KARK-TV Channel 4, Inc. v. Lofton
| Decision Date | 25 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-187,KARK-TV,82-187 |
| Citation | 640 S.W.2d 798,277 Ark. 228 |
| Parties | , 9 Media L. Rep. 1016 CHANNEL 4, INC., Petitioner, v. Floyd J. LOFTON, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Owens, McHaney & Calhoun by James M. McHaney, Jr., Little Rock, for petitioner.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Jeffrey A. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
Less than two years ago we amended our Code of Judicial Conduct to permit radio and television stations to provide pooling arrangements for the broadcasting, recording, or photographing of substantially all court proceedings, subject to the control of the presiding judge. Re Petition of Arkansas Bar Association, 271 Ark. 358, 609 S.W.2d 28 (1980). The Code amendments appended to the opinion required, among other restrictions, that only one fixed television camera be used and that all parties to the case consent to its use. Our decision was reached after the news media and the general public had been invited to submit their views. There was actually only one minor objection to the bar association's proposed amendments to the Code.
The present petition arises from two widely publicized criminal cases in which the three defendants, Eugene James Hall, Larry Darnell McClendon, and Mary (Lee) Orsini, all protested the presence of television cameras at their arraignment. The trial judge (the respondent Lofton) sustained the objection, as the amended Code required him to do, and ordered the removal of all television equipment. Counsel for the present petitioner, KARK-TV, unsuccessfully argued that the Code's requirement that the parties consent to the presence of television cameras really means that a party can withhold his consent only by showing by clear and convincing evidence some compelling reason for the exclusion of cameras.
The present petition, filed here as an original proceeding, first asks that we issue a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Lofton to stop excluding cameras absent a compelling necessity shown by clear and convincing evidence. The prayer itself demonstrates that we are being asked to control Judge Lofton's discretionary action; so mandamus is obviously not the proper remedy. The petition also contains an alternate ex parte prayer that we amend the Code to provide that a party objecting to the presence of television or other electronic equipment must show that the equipment presents a clear and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice. We find no merit in the petitioner's arguments and therefore deny the petition without first inviting comments from others who may be interested.
The petitioner's position is that every newspaper, radio, and television reporter has an absolute right under the First Amendment to enter any public proceeding--presumably either legislative, executive, or judicial--and record whatever occurs, by means of a television camera, a still camera, a microphone, a tape recorder, a typewriter, or anything else, unless an objecting party shows by clear and convincing evidence a compelling reason for a curtailment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hanna
...Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. United States, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2094, 77 L.Ed.2d 303 (1983); KARK-TV Channel 4, Inc. v. Lofton, 277 Ark. 228, 640 S.W.2d 798 (1982); Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc., supra; In re Extension of Media Coverage, 472 A.2d 1232 In ......
-
Jim Halsey Co., Inc. v. Bonar
...be placed in the position of finding and urging "prejudice" which is so obviously elusive in this context. In KARK-TV Channel 4, Inc. v. Lofton, 277 Ark. 228, 640 S.W.2d 798 (1982), we expressed the balance struck by the U.S. Supreme Court, and followed by us, between the protection of liti......
- Penelton v. State