State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler, 80-1352
Decision Date | 23 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 80-1352,80-1352 |
Citation | 18 O.O.3d 383,413 N.E.2d 1203,64 Ohio St.2d 165 |
Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 383, 6 Media L. Rep. 2341 The STATE ex rel. MIAMI VALLEY BROADCASTING CORPORATION et al. v. KESSLER, Judge. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Bieser, Greer & Landis, Charles D. Shook and Edward H. Siddens, Dayton, for relator Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp.
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling and Paul E. Zimmer, Dayton, for relator Grinnell Communications Corp.
Coolidge, Wall, Matusoff, Womsley & Lombard Co. L. P. A., and Roger Makley, Dayton, for relator Springfield Tel. Corp.
Jeffrey, Snell, Rogers & Greenberg and Harry P. Jeffrey, Dayton, for respondent.
Sanford J. Edelman and Thomas A. Schaffer, Dayton, for intervenor.
The issue presented is whether relators have the right to notice of the hearings on the trial coverage together with the right to play a meaningful role at those hearings. Due to the recent advent of the allowance of broadcast coverage of trials in Ohio and the experimental nature of our rules on such coverage, this is an issue of first impression for this court. This action has brought to our attention a possible deficiency in our rules.
Recently, in State ex rel. Grinnell Communications Corp. v. Love (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 399, 406 N.E.2d 809, this court discussed Sup.R. 11 and Canon 3A(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which govern the procedure for determining whether coverage will be permitted in a particular case. We held, at page 401, that
Further, at pages 401-402, 406 N.E.2d 809, we stated that (Emphasis added.)
"Scrutiny" of the case is not accomplished by allowing the adduction of evidence solely by the participants who are against coverage. The reasoned exercise of respondent's discretion can be made in the instant cause only after relators are allowed to present evidence at the hearings. Without an active and meaningful role played by relators in those hearings, the hearings themselves would become meaningless and the resultant decision would merely represent the personal predilections of the presiding judge.
In Palm Beach Newspapers v. State (Fla.App.1979), 378 So.2d 862, a case similar to the instant cause, the media were permitted to take part in the coverage hearings. The court, in Palm Beach, stated at page 864:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Donkers, 2003 P 0135.
...could have alleviated any particular concerns. Her failure constitutes waiver. See State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 168, 18 O.O.3d 383, 413 N.E.2d 1203 (party seeking limitation on coverage has burden to overcome presumption of fair {¶ 162}......
-
State ex rel. Cosmos Broadcasting Corp. v. Brown
...determination, Ohio law requires that broadcast coverage by the electronic media be permitted. (State, ex rel. Broadcasting Corp., v. Kessler, 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 413 N.E.2d 1203 , and State, ex rel. Grinnell Communications Corp., v. Love, 62 Ohio St.2d 399, 406 N.E.2d 809 , 2. A trial court......
-
Hutchison v. Marshall
...stations to present evidence at this hearing, was not released until December 23, 1980. State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler, 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 413 N.E.2d 1203 (1980) (per curiam). The new evidentiary hearing was held on January 17, 1981. The television stations, after ......
-
State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Lias, 93-326
...would merely represent the personal predilections of the presiding judge." State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 165, 167, 18 O.O.3d 383, 385, 413 N.E.2d 1203, 1205. Perceptively recognizing all of this, the court of appeals, in directing Judge Lias ......
-
TV or not TV - that is the question.
...stated he would not testify in his own behalf if coverage was allowed); State ex rel. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. v. Kessler, 413 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 1980). But see Gore v. State, 573 So. 2d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (where defendant and his psychologist maintained that camera coverag......