ÿWPCO" …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ 0Jø U:B 0T| 0^Ð 0h. 0r– 0| 0†„ 0 1uš U, 0d;U,Ÿ BËU >èU*&B)PDCy AM¼ D3 =<õy 0@ng®v~vÓ“ AOf Ƶ 0D{! 0D¿! D/" B2"˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ÕDÖ[ר[Ù[Ú[ÛÜ[ÝVÞDo„p3|xß((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô`"Arial Regular2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌApril€12,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ëÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔRule€30€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€became€effective€January€1,€1996.€€It€is€a€one€yearÏà0 àpilot€project€which,€unless€extended,€will€expire€on€December€31,€1996.€€The€rule€governs€mediaÏcoverage€in€Tennessee€courts€and€permits,€upon€proper€request,€television€cameras€to€beÏpresent€in€the€courtroom€during€judicial€proceedings.€€Rule€30D€(2)€grants€the€presiding€judge€atÏthe€proceeding€the€discretion€to€refuse,€limit,€terminate,€or€suspend€media€coverage€underÏcertain€circumstances.Ô€%ÔÔ€%XÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔÔ€&ÔAlthough€the€matter€may€at€first€blush€appear€to€be€moot,€this€Court€has€concluded€that,€due€to€Ìà0 àthe€extremely€lenient€provision€of€Rule€30A€(2)€requiring€that€a€request€for€media€coverage€of€aÏjudicial€proceeding€be€made€only€two€business€days€in€advance€of€the€proceeding,€the€issues€inÏthe€appeal€are€capable€of€repetition€yet€evading€review.€€In€addition,€this€case€presents€issues€ofÏgreat€public€interest€and€importance€to€the€administration€of€justice.€€These€considerations€are€theÏmost€common€exceptions€to€the€mootness€rule.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€€€òòBemis€Pentecostal€Church€v.€Stateóó,Ï731€S.W.2d€897,€903€(Tenn.€1987);€òòNew€Riviera€Arts€Theatre€v.€Davisóó,€412€S.W.2d€890,€893Ï(Tenn.€1967);€òòMcIntyre€v.€Traughberóó,€884€S.W.2d€134„37€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€We€hold,Ïtherefore,€that€the€issues€presented€in€this€appeal€remain€justiciable.Ô€%ÔÔ€%XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€PÉXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9601„CC„00022Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àROBERTSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYERó óÌò òFREDDIE€MORROW,€et€al.,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à à(T.R.A.P.€10€Extraordinary€Appeal)Ìó ó€andà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌò òMEREDITH€CORPORATION,à à)Ìowner€and€operator€of€WSMV„à à)ÌTV€Channel€Four€LANDMARKà à)ÌTELEVISION€OF€TN,€INC.,€à à)Ìowner€and€operatory€of€WTVF„à à)ÌTV€Channel€Five,€and€YOUNGà à)ÌBROADCASTING€OFà àà à)ÌNASHVILLE,€INC.€owner€andà à)Ìoperator€of€WKRN„TV€Channelà à)ÌTwoó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌROBB€S.€HARVEYà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌNationsbank€Plaze,€Suite€1100à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ414€Union€StreetÌNashville,€TN€€37219à àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌJOHN€C.€BEITERà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ2000€First€Union€TowerÌ150€4th€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,TN€€37219ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇà@ àò òòòÔ€&„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€&XÔÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€extraordinary€appeal€filed€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10,€theÏintervenors/appellants,€members€of€the€broadcast€media,€seek€review€of€the€ordersÏof€the€lower€court€excluding€television€cameras€from€the€courtroom€during€the€trialÏproceedings€of€three€criminal€defendants.