroom. That's certainly discretionary, though."

The Minnesota Supreme Court has set up an advisory committee that will take testimony and make a recommendation about changing the rule. That committee is holding a public hearing Friday and a second one in October. The seven justices of the state's high court will weigh that recommendation and decide whether the rules should change.

Right now, it's virtually

impossible for media members to bring television and digital cameras into Minnesota courtrooms, because the judge and all parties must consent. It's been 20 years since the Minnesota Supreme Court considered allowing cameras into the state's courtrooms.

Under the media's proposal, audio and video coverage would be presumptively allowed in most court proceedings. Judges could override that presumption for good cause.

Minnesota is one of 15 states that essentially ban cameras in courtrooms. The media groups petitioning for a new rule say a lot has changed since the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial - viewed by many judges as the ultimate example of why cameras don't belong in courtrooms.

"That sort of sent everyone back in their caves for a while," media attorney Mark Anfinson said.

The gavel-to-gavel coverage of the former NFL star's murder trial left many lawyers and judges balking at the circuslike atmosphere.

But a lot has changed since then.

Technology today is less clunky and intrusive. Fears that witnesses would be intimidated, attorneys would mug for the cameras and justice would be warped haven't materialized in other states that allow cameras into courtrooms.

Anfinson said the public's confidence in the judiciary increases when it can see the courts in action.

"It's very reassuring to see really bad people dealt with the way they are in the courtroom and justice being dispensed," Anfinson said. "It's an impressive process."

On the flip side, the public also will see that cases are not always as simple as good vs. evil.

"To get a sense of who these people caught up in the machine of the law, some of that can only be told by looking at their faces and watching them testify," Anfinson said.

Yackel said he's had cameras in the courtrooms for several cases. He watched the Simpson trial but said that worst-case scenario has never played out in his courtroom.

"My personal experience is that didn't happen," Yackel said. "Judges are concerned with losing control of their courtroom. I don't think you lose control of the courtroom."

Yackel said he watched some of the Court TV coverage of the Chai Soua Vang case rebroadcast after the trial. He said the cable channel made sure never to show the jurors, and he said the editing was fair and accurately portrayed the trial. Yackel said witnesses didn't seem intimidated by the taping.

"I thought the videotaping was good," Yackel said.

The only sticking point occurred when the defense attorneys in the Chai Soua Vang trial complained about the clicking from the cameras used by still photographers. The photographers would take more photographs during certain parts of the trial.

"Defense attorneys argued the jurors would think that testimony was more important than other testimony," Yackel explained. Camera-muffling devices took care of the problem, the judge said.

Minnesota judges seem split on the idea of allowing cameras.

Ramsey County Chief Judge Gregg Johnson said judges in his district at a recent meeting voted overwhelmingly to oppose allowing cameras in the courtroom.

But judges in Hennepin County want to learn more, Hennepin County Chief Judge Lucy Wieland said.

"In our district, I think that there are quite a few judges who are open-minded on the topic and want to be better educated about the implications of cameras in the courtroom in the justice system," Wieland said.

Wieland said new rules on cameras should set appropriate limits and address serious concerns, such as protecting jurors and sexual assault victims.

"How do you protect the integrity of the process?" Wieland said.

At the same time, Wieland agrees that cameras in the courtroom could help educate the public: "It demystifies the court experience and makes people realize it's not 'Judge Judy.' "

Shannon Prather can be reached at sprather@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5452.

IF YOU GO

A Minnesota Supreme Court advisory committee will meet twice to examine a proposal to allow cameras into Minnesota's trial courts. The committee will hear presentations from media groups requesting the change. The meetings are open to the public. Advisory committee meetings will be held at the Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., in St. Paul.

First meeting:

9 a.m. to noon Friday; Room G06

Second meeting: 2 to 4 p.m. Oct. 24; Room G31

The public won't be allowed to speak at the meetings. Members of the public are asked to submit comments in writing by Oct. 18. Comments should be sent to:

Michael Johnson, Senior legal counsel, State Court Administration, 140-C Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155; or michael.johnson@courts.state.mn.us

orDavid F. Herr, reporter, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand LLP, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. Seventh St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140; or david.herr@maslon.com