| RETURN TO AMOS KING'S HOMEPAGE |
COPY
OF LETTER FROM JUDGE JOHN S. ANDREWS
(CIRCUIT JUDGE)
TO
CHIEF JUSTICE BEN F. OVERTON (SUPREME COURT-FLORIDA)
CIRCUIT COURT
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
John S. Andrews
Circuit Judge
Pinellas County Courthouse
315 Haven Street
Clearwater, Florida, 33516
(813) 446 7161
January 17, 1978
The Honorable Ben F. Overton
Chief Justice
The Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court Building
Tallahassee, Florida, 32304
Re: State of Florida vs. Amos Lee King, Jr.,Ct. Crim. Nos.77-1696 and 77-2173.
Dear Justice Overton:
At this time I would like to forward to you my observations made during
the course of a jury trial which commenced on July 15, 1977, and was the
first trial in the State involving "cameras in the courtroom". The
Defendant was found guilty of a capital offense and, upon the
recommendation of the jury, the death penalty was imposed.
Prior to the commencement of trial, our then Chief Judge, David
Patterson, had met with members of the news media and provided certain
guidelines, pursuant to the Order of The Florida Supreme Court
permitting such coverage, a copy of which is attached. The morning of the
trial, which began in St. Petersburg because of extensive pretrial publicity
in Upper Pinellas County, I met with members of the media, and we
discussed certain potential problems which we thought might occur during
the trial. I should add that at the time there was the spirit of complete
cooperation among all of us.
It should be noted that both the Defendant and the State objected to the
appearance of any cameras in the courtroom.
During voir dire selection, I concentrated on the apparent reaction from
prospective jurors as to the presence of the television camera and press
camera and could determine that there was absolutely no reaction.
Perhaps, due to the novelty of the experience, the prospective jurors
were of the impression that trials were always conducted this way. I
should emphasize, however, that I observed no negative reaction.
The attorneys were perhaps a little nervous during the first few moments
of the trial; but, being experienced trial lawyers, they appeared to me
to
forget the presence of the cameras. The following day the trial was moved
to Clearwater having exhausted the venire in St. Petersburg, and the
remaining jurors were selected here. The cameras followed us. The only
complaints received from the media occurred during the second day of
takiing testimony in Clearwater, by two newspapers, when I refused to
permit the televising or photographing of three State witnesses, two who
were then incarcerated in the Division of Offender Rehabilitation and one
who had been recently paroled. The reason for this prohibition was that
the State advised me that none of those witnesses would testify if they
were to be photographed. They were alleged to be essential witnesses for
the State. Copies of the complaints from the editors are attached. This
was the only problem that arose during the course of the trial which lasted
approximately four days.
It is my belief that, having been christened rather early to this
experiment, it did not impede the progress of the trial nor did it deny
the
State or the Defendant their right to a fair trial. It is my firm belief,
however, that the Trial Judge, without imposing gag orders, must be
permitted from time to time, in his own sound discretion, to restrict the
use of cameras such as in the instance described above. I specifically
envision problems with undercover agents testifying for the State, as well
as alibi witnesses testifying for the defendant. The Trial Judges look
to
your Court for further guidelines in this area.
I hope this letter will be of some benefit to the Court and the Committee;
and if I may be of any further help or assistance, please do not hesitate
to
contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN S. ANDREWS
Circuit Judge
Circuit Judge
David F. Patterson
July 8, 1977
County Judicial
Building
Mirror Lake Drive
St Petersburg,
Florida 33701
Dear Judge Patterson,
We do not understand the actions by Judge John S. Andrews on July 7, 1977, when he prohibited our staff photographer from shooting pictures during testimony in the trial of Amos Lee King, Jr.
It seems as if Judge Andrews violated the spirit of the spirit of the guidelines handed down by the State Supreme Court in the Post-Newsweek decision.
Judge Andrews' statement to our photographer was that picture taking was not allowed because the three witnesses were inmates of the Tarpon Springs Community Correctional Center. This would seem to violate the Supreme Courts' statement that "the same rules of law applicable to inclusion or exclusion of the press or public at particular proceedings or during the testimony of particular witnesses shall apply to the electronic media and still photographers."
I also find it alarming that a reason reported (by hearsay) for Judge Andrews' action was that the prosecutor had informed him the witnesses would not testify if pictures were taken. If carried to extremes, this reasoning would lead to all kinds of problems.
We are sorry that we have to complain during the first week of this experimental program, but we feel Judge Andrews' actions circumvented the program's aims, to make the court more accessible to the public. It also caused us some embarrassment since we were the designated pool photographer and as such obligated to provide a photo for the St. Petersburg Independent.
We were unable to meet that obligation.
We hope this matter can be clarified for the convenience of all.
Sincerely,
RON STUART
Managing Editor
ROBERT M. STIFF
Editor
July 8, 1977
Mr David E. Patterson
Chief Judge
6th Judicial
Circuit
County Courthouse
Building
Clearwater, FLA
33516
Dear Judge Patterson,
I am sure that as the camera-in-the-courtroom program moves through its year's trial period, certain problems will arise that I will feel should be brought to the attention of you or your successor.
That is why I write today.
On Thursday, July 7, Judge John Andrews instructed a television cameraman and a Clearwater Sun photographer, who were pooling at the Amos Lee King trial, not to take certain photos inside the courtroom.
His instructions named three witnesses who were about to testify on behalf of the prosecution. Two are currently prisoners at the Tarpon Springs Community Correctional Center and the third is a former inmate at that institution.
Judge Andrews' tone of voice, actual words and facial expression made some people in that courtroom believe that his contempt power was clearly behind his order, even though it was not expressly mentioned.
The photographers did not challenge the order. But the Judge even took the precaution of sending a bailiff to the back of the courtroom to instruct the still photographer to move away from his camera.
I have been involved in
discussions over the last year that went into the Supreme Court order,
including discussions with plaintiffs, lawyers, and Supreme Court Justices
who had input in the wording of the final order.
At no time has it been
suggested that witnesses other than rape victims, undercover officers
or informants, or juveniles involved in cases of a sexual nature would
be excluded as possible subjects of the cameras.
It is impossible for me to understand why prisoners would have a special standing beyond that of other citizens inside any Florida court room.
I am concerned that Judge Andrews' order could become a precedent in this circuit and that certain witnesses could ask to not be photographed and have that wish granted by judges.
There is no doubt in my mind that this action, which deprived us of newsworhty photographs Thursday morning, is in conflict with the Supreme Court order.
I am bringing this to your attention because I believe we can work out these problems on a local level without reinvoving any of the Supreme Court justices.
Sincerely,
ROBERT M STIFF
| RETURN TO AMOS KING'S HOMEPAGE |