€€The€intervenors€allege€that€the€trialÏjudge€abused€his€discretion€under€Rule€30€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€andÏthat€the€orders€concerning€television€cameras€violate€the€free€press€and€equalÏprotection€guarantees€of€the€United€States€Constitution€found€in€the€FirstÏAmendment€and€Fourteenth€Amendment,€respectively.× ƒ, ××  ×€€They€also€maintain€thatÏthe€orders€in€question€violate€the€Tennessee€Constitutionððs€law€of€the€land€clauseÏfound€at€Article€1,€Section€8€as€well€as€the€open€courts€clause€of€Article€1,€SectionÏ17€and€the€free€press€guarantees€of€Article€1,€Section€19.€€Ìà àWe€have€reviewed€the€orders€of€the€trial€court€and€the€record€of€theÏproceedings€concerning€media€coverage€of€the€criminal€trial€and€have€beenÏunable€to€find€any€factual€basis€warranting€an€exercise€of€discretion€whichÏexcludes€television€cameras€from€the€trial€proceedings.€€We€therefore€reverse€theÍorders€of€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€media€coverage€and€remand€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.Ìà àThis€case€involves€the€trial€of€three€young€black€men€charged€in€the€fatalÏshooting€of€a€young€white€man€who€was€apparently€displaying€a€ConfederateÏbattle€flag€at€the€time€of€the€shooting.€€The€defendants€claim€that€they€wereÏprovoked€by€the€display€of€this€flag.€€The€case€has€stirred€strong€emotions€in€someÏmembers€of€both€races€in€the€local€community.€€As€a€result,€the€case€has€been€theÏsubject€of€intense€media€coverage.Ìà àThe€criminal€trial€in€this€matter€was€set€to€begin€on€January€9,€1996.€€OnÏJanuary€5,€1996,€Intervenor€Meredith€Corporation,€owner€and€operator€of€WSMV„TV€Channel€Four€in€Nashville,€requested€permission€of€the€trial€court€to€place€aÏtelevision€camera€in€the€courtroom€during€the€criminal€proceedings.€€On€this€sameÏdate,€the€trial€judge€entered€an€order€regarding€media€coverage€that€permits€stillÏphotographs€of€the€proceedings€and€audio€recordings€but€excludes€televisionÏcameras€from€the€courtroom.€€This€order€recites€that€the€trial€judge€ð ðspecificallyÏfinds€that€the€televising€of€this€trial€would€interfere€with€the€Courtððs€ability€toÏmaintain€decorum,€prevent€distractions,€and€most€importantly€to€guarantee€theÏsafety€of€witnesses€and€jurors.ðð€€Apparently,€this€January€5€order€was€enteredÏsummarily.€€There€was€no€hearing€or€presentation€of€any€evidence€which€wouldÏsupport€the€trial€judgeððs€finding€that,€in€this€case,€the€presence€of€televisionÍcameras€in€the€courtroom€would€disrupt€the€proceedings€or€present€a€securityÏproblem.Ìà àSubsequent€to€the€January€5€order€regarding€media€coverage,€theÏdefendants€waived€their€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€On€January€8,€theÏintervenors/appellants€filed€motions€to€intervene€and€for€reconsideration€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€regarding€media€coverage.€€The€basis€for€the€request€forÏreconsideration€centered€around€the€fact€that€the€safety€of€jurors€would€no€longerÏbe€a€factor€in€the€admission€of€cameras€to€the€courtroom.Ìà àAt€a€hearing€on€January€9,€1996,€prior€to€the€commencement€of€the€trial€onÏthat€date,€the€trial€judge€granted€the€motions€to€intervene.€€The€transcript€of€thatÏhearing€consists€largely€of€argument€of€intervenorsðð€counsel€and€a€presentation€byÏthe€intervenors€of€their€plan€for€in„court€television€coverage.€€The€prosecutorÏexpressed€concern€that€live€coverage€might€cause€problems;€however,€heÏexpressed€no€opposition€to€the€presence€of€television€cameras€in€the€courtroom€forÏthe€purposes€of€videotaping€the€proceedings.€€Although€various€counsel€for€theÏdefendants€stated€their€opposition€to€the€cameras€out€of€fear€for€the€safety€of€theirÏclients€and€witnesses,€they€offered€no€evidence€to€substantiate€this€fear.