The 10-day murder trial of Paul Gutierrez was an unprecedented, high profile case for both the court system and local media, and the situation generated some tension.

Saturday, March 09, 2002

The 10-day murder trial of Paul Gutierrez was an unprecedented, high profile case for both the court system and local media, and the situation generated some tension.

The divergent interests of the court and the media crystallized in arguments regarding the use of cameras in the courtroom and the judge’s decision to close public access to the jury selection process.

The Freeborn County court has a local rule that prohibits cameras on the entire second floor of the courthouse, where the courtrooms are located.

Judge James Broberg attributed the ban to a high security risk due to the obsolete design of the courthouse.

Everybody except the judge and court personnel use the same door to enter the courtroom. Witnesses need to wait in a public space where the audience, which may include the defendant’s friends and family, passes by.

&uot;The presence of cameras may cause a chaotic situation,&uot; Judge Broberg told the media early in the trial.

In Mower County, which has a more modern facility, security is also a concern. Last July, the court decided to impose a 48-hour advance application for bringing camera equipment to the second floor where courtrooms are located.

Camera access to the second floor had been basically free beforehand. And shooting inside the courtroom through windows was allowed except during restricted hearings, jury trials and upon requests by the court.

The Tribune was informed of the closure of jury selection during a happenstance meeting with Broberg on March 18, less than 24 hours before the jury selection was scheduled to start.

The following morning, after his initial instructions to 56 potential jurors, Judge Broberg called journalists present in the courtroom to his chamber and explained the closure.

At lunchtime on the same day, representatives of the Tribune and KAAL-TV met with Judge Broberg, and he expressed his concern about the privacy of prospective jurors.

The jury selection process consists of interviews by the defense attorney and prosecutor to test a juror’s impartiality. Judge Broberg said a number of questions would cover private issues, such as past exposure to sexual abuse.

&uot;I would have to excuse the public each time the intimate questions came up,&uot; Broberg said. &uot;That will slow the entire trial.&uot;

During the meeting with Broberg, the media requested camera access, a daily briefing by a court official, and the release of trial transcripts.

Judge Broberg reiterated the court regulation for cameras. He said it is inappropriate for the court to have a press briefing and suggested County Attorney Craig Nelson could be in charge of it.

As for the transcripts, Judge Broberg said it was possible but only at the applicant’s expense. But the costs for that might exceed $800, and the immediate release was impossible due to technical problems.

After the four-day closed jury selection finished on Feb. 22, the Tribune requested the jury list. Broberg agreed to issue the list after the jury started its deliberations in the last stage of the trial. The list consists of name, address, birth date and marital status.

Veteran criminal attorney Chester Swenson said he has never had to deal with a sealed jury selection in the almost 100 trials he participated in.

&uot;Sensitive materials in the selection can be handled in the chamber outside the presence of the public,&uot; Swenson said. &uot;Whenever the public’s right to know is restricted, there is the potential for government abuse.&uot;