€€AbsolutelyÏno€evidence€was€introduced€by€any€participant€in€the€proceedings€which€wouldÏindicate€that€the€presence€of€television€cameras€would€distract€participants,€createÏa€disturbance,€or€compromise€the€safety€of€anyone.Ìà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€concluded€that€the€proposedÏprocedures€for€televising€the€trial€would€in€all€likelihood€be€satisfactory€forÏmaintaining€courtroom€decorum€and€would€probably€be€acceptable€in€some€otherÏcase.€€However,€the€judge€was€of€the€opinion€that,€in€view€of€the€emotionallyÏcharged€nature€of€this€particular€case€and€the€intense€pretrial€publicity€surroundingÏit,€the€presence€of€television€cameras€in€the€courtroom€might€compromise€the€safetyÏof€the€witnesses,€defendants,€family€members€of€the€victim,€and€attorneys.€€InÏaddition,€the€trial€court€expressed€concern€that€witnessesðð€testimony€might€beÏaffected€by€the€presence€of€television€cameras.€€The€trial€judge€therefore€declinedÏto€modify€its€January€5€order€barring€television€cameras€from€the€courtroom.Ìà àThe€trial€of€the€defendants€went€forward,€and€on€January€12,€1996,€two€ofÏthem€were€convicted€of€first€degree€felony€murder,€attempted€aggravatedÏkidnapping,€and€civil€rights€intimidation.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€third€defendant€was€acquitted€on€allÏcounts.€€On€January€11,€1996,€one€day€prior€to€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€theÏintervenors/appellants€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€this€CourtÍpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.€€This€application€is€the€prescribed€mechanism€forÏan€appeal€of€a€trial€courtððs€decision€regarding€media€coverage.€€This€Court€grantedÏthe€application€and€offered€both€the€State€and€counsel€for€the€defendants€anÏopportunity€to€respond€to€the€arguments€of€the€intervenors/appellants€with€respectÏto€the€presence€of€television€cameras€in€the€courtroom.€€In€response,€the€StateÏessentially€took€no€position€with€respect€to€this€controversy.€€Counsel€for€theÏdefendants€declined€to€file€any€response.ÌÌà àThe€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€provide€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òCoverage€Generally.ó ó€€òòMedia€coverage€of€publicÏjudicial€proceedings€in€the€appellate€and€trial€courts€ofÏthis€State€shall€be€allowed€in€accordance€with€theÏprovision€of€this€rule.óó€€The€coverage€shall€be€subject,€atÏall€times,€to€the€authority€of€the€presiding€judge€to€i)Ïcontrol€the€conduct€of€the€proceedings€before€the€court;Ïii)€maintain€decorum€and€prevent€distractions;€iii)Ïguarantee€the€safety€of€any€party,€witness,€or€juror,€andÏiv)€ensure€the€fair€and€impartial€administration€of€justiceÏin€the€pending€cause.€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€30A€(1)€(emphasis€added).€€Section€B€of€Rule€30€sets€forth€theÏrelevant€definitions€of€terms€used€in€the€rule:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à0 àò òð ðCoverageððó ó€means€any€recording€orÏbroadcasting€of€a€court€proceeding€by€the€mediaÏusing€television,€radio,€photographic,€or€recordingÏequipment.Ìà8 àà8 à(2)à0 àò òð ðMediaðð€ó ómeans€legitimate€news€gathering€andÏreporting€agencies€and€their€representativesÍwhose€function€is€to€inform€the€public,€or€personsÏengaged€in€the€preparation€of€educational€films€orÏrecordings.Ìà8 àà8 à(3)à0 àò òð ðProceedingððó ó€means€any€trial,€hearing,€motion,Ïargument€or€appeal,€or€other€matter€held€in€openÏcourt€that€the€public€is€entitled€to€attend.ÌÓÓà àÌà àRead€together,€these€provisions€create€a€presumption€in€favor€of€in„courtÏmedia€coverage€of€judicial€proceedings.€€However,€Rule€30D€(2)€gives€theÏpresiding€judge€at€a€judicial€proceeding€the€discretion€to€ð ðrefuse,€limit,€terminate€orÏtemporarily€suspend€media€coverageðð€in€all€or€part€of€a€case€if€necessary€toÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(i)à0 àcontrol€the€conduct€of€the€proceedings€before€theÏcourt;Ìà àà8 à(ii)à0 àmaintain€decorum€and€prevent€distractions;Ìà8 àà8 à(iii)à0 àguarantee€the€safety€of€any€party,€witness,€orÏjuror;€andÌà8 àà8 à(iv)à0 àensure€the€fair€administration€of€justice€in€theÏpending€cause.ÌÓÓòòÌà àóóThe€intervenors/appellants€take€the€position€that€the€cases€of€òòState€v.€Drakeóó,Ï701€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.€1985),€and€òòState€v.€James,óó€902€S.W.2d€911€(Tenn.€1995),Ïare€applicable€to€the€case€at€hand.€€In€these€cases,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏheld€that€the€First€Amendmentððs€free€speech€guarantees€and€the€SixthÏAmendmentððs€guarantee€of€€public€trials€require€a€court€to€articulate€an€overridingÏinterest€in€closing€a€public€trial€and€that€the€closure€order€be€narrowly€tailored€so€asÏto€accommodate€only€the€overriding€interest€in€restricting€public€attendance.€€In€thisÍcase,€however,€the€judicial€proceedings€are€open€to€the€public.€€Only€one€particularÏform€of€media€coverage€is€excluded.€€General€public€access€to€the€proceedings,Ïincluding€access€by€television€reporters€without€cameras,€is€permitted.€€UnderÏthese€circumstances,€the€restrictions€on€a€particular€form€of€coverage€do€not€òòperóó€òòseóóÏimplicate€any€constitutionally€protected€right€of€the€press€to€gather€and€report€news.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòConway€v.€United€Statesóó,€852€F.2d€187€(6th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€488€U.S.Ï943€(1988);€òòUnited€States€v.€Hastingsóó,€695€F.2d€1278€(11th€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€461ÏU.S.€931€(1983);€òòWestmoreland€v.€Columbia€Broadcasting€Sys.,€Inc.óó€752€F.2d€16Ï(2d€Cir.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€1017€U.S.€472€(1985);€òòUnited€States€v.€Torresóó,€602ÏF.Supp.€1458€(N.D.€Ill.€1985),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1087€(1985).€€We€thereforeÏdecline€to€engraft€onto€Rule€30€the€notion€that€limitations€on€particular€forms€ofÏpress€coverage€of€public€trials€carry€with€them€the€same€constitutional€concerns€asÏcomplete€closure€of€judicial€proceedings.Ìà àWhile€this€is€a€case€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee,€the€courts€of€Ohio€andÏFlorida€have€addressed€issues€similar€to€those€presented€in€this€appeal.€€OhioððsÏC.P.€Sup.€R.€11€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€€ð ð[t]he€judge€presiding€at€the€trial€orÏhearing€shall€permit€the€broadcasting€or€recording€by€electronic€means€and€theÏtaking€of€photographs€in€court€proceedings€open€to€the€public€as€provided€inÏCanon€3A(7)€of€the€Code€of€Judicial€Conductðð.€€Canon€3A(7)€of€the€Ohio€Code€ofÏJudicial€Conduct€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 à(7)€€A€trial€judge€or€appellate€court€should€permit€[media€coverage,Ïincluding€television€coverage]€under€the€following€conditions:ÌÌà8 àà8 à(i)€€permission€should€be€expressly€granted€in€advanceÏin€writing€by€the€trial€judge€or€appellate€court€pursuant€toÏsuch€conditions€as€the€judge€or€appellate€court€andÏsuperintendence€rules€of€Supreme€Court€may€prescribe;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(ii)€€the€trial€judge€or€appellate€court€determines,€uponÏconsideration€of€a€request€for€permission€for€theÏbroadcasting,€television,€recording,€or€taking€ofÏphotographs€in€the€courtroom€in€a€particular€case,€thatÏthe€broadcasting,€televising,€recording,€and€taking€ofÏphotographs€would€not€distract€participants€or€impair€theÏdignity€of€the€proceedings€or€otherwise€materiallyÏinterfere€with€the€achievement€of€a€fair€trial€or€hearingÏtherein.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Ohio€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€C.P.€Sup.€R.€11€and€Canon€3A(7)Ïcreate€a€presumption€that€in„court€news€coverage,€including€television€coverage,€isÏto€be€allowed€and€that€a€court€must€scrutinize€the€case€before€it€is€to€determine€ifÏany€of€the€disqualifying€factors€to€in„court€coverage€found€in€Canon€3A(7)(c)(ii)€orÏ(iii)€are€present€in€the€case.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Grinnell€Communications€Corp.€v.€Loveóó,Ï406€N.E.2d.€809,€810€(Ohio€1980).€€The€determination€that€a€factor€disqualifying€in„court€television€coverage€is€present€in€a€given€case€must€be€supported€by€recordÏevidence€in€order€to€sustain€the€judgeððs€decision€to€exclude€any€particular€form€ofÏmedia€coverage€from€the€courtroom.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Miami€Valley€Broadcasting€Corp.Ïv.€Kessleróó,€413€N.E.2d€1203,€1205€(Ohio€1980);€òòState€ex€rel.€Cosmos€BroadcastingÏv.€Brownóó,€471€N.E.2d€874,€882€(Ohio€App.€1984).€€A€judgeððs€personal€experienceÍwith€in„court€media€coverage,€extensive€publicity€surrounding€the€case,€or€aÏconclusory€finding€that€in„court€media€coverage€might€interfere€with€a€defendantððsÏright€to€a€fair€trial€are€not€sufficient€reasons€to€support€a€decision€to€exclude€mediaÏcoverage€from€the€courtroom.€€òòBrownóó,€471€N.E.2d€at€878„81.Ìà àThe€Florida€rule€regarding€courtroom€coverage€by€the€electronic€mediaÏstates€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSubject€at€all€times€to€the€authority€of€the€presidingÏjudge€to€(i)€control€and€conduct€the€proceedings€beforeÏthe€court;€(ii)€ensure€decorum€and€prevent€distractions;Ïand€(iii)€ensure€the€fair€administration€of€justice€in€theÏpending€case,€electronic€media€and€still€photographyÏcoverage€of€public€judicial€proceedings€in€the€appellateÏand€trial€courts€of€this€state€shall€be€allowed€inÏaccordance€with€standards€of€conduct€and€technologyÏpromulgated€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€Florida.ÌÌFla.€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3A(7).ÌÌÓÓà àThe€Florida€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€it€is€an€abuse€of€the€trial€courtððsÏdiscretion€to€exlcude€the€media€from€the€courtroom€without€record€evidence€toÏsupport€the€finding.€€òòState€v.€Palm€Beach€Newspapers,€Inc.óó,€395€So.2d€544,€549Ï(Fla.€1981).€€In€addition,€the€evidence€must€support€a€finding€that€in„court€mediaÏcoverage€will€have€a€qualitatively€different€effect€on€the€particular€case€before€theÏcourt€as€opposed€to€the€effects€of€in„court€media€coverage€in€general.€€òòId.óó;€òòState€v.ÏGreenóó,€395€So.2d€532,€538€(Fla.€1981).€€Ìà àThe€preferable€method€for€determining€whether€to€exclude€the€media€from€aÏparticular€judicial€proceeding€is€an€evidentiary€hearing€where€the€party€opposingÏmedia€coverage€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€in„court€media€coverage€shouldÏbe€disallowed.€€òòGreenóó,€395€So.2d€at€538.€However,€where€an€evidentiary€hearingÏwould€disrupt€the€timing,€procedures,€or€sequence€of€the€main€trial,€the€evidentiaryÏbasis€for€excluding€media€coverage,€or€a€particular€form€of€it,€may€be€supplied€byÏaffidavits€or€judicial€notice.€€òòPalm€Beach€Newspapersóó,€395€So.2d€at€548„49.€€In€anyÏevent,€general€effects€resulting€from€public€notoriety€of€a€case€are€insufficient€toÏwarrant€exclusion€of€the€media,€including€the€electronic€media,€from€the€courtroom.€ÏòòGreenóó,€395€So.2d€at€538.Ìà àNo€Tennessee€cases€deal€with€the€exclusion€of€media€coverage,€or€aÏparticular€form€of€it,€from€an€otherwise€public€trial.€Tennessee€law€does,€however,€Ïrecognize€that€discretionary€judicial€acts€requiring€specific€findings€must€beÏsupported€by€record€evidence€showing€a€conscientious€exercise€of€discretion.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79€(Tenn.€1991)€(discretionary€probationÏrevocation€must€be€supported€by€substantial€evidence€that€a€violation€of€probationÏconditions€has€occurred);€€òòDuncan€v.€Duncanóó,€789€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1990)€(trial€courtððs€order€limiting€discovery,€although€discretionary,€is€not€insulatedÏfrom€review„„party€seeking€discovery€limitations€must€produce€specific€facts€toÏestablish€that€limitations€are€warranted).Ìà àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€are€persuaded,€as€noted€earlier,€that€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€Rule€30€creates€a€presumption€in€favor€of€in„court€media€coverage,Ïincluding€the€presence€of€television€cameras,€in€accordance€with€the€proceduresÏset€forth€in€the€rule.€€The€trial€judge€has€the€discretion€to€deny,€limit,€suspend,€orÏterminate€the€in„court€media€coverage€if€necessary€to€accommodate€one€or€more€ofÏthe€four€interests€set€out€in€Rules€30A€(1)€and€30D€(2).€€However,€given€theÏpresumption€in€favor€of€media€coverage€of€judicial€proceedings,€any€finding€thatÏsuch€coverage€should€be€denied,€limited,€suspended,€or€terminated€must€beÏsupported€by€substantial€evidence€that€at€least€one€of€the€four€interests€in€RulesÏ30A€(1)€and€30D€(2)€is€of€concern€in€the€case€before€the€court€and€that€the€orderÏexcluding€or€limiting,€etc.,€is€necessary€to€adequately€reach€an€accommodation€ofÏthe€interest€involved.Ìà àThis€evidence€should€be€produced€at€an€evidentiary€hearing€if€such€aÏhearing€will€not€disrupt€or€delay€the€principal€proceedings€before€the€court.€€In€theÏevent€that€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€not€possible,€affidavits€may€be€used.€€TheÏburden€of€proof€in€producing€this€evidence€is€on€the€party€seeking€limits€on€mediaÏcoverage.€€Of€course,€even€if€there€is€no€opposition€to€media€coverage,€theÏpresiding€judge€may€take€into€account€matters€that€are€properly€the€subject€ofÏjudicial€notice.Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€record€before€this€court€reflects€only€generalÏstatements€of€counsel€and€the€trial€judge€about€the€presence€of€television€camerasÏin€the€courtroom.€€There€is€no€evidence€to€substantiate€the€fears€expressedÏconcerning€the€safety€of€witnesses€in€the€case,€nor€is€there€any€proof€that€televisionÏcameras€would€result€in€unacceptable€distractions.€€It€therefore€appears€that€theÏtrial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€television€cameras€from€the€criminalÏtrial€in€this€matter.Ìà àIn€view€of€our€holding€in€this€case€it€is€unnecessary€to€address€theÏconstitutional€issues€raised€by€the€intervenors.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòGlasgow€v.€Foxóó,€383ÏS.W.2d€9€(Tenn.€1964);€òòBeck€v.€Puckettóó,€2€Tenn.€Cases€490€(1877)€(courts€shouldÏavoid€passing€on€constitutional€issues€unless€the€determination€of€such€issues€isÏabsolutely€necessary€to€decide€the€case).Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€in€this€case€regarding€television€cameras€in€theÏcourtroom€is€reversed,€and€it€is€ordered€that,€unless€there€is€an€additional€hearingÏon€this€issue,€future€proceedings€in€this€matter€shall€be€open€to€television€coverageÏin€accordance€with€the€plan€previously€submitted€by€the€intervenors/appellants.ÌÇÓÓà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE