Citation
"Mischievous potentialities"

Material Information

Title:
"Mischievous potentialities" a case study of courtroom camera guidelines, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Florida, 1989
Creator:
Alexander, S. L
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 312 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Broadcasting industry ( jstor )
Cameras ( jstor )
Courtrooms ( jstor )
Journalism ( jstor )
Juries ( jstor )
Jurors ( jstor )
News content ( jstor )
News media ( jstor )
Observational research ( jstor )
Trials ( jstor )
Conduct of court proceedings -- Florida ( lcsh )
Free press and fair trial -- Florida ( lcsh )
Television broadcasting of news -- Florida ( lcsh )
Video tapes in courtroom proceedings -- Florida ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1990.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 282-311).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by S.L. Alexander.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021782843 ( ALEPH )
AHN5350 ( NOTIS )
23445655 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










"MISCHIEVOUS POTENTIALITIES":
A CASE STUDY OF COURTROOM CAMERA GUIDELINES,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, 1989











By

S.L. ALEXANDER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1990


UNIVERSITY OF FLORdA. LiNRAP.ES





























Copyright 1990

by

S.L. Alexander












ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, my appreciation is extended to all those who

aided me in the field work (most of whom are named in Chapter

4 as those whose work is the subject of the study): members

of the media, particularly representatives of WCJB-TV (ABC),

WRUF-AM/FM (CBS), WUFT-FM (NPR), WUFT-TV (PBS), and the

Gainesville Sun; and the Honorable Chester Chance, Chief

Judge of Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit, as well as the

other judges, attorneys, court personnel and anonymous jurors

who were involved with the case study.

I wish to express special gratitude to the following at

the University of Florida: professors who served as

supervisory committee members (gentlemen and scholars) Drs.

David Ostroff (Chairman), Bill F. Chamberlin, Kermit Hall,

Albert Matheny, and John Wright; Dean Ralph Lowenstein

(College of Journalism and Communications), Assistant Dean

Kurt Kent (Graduate Studies), and Dean Jeff Lewis (College of

Law); librarians Rick Donnelly, Dolores Jenkins, and Rosalie

Sanderson; and copy editors Morgan Piazza and Barbara

Smerage.

I will remember with fondness the late Joseph L.

Brechner, who was the primary patron of my studies and a

warm, sincere supporter. My thanks also go to the William C.


iii







Steel Media Access Fund (and particularly Steel, Hector Davis

attorneys Dean Sandy D'Alemberte, Norm Davis, and Tom Julin).

Finally, my thanks are offered to the advisors who

rendered various types of personal assistance (a debt of

gratitude I can never repay): Dee, Beans, Richard, Charles,

Christopher, and Alexandra.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES........................................ vii

ABSTRACT.............................................. viii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION.................................... 1

Free Press/Fair Trial............................ 2
The Curious History of Canon 35................. 6
The Supreme Court Decisions and Cameras in
State Courts ................................... 13
The Federal Courts ............................... 29
Hypotheses...................................... 38
Notes ............................................ 43

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE............... ............ 54

General History .................................. 54
Law.............................................. 61
Social Science ................................... 73
Notes............................................. 91

3 METHODS......................................... 104

Participant Observation......................... 105
Refinement of Methodology....................... 112
Limitations ...................................... 120
Notes ............................................ 122

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................... 125

Preliminary Study: Eighth Judicial Circuit...... 125
Florida v. Simmons ........................... .. 137
Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris................ 150
Florida v. Spikes ............................... 166
Florida v. Stanley.............. ... .............. 174
Notes ............................................ 184








5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................... 186

Case Study........................................ 186
Analysis........................................ 193
Conclusions and Recommendations ................. 196
Suggestions for Further Research................ 203
Notes .............................. .............. 207

APPENDICES

A STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TECHNOLOGY GOVERNING
ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHY COVERAGE
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ("GUIDELINES").......... 209

B COURTROOM PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE............. 211

C CONTENT ANALYSES ................................ 213

D SELECTED ARTICLES AND SCRIPTS................... 227

E JUROR EXIT POLL ................................. 280

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 282

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH................................... 312













LIST OF TABLES


1-1 CAMERA COVERAGE OF STATE COURTS .................. 27

4-1 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Simmons.............. 143

4-2 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. C. Harris &
P. Harris.... ..................................... 155

4-3 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Spikes.............. 170

4-4 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Stanley.............. 178

4-5 JUROR RESPONSE .................... ............... 183

4-6 JUROR RESPONSE: PERCENTAGES ...................... 184


vii












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

"MISCHIEVOUS POTENTIALITIES":
A CASE STUDY OF COURTROOM CAMERA GUIDELINES,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, 1989

By

S.L. ALEXANDER

Chairman: Dr. David Ostroff
Major Department: Mass Communication

This study explored the problem of how closely broadcast

journalists follow state guidelines for behavior in courtrooms

during criminal trials, the impact of the guidelines on

coverage, and whether use of courtroom cameras results in

undistorted coverage without observable disruption to the

judicial process. The study focused on the process of

broadcast coverage of four criminal trials in Florida's Eighth

Judicial Circuit in 1989.

Four research questions were analyzed:

1. How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?

2. What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?

3. Do broadcast journalists present undistorted coverage
of criminal trial proceedings?

4. Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?


viii






The primary method of data collection was participant

observation. Interviews with trial participants were conducted

prior to the observation period and during each trial. Content

analysis of trial coverage presented by four broadcast stations

was also included.

The results indicate general satisfaction with media

behavior by courtroom participants. Juror exit polls (50%

response rate) appear to uphold these results: respondents

selected answers most favorable to the press 35% of the time,

answers neutral toward the press 58%, and answers least

favorable to the press 7% of the time.

It is concluded first, that the Florida Guidelines are

appropriate and should continue to be strictly adhered to. In

the interest of improved coverage, media policy makers might

work with courtroom personnel to permanently wire courtrooms to

accommodate broadcasters.

Second, rather than specific fact errors, the major cause

of perceived distortion is an intuition that brevity of

coverage might lead to misunderstanding. Media policy makers

might attempt fuller coverage of trials.

Finally, although no specific examples of disruption were

cited by participants or noted by the researcher, improved

education of broadcast journalists and "beat" coverage of

courtroom news might decrease the perceived potential for

disruption.







The first full study of actual courtroom behavior is of

limited generalizability. However, future research should

validate its findings that traditional speculation as to

possible disruption to the judicial process by courtroom

cameras appears to be unwarranted.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Permitting television in the courtroom undeniably has
mischievous potentialities for intruding upon the
detached atmosphere which should always surround the
judicial process. Forbidding this innovation, however,
would doubtless impinge upon one of the valued attributes
of our federalism by preventing the States from pursuing
a novel course of procedural experimentation.
Justice John Harlan, Estes v. Texas, 1965


This study explores how closely broadcast journalists

follow state guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during

criminal trials, the impact of the guidelines on coverage,

and whether the use of courtroom cameras results in

undistorted coverage without observable disruption to the

judicial process. The study focuses on the process of

broadcast coverage of four criminal trials in Florida's

Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1989.

Traditional objections to courtroom cameras have

revolved around their presumed impact on the process of the

trial. Legal scholars have discussed the Constitutional

aspects of coverage, and social scientific research has been

conducted in experimental settings to test apparent effects.

Now that news cameras are allowed in courtrooms, it is time

to examine their actual role in news media coverage of the










judicial process rather than the theoretical effects on

participants and public.

This study is an effort to conduct such an examination.

Through participant observation of news media behavior, and

through interviews with news and court personnel and trial

participants, as well as content analyses of news stories,

the researcher has gathered data which should contribute to a

better understanding of the actual role the television

cameras play, and, as necessary, to suggested refinements in

current practices. The development of courtroom cameras will

be described in detail after a brief introduction to Free

Press/Fair Trial issues.


Free Press/Fair Trial

The conflict between Free Press and Fair Trial (or, as

the legal community sees it, between Fair Trial and Free

Press) has been present at least since the controversy over

coverage of the 1807 treason trial of Aaron Burr.1 Lofton2

has written a classic study of the relationship between the

press and the judiciary in the U.S.: he defends the press

against popular misconceptions but also chronicles a handful

of cases in which the behavior of the press contributed to a

miscarriage of justice. Friendly and Goldfarb3 similarly

conclude that although Free Press/Fair Trial problems are

minimal, some coverage of crime news is excessive, and the

press should institute self-restraint.









However, the decisions in a half dozen High Court cases

in more recent times may be briefly mentioned to highlight

such issues as prior restraint, "gag orders," and access to

courts--before turning to the specific question of courtroom

cameras--as the Court balances the rights of the press to

report court proceedings against the defendant's right to

receive a trial by an impartial jury.

Of particular relevance is Nebraska Press Assn. v.

Stuart (427 U.S. 539, 1976). In this case, in advance of a

trial of a Nebraska farmhand for the murders of all six

members of a family (for which the defendant was ultimately

convicted), the judge ordered all news media to refrain from

publishing any confessions or other facts "strongly

implicative" of the accused.

Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Warren

Burger held that the trial judge should have considered

alternative means of protecting the defendant's rights, such

as change of venue, continuance, strict voir dire.

admonitions, or sequestering of the jury, in preference to

the restraints on the press. According to Burger, "[P]rior

restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and

the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights"

(at 559).

A second area in which the Court must balance First

Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights regards access to

courts: here, too, the Court generally tips the scale in










favor of free expression, although less absolutely than in

the case of prior restraints. The Court held in Craig v.

Harney (331 U.S. 367, 1974) that "[A] trial is a public

event. What transpires in the court room is public property.

Those who see and hear what transpired can report it

with impunity" (at 374). Although in Gannett v. DePasquale

(443 U.S. 368, 1979) the Court held the press had no

constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings, in a later

case, Press-Enterprise v. Riverside Sup. Ct. (478 U.S. 1,

1986), the Court held the defendant must show openness would

cause "substantial probability" of danger to a free trial;

however, the court emphasized the qualified nature of the

presumption of openness.

A year after Gannett, the Court, switching from a Sixth

Amendment to a First Amendment approach, ruled that closing a

trial absent an overriding competing interest violated the

First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although Richmond

Newspapers v. Virginia (448 U.S. 555, 1980) did not overrule

Gannett--instead distinguishing on grounds of the difference

between a pretrial hearing and a trial--Richmond is generally

regarded as a landmark case in determining press rights of

access.

In Richmond, the Court held a defendant's request to

exclude the public from his trial should not have been

granted. Justice Warren Burger (joined by White and Stevens)

discussed the history of open trials: "People in an open









society do not demand infallibility from their institutions,

but it is difficult for them to accept what they are

prohibited from observing" (at 572), and he concluded,

"Plainly it would be difficult to single out any aspect of

government of higher concern and importance to the people

than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted" (at

575).

Richmond did not create an absolute right of access to

trials, and the press is not guaranteed access to all aspects

of the judicial process. True, in Press-Enterprise, the

Court had ruled in favor of a qualified privilege of access

to pretrial hearings, absent a "substantial probability" of

endangering a free trial. However, in states such as

Florida, recent cases4 have gone against access to discovery

material, based on a unique civil case.5 Moreover, observers

have noted that as closing of courtrooms is no longer an

option to prevent prejudicial publicity, "gag orders"

limiting trial participants' statements outside the courtroom

(an alternative to closed courtrooms offered by Sheppard v.

Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 1966) may become more attractive to

judges.6 This apparent trend among judges, upon whom rests

the initial burden of balancing the rights of the press and

the rights of the defendant, is noteworthy.

Mention of closely related issues considered by the

High Court is relevant in any discussion of Free Press/Fair

Trial. For instance, regarding contempt: the Court has









limited the power of judges to punish for publication of

material obtained out of court (Bridges v. Ca, 314 U.S. 252,

1941). As for material obtained during the trial, the press

must follow the judge's orders even if they are later

determined unconstitutional (U.S. v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496,

5th Cir., 1972. But for a different interpretation, see U.S.

v. Providence Journal, 485 U.S. 673, 1988, dismissed on

procedural grounds: the appeals court had held that if the

publisher made a "good faith effort" to appeal a

"transparently unconstitutional" order and was denied a

hearing, he might go ahead and publish in the interim.)

However, it is in the final area of Free Press/Fair

Trial conflict, courtroom cameras, that the law is most

unsettled in the High Court's weighing First Amendment versus

Sixth Amendment rights. Even First Amendment absolutists

such as Justice William Douglas have decried cameras as an

"insidious" intrusion into the decorum of the court and the

judicial process.


The Curious History of Canon 35

Canon 35, the American Bar Association's prohibition

against courtroom cameras, stood virtually intact for nearly

50 years. Only recently, however, have the revisionists

brought one or two curious aspects of the issue to light.

For instance, it had generally been accepted that the

behavior of cameramen inside the courtroom at the trial of









Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnap and murder of the Lindbergh

baby inspired the ABA to pass the prohibition. However,

critics now point out that there were other factors which

contributed to the circus-like atmosphere of the Hauptmann

trial, and the development of Canon 35 should not be viewed

as a result solely of courtroom cameras as employed in 1935.7

Moreover, a close examination of the proceedings of the

ABA during the 1930s as Canon 35 developed provides an

alternative explanation for the ban. First, in the United

States during this time there was a "press-radio war" taking

place: print journalists were fighting the advent of

broadcasting, including radio and the nascent television

industry. Second, the traditional tension between press and

bar was reflected in the attempts of the members of the

committees on Free Press Fair Trial issues to work together

under the auspices of the American Bar Association. Finally,

the organizational politics of the ABA also affected the

development of Canon 35; in fact, in 1937 the ABA ignored the

guidelines for courtroom cameras recommended by one of its

committees specifically appointed to consider the issue and

favored the sudden adoption of the flat ban on courtroom

cameras proposed by another committee.

In 1935, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was tried for the 1932

kidnap and murder of the eighteen-month-old son of Charles

Lindbergh.8 The trial, in tiny Flemington, New Jersey, was

among the most widely publicized in history, with an









estimated 700 newsmen, including 120 cameramen, covering the

trial.9 The presiding judge, Thomas Trenchard, allowed

newsreel and still photographers in the courtroom with the

proviso that they follow his guidelines restricting

photographic coverage.10 Only when he discovered that one of

the newsreel companies had violated his order to keep the

cameras in the courtroom turned off during actual court

proceedings did the judge withdraw his permission for film

cameras inside the courtroom; still cameramen were allowed to

remain."1

Photographer Joseph Costa of the New York Morning

World, who covered the trial, recently said that although

some still photographs had been taken surreptitiously, the

idea that the cameramen inside the courtroom disrupted the

Hauptmann trial was a myth.12 Costa called the myth a

"falsehood" and a "total fabrication," which he said was

picked up by researchers and students writing dissertations.

Researcher Richard Kielbowicz was then one of the first to

present the revisionist interpretation of events.13

Hauptmann juror Ethel Stockton repeatedly has insisted

still and film photographers caused no problem in the

courtroom. She said, "I didn't even know they had cameras

there until I got home after the trial and saw the pictures

in the newspaper."14

Examination of contemporary press accounts of the

Hauptmann trial led Susannah Barber to conclude that the









traditional interpretations regarding the Hauptmann trial

were indeed incorrect. The "carnival atmosphere" in the

courtroom was not created primarily by photographers but by

"prejudicial press reports, contemptuous statements by the

trial attorneys and police, the rowdy behavior of the 150

spectators crammed inside the courtroom, by the too numerous

reporters who descended on the trial, and by the neglectful

judge. "15

The ABA appointed a Special Committee on Publicity in

Criminal Trials, headed by Judge Oscar Hallam, to study the

problems caused by press coverage of the Hauptmann trial, and

Hallam's Report of the Special Committee on Publicity in

Criminal Trials cited four specific reasons for the

committee's objections to courtroom cameras: sound

reproduction did not allow for deletion of offensive matter;

cameras included inadmissible and prejudicial material;

cameras dramatized court proceedings, and the use of cameras

(i.e., radio) brought "the revolting details of a murder

trial, its crime story and its sensational matter to children

of all ages."16 Hallam and his committee's strong objection

to coverage may have been the most influential aspect of the

events which ultimately led to the flat ban on courtroom

cameras, Canon 35.

The ABA's Special Committee on Press, Radio, and Bar,

chaired by Newton Baker, succeeded Hallam's committee in

1936. There were seven representatives of the American









Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) on the new committee

and five who represented the American Society of Newspaper

Editors (ASNE). The Report cautioned that although jury

members could be shielded from newspaper coverage of trials,

headlines, and especially photographs, might catch the eye of

a juror. Even worse, according to the Report, was radio

coverage and its concomitant "evil of the trial in the air."17

It was not surprising that a committee in which the

sole press representatives were executives of newspapers

would be unanimous in its wariness toward broadcast coverage

of courtrooms. In fact, during the 1930s, a "press-radio

war" was being fought. Newspapermen resented the upstart

medium, viewed as a threat to their advertising income, and

employed such tactics as threatening to boycott wire services

which supplied broadcasters with stories.18

Thus, the Baker Report, written by a committee of

newspaper men and lawyers during the "press-radio war,"

emphasized special caution in broadcasting courtroom

proceedings. The Report noted that suggestions had been made

from the start that representatives of radio should be added

to the Committee but that members felt the current committee

"adequately represented those most directly concerned."19

The one issue about which the members of the Baker

Committee did not agree was the consent requirement regarding

cameras in the courtroom.20 Thus, the divisive issue was how









to implement courtroom coverage--not whether courtroom

coverage should be allowed.

On September 27, 1937, the ABA convention delegates

voted to accept the Baker Committee recommendations and to

extend the Baker Committee for another year so that the final

issue of conflict--specifics of control of courtroom cameras--

could be resolved. Then, just three days after the Baker

Report was accepted, the same delegates, at the same ABA

convention, voted without discussion to accept a package of

recommendations from the Standing Committee on Professional

Ethics. This package included a flat ban on courtroom

cameras, Canon 35:

Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings

Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting
dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the
courtroom during sessions of the court or recesses
between sessions, and the broadcasting of such
proceedings are calculated to detract from the essential
dignity of the proceedings, degrade the court and create
misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the
public and should not be permitted.21

Why did the ABA pass Canon 35 three days after voting

to accept the Baker Committee Report which called for another

year to work out specifics of courtroom coverage? Why would

an organization ignore two years' work by one committee,

specifically appointed to work out Free Press/Fair Trial

guidelines, and adopt a conflicting recommendation from a

standing committee? One potential explanation lies in the

politics of the ABA.









The principal ABA member on the Special Committee--the

one who (ironically) was selected actually to deliver the

Baker Report to the ABA convention--was Judge Oscar Hallam.

Hallam had written the earlier study on coverage of the

Hauptmann trial and had released part of it to the ABA

delegates and to the press despite objections from others

involved. Hallam, one might infer, may have had some concern

that his own report, which had called for a flat ban on

courtroom cameras, had been suppressed in favor of a report

which called for developing guidelines to implement camera

coverage.

The events surrounding the adoption of Canon 35 were

symptomatic of continued bickering among ABA factions. Thus,

self-criticism by the Bar of the manner in which the ABA had

adopted Canon 35 was a long time coming. ABA member Albert

Blashfield, representing those then concerned with revising

Canon 35, wrote in the 1962 Bar Journal of the genesis of

Canon 35 "with the hope that the story will serve to

encourage a more responsible and objective approach to the

proposed revision." Blashfield pointed out that in 1937

there had been no reference to the Baker Report when Canon 35

was adopted, no discussion of the Canon, no dissenting vote.22

One other ABA member, Elisha Hanson, representing a

1958 coalition of press groups hoping to revise Canon 35, had

also gone on record noting the "curious history" of Canon 35:









Entirely without referenceto the work of the Special
Committee on Cooperation with the Media, the Committee on
Professional Ethics and Grievances proposed the adoption
of a new canon--the present Canon 35. Its motion was
carried without discussion. Canon 35 was not only drastic
but punitive in effect--the very antithesis of what the
Committee on Cooperation was striving for. Its adoption
was a rebuff not only to the Special Committee, but to the
media committees as well. Its adoption pointed up not
only a deep-seated conflict within this Association, but
an equally deep-seated resentment by some members of this
Association against the media.23


The Supreme Court Decisions and Cameras in State Courts

Canon 35 remained in effect for more than 40 years.

The ABA Committee on Ethics handed down a handful of opinions

regarding the Canon.24 There was only one significant

revision: television was specifically added to the

prohibition in 1952.25 Although there was continued debate

about revising or even revoking Canon 35, and some coverage

was permitted in such state courts as Kansas, by 1965 state

bar associations everywhere but in Colorado and Texas had

adopted bans on courtroom cameras.26

Moreover, from 1959 through 1966, the U.S. Supreme

Court had overturned convictions in five cases due to lack of

due process caused by pretrial publicity or press coverage of

trials.27 Two of these cases, Estes v. Texas and Sheppard v.

Maxwell, to different degrees had involved television

cameras.

Estes v. Texas (381 U.S. 532, 1965) is considered the

first of two landmark courtroom camera cases (the second

being Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 1981). The court









overturned the swindling conviction of Billie Sol Estes based

on denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment,

mainly because of courtroom coverage. A pretrial hearing had

been carried live on television and radio, and, although live

broadcasting was forbidden during the trial itself, silent

cameras operated intermittently, and excerpts were shown on

news programs each night.

The decision was split 4-1-4. Justice Tom Clark,

speaking for the plurality, held television might improperly

influence jurors, impair the testimony of witnesses, distract

judges, and burden defendants (at 554-550). Chief Justice

Warren (joined by Justices Douglas and Goldberg) concurred,

citing the "inherent prejudice" of televised trials (at 552).

Justice Harlan limited his concurrence: he wanted to

encourage experimentation despite television's "mischievous

potentialities" (at 587-601). Justice Stewart (joined by

Black, Brennan and White) dissented, saying, "The idea of

imposing upon any medium of communication the burden of

justifying its presence is contrary to where I had always

thought the presumption must lie in the area of First

Amendment freedoms" (at 615). Justices White and Brennan

also added separate dissents, with Justice Brennan's pointing

out the limitations of Harlan's vote and insisting the

decision was not a blanket constitutional prohibition (at

617). However, Justice Brennan's caveat notwithstanding, the

case was regarded as such.









Although the 1966 decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell dealt

with pretrial publicity, it reinforced for many the idea that

courtroom cameras interfere with the judicial process.

Sheppard represents perhaps the most egregious reported

example of press interference with due process.28 Dr. Sam

Sheppard had been tried for murder of his wife in 1954. A

five-hour, three-day inquest was televised live; a prisoner's

claims she had borne Sheppard's child were widely publicized;

during the trial a debate on the case was broadcast live.

The Court held 8-1 (Justice Black dissenting without comment)

that due process had been denied, and the conviction was

overturned.

Often overlooked in discussion of the case is the

Court's holding that the blame lay less with the press than

with the trial judge for failing to take proper precautions

such as continuance and change of venue. In fact, Justice

Clark, speaking for the Court, held "A responsible press has

always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial

administration, especially in the criminal field." Moreover,

the press "guards against the miscarriage of justice by

subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to

extensive public scrutiny and criticism" (at 350).

The Court suggested alternatives, including regulating

conduct of the press in the courtroom, insulating the

witnesses, and controlling the behavior of trial

participants. These suggestions were incorporated into the









ABA's 1969 "Reardon Report," The Rights of Fair Trial and

Free Press, which made recommendations as to how to avoid

future due process problems which had resulted in overturned

convictions.29

After Estes and Sheppard, the ABA strengthened its

position on Canon 35. In 1972, the organization revised its

Code of Professional Responsibility, and Canon 35 became

Canon 3A(7). The revised canon allowed cameras for use by

the court for educational purposes only; in essence, the ban

remained. Finally, after the Chandler decision and the

increase in use of courtroom cameras in the states, at the

1982 ABA convention the delegates voted 162-112 to revise

Cannon 3A(7) to allow for broadcast news coverage at the

discretion of each state's high court:

Canon 3A(7)

A judge should prohibit broadcasting, televising,
recording or photographing in courtrooms and areas
immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court, or
recesses between sessions, except that under rules
prescribed by supervising appellate court or other
appropriate authority, a judge may authorize broadcasting,
televising, recording, and photographing of judicial
proceedings in the courtrooms and areas immediately
adjacent thereto consistent with the right of the parties
to a fair trial and subject to express conditions,
limitations, and guidelines which allow such coverage in a
manner that will be unobtrusive, will not distract the
trial participants, and will not otherwise interfere with
the administration of justice.30

The issue of courtroom cameras as it developed in

Florida, which eventually led to the landmark Supreme Court

decision Chandler v. Florida, may have influenced the









attitude of the ABA. In 1975, the Post-Newsweek television

stations in Florida petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to

revise the state's Canon 3A(7) to allow cameras in courts.

After a successful mock trial by a cooperative group of

lawyers and journalists,31 the Court agreed to a one-year

experiment, provided all participants in a case would agree.

When no willing participants had been found after a year, the

Court revised the experiment, authorizing coverage as long as

the presiding judge agreed. The experiment lasted from July,

1977, through June, 1978. In April, 1979, the Court ruled in

favor of the Post-Newsweek petition.

Florida Justice Alan Sundberg wrote the decision in the

case, providing a response to six traditional objections to

courtroom cameras.32 He said technological advances had

solved most of the problems of physical disruptions. As far

as psychological effects, Sundberg concluded although they

might be a problem, no one had substantiated these fears.

Regarding the charge of exploitation of the courts by

commercial media, Sundberg saw no difference between

electronic and print media. He found no evidence an accurate

electronic transcription would enhance potential for

prejudice of witnesses and jurors; guidelines would determine

whether certain sensitive witnesses would be exempt from

coverage. Finally, regarding the charge that cameras invade

privacy, Sundberg concluded, "[T]here is no constitutionally









recognized right of privacy in the context of a judicial

proceeding" (at 774-779).

During the Post-Newsweek experiment, the first trial to

be televised involved a 15-year-old Miami Beach boy, Ronny

Zamora, accused of killing his elderly neighbor.33 The

novelty of courtroom cameras, as well as the novel defense--

Zamora's attorney argued the boy was the victim of too much

TV watching--led the local public television station WPBT to

provide gavel-to-gavel coverage of the case in Miami, and

stations around the country carried excerpts. With dozens of

reporters from around the world covering the case, the

potential for a repeat of Estes or Sheppard existed.

However, the case was extensively studied, and the general

conclusion among researchers and legal commentators was the

coverage did not affect Zamora's Sixth or Fourteenth

Amendment rights.34

In the second landmark camera case, 1981's Chandler v.

Florida, two policemen in Miami Beach appealed their

convictions for burglary on the grounds they had not had a

fair trial due to the presence of cameras in the courtroom;

their trial had also taken place during Florida's year-long

experiment with courtroom cameras which allowed coverage

despite the defendants' objections.35 Less than three minutes

of the trial had been broadcast, all of it from the

prosecution's case. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered

the 8-0 opinion of the court, which upheld the convictions on









the grounds the mere presence of cameras did not violate the

defendants' right to a fair trial.

After presenting a history of courtroom cameras,

Justice Burger described the changing technology of broadcast

equipment since Estes. He said that although Estes had been

interpreted by some as a per se ban on cameras, the

defendants in this particular case had not proved a lack of

due process caused by the mere presence of cameras. Although

he found "dangers lurk in this as in most experiments," he

said that unless television coverage under all conditions

were prohibited by the Constitution, states must be free to

experiment, and the Court should neither endorse nor

invalidate a state's experiment with courtroom cameras (at

582).

Justices Stewart and White each wrote separate

concurrences, saying they felt it necessary to overturn Estes

(at 583-586). But the decision did not overturn Estes and,

in fact, suggested under similar circumstances a conviction

might again be overturned. It did not suggest broadcasters

had a constitutional right of access for courtroom coverage.

It did not mention federal courts, but limited the holding to

state courts, and, in fact, suggested the concept of

federalism in support of the decision. What it did do was to

emphasize the need for stringent guidelines regarding

courtroom coverage and call for more research on the effects

of coverage on defendants' rights.










Since Florida's experimental period, observers contend

the state may have televised more trials than any other.36

Although many of these case have involved sensational

murders, such as the trials of Mark Herman in Palm Beach in

1978,37 and the trials of serial murderer Ted Bundy in 1979,38

the general consensus among journalists covering the trials

has been the defendants received a fair trial.

In fact, Florida courts historically have upheld the

right of the electronic media to enter the courtroom despite

motions to exclude them. Even prior to Chandler, the state

constitutionality of the new camera rules had survived

challenges (Briklod v. Rivkind, 2 Med. L. Rptr. 2258, 1977;

Trinidad v. Stettin, 5 Med. L. Rptr. 1171, 1979). After

Chandler, in three cases (Florida v. Russell, 8 Med. L. Rptr.

2176, 1982; Florida v. Pryor, 10 Med. L. Rptr. 1902, 1984;

and Florida v. Garcia, 12 Med. L. Rptr. 1750, 1986), the

courts denied petitions to exclude cameras on grounds of

failure to meet the "qualitative differential test," i.e.,

the suggestion in Post-Newsweek that the burden would be on

the defendant to show electronic coverage would have a

significantly different impact from print coverage, a

difference which would affect due process rights.

In two sensitive cases, one involving a juvenile

charged with killing his parents (In Re B.P., 9 Med. L. Rptr.

1151, 1983) and one involving a defendant charged with rape

(Lang v. Tampa TV, 11 Med. L. Rptr. 1150, 1984), television









cameras were permitted (although showing the juvenile in the

former and the victim in the latter were prohibited). Also,

in Florida v. Palm Beach Newspapers (395 So. 2d 544, 1981),

the court held that although it might have granted a request

to exclude cameras when prisoner witnesses at a convict's

murder trial refused to testify with cameras present ("The

electronic media's presence in Florida's courtrooms is

desirable, but it is not indispensable," at 549), in this

specific case the exclusionary hearing had been faulty (and

the issue was moot, in any case).

Likewise, Florida courts rarely overturn convictions

where cameras are alleged to have interfered with due

process. One exceptional case was Florida v. Green (395 So.

2d 532, 1981), in which the exclusion of cameras from a

lawyer's grand larceny case had been denied, even though the

defendant's psychologist had testified coverage would render

her client incompetent to stand trial; the court remanded for

a new trial.

But at least three other attempts to have murder

convictions in Florida courts overturned on grounds including

presence of courtroom cameras were denied on grounds of

failure to show interference with due process: Clark v.

Florida (379 So. 2d 97, 1979); King v. Florida (390 So. 2d

315, 1980); and the aforementioned Herman v. Florida (396 So.

2d 222, 1981, sentencing partially reversed on other

grounds).









As Florida and the other states have continued to

experiment with courtroom cameras, two modest trends among

reported cases might be noted. The first is toward more

generally allowing cameras into the courts, absent

exceptional circumstances. For instance, in only a handful

of reported cases have cameras been denied entry. Before

Chandler, Tribune Review v. Thomas (254 F.2d 883, 1958)

upheld the Pennsylvania ban; after Chandler, KARK-TV v.

Lofton (9 Med. L. Rptr. 1016, 1982) upheld the Arkansas

provision allowing exclusion of cameras upon the defendant's

request. In Georgia, a ban was upheld in the sensational

child-murder case of Wayne Williams (Georgia v. Williams, 7

Med. L. Rptr. 1849, 1981) after testimony that psychological

harm might be inflicted on child viewers. A second ban in

Georgia was upheld in the case of a retrial of a defendant

whose prior conviction had been vacated due to extensive

pretrial publicity (Georgia TV v. Georgia 363 S.E.2d 528,

1988). And in New York, in two recent sensational trials--

the "Howard Beach" murder trial (New York v. Kern, 137 A.D.

862, 1988) and the "Preppy Murder" trial (New York Times v.

Bell, 135 A.D.2d 182, 1988)--due to the sensitive nature of

the crimes, both were considered by respective trial judges

as unsuitable for coverage during the New York experiment

with courtroom cameras.

In contrast, in at least a dozen other cases, the

electronic media have been allowed in the courtroom even over









the defendant's objections. For instance, there have been

three cases in Ohio: Ex Rel Grinnell Communications v. Love,

406 N.E.2d 809, 1980; Ohio Ex Rel Miami Valley Broadcasting

v. Kessler, 413 N.E.2d 1203, 1980; and Ohio Ex Rel Cosmos

Broadcasting v. Brown, 471 N.E.2d 874, 1984 (decision based

on First Amendment grounds--"[U]nless there is an overriding

consideration to the contrary .representatives of the

electronic news media must be allowed to bring their

technology with them into the courtroom," at 883).

Thus, the media have successfully survived challenges

to entry to the courtroom. Further examples include cases in

New Mexico (New Mexico ex rel Journal Publishing v. Allen, 8

Med. L. Rptr. 1320, 1984--although the issue was moot); in

Wisconsin (Wisconsin v. Koput, 10 Med. L. Rptr. 1932, 1984);

in two cases in Georgia (Multimedia v. Georgia, 353 S.E.2d

173, 1987--although the issue was moot, and Georgia TV v.

Napper, 14 Med. L. Rptr. 2382, 1988--allowing coverage of

hearings on allegations of drug use by former State Senator

Julian Bond); in Kansas (Kansas v. Garrett, 11 Med. L. Rptr.

2385, 1985--although coverage of the defendant was

prohibited); and in New York (New York v. Torres, 529 N.Y.S.

954, 1988--coverage of sentencing in the case of a defendant

convicted of killing a nun was allowed with limitations).

Even more significant, however, is the upholding of

convictions despite defendants' claims of denial of due

process due to the presence of courtroom coverage, including










camera usage. True, a few convictions were overturned: for

instance, in one early Illinois case, People v. Sunday (117

N.E. 286, 1917), the conviction was overturned on several

grounds, including actual interruption of the proceedings by

photographers. And the flurry of reversals in the Warren

Court years of the 1960s (although none but Estes

significantly involved courtroom cameras) has already been

noted.39 Likewise, a conviction was overturned in Hudson v.

Georgia (132 S.E.2d 508, 1963): in that case a radio

microphone had been placed within five feet of the defense

table. In Callahan v. Lash (381 F. Supp. 827, 1974,

involving a conviction for murder of a police officer), a new

trial was ordered on due process grounds, including the

presence of four cameras inside an "excessively cluttered"

courtroom.

However, with the exception of the aforementioned

Florida v. Green, it appears no convictions have been

overturned due to courtroom cameras since Chandler. And even

back in 1951 in California, in People v. Stroble (226 P.2d

330, 1951), the court had held that although at that time

courtroom cameras were "improper," there was "no indication

that the jury's verdict was influenced by the taking of the

pictures or the televising of courtroom scenes" (at 334), and

the conviction had been upheld.

A similar decision was reached in Oklahoma in 1958

(Lyles v. Oklahoma, 330 P.2d 734). The court held that the









bans were recommendations, not law, and that "Basically there

is no sound reason why photographers and television

representatives should not be entitled to the same privileges

of the courtroom as other members of the press" (at 741).

In several other cases the courts have upheld

convictions despite due process challenges including

reference to courtroom cameras. Examples include Gonzales v.

Colorado (438 P.2d 686, 1968), Oregon v. Wampler (569 P.2d

146, 1977), New Jersey v. Newsome (426 A.2d 68, 1980),

Washington v. Wixon (631 P.2d 1033, 1981), and Halsey v.

Bonar (683 S.W.2d 898, 1985).

Most dramatically, in Massachusetts v. Cordeiro (519

N.E.2d, 1328, 1988), the convictions of the defendants in the

"Big Dan Rape Case" were upheld, despite their charges of

denial of due process. The defendants contended that the

judge's decision allowing broadcast coverage of the trial,

but excluding coverage of the alleged victim, prejudiced the

jurors against them; the court held it was within the

discretion of the trial judge to control coverage.

Moreover, there seem to be fewer instances of the

courts' upholding contempt convictions of those who violate

the bans. One of the first contempt cases, In Re Mack (126

A.2d 679, 1956), involved photographers, supported by

newspaper publishers, who responded to a court's suggestion

that they challenge the court ban by violating it--and their

subsequent citations for contempt were upheld by the appeals









court. Appeals Court Judge Michael Musmanno--who had been a

judge at the Nuremberg trials, which he pointed out had been

televised--wrote a lengthy "dissent to the ultimate" in

which he said the journalists had been double-crossed by the

court. In Brumfield v. Fla. (108 So. 2d 33, 1959), the

contempt citations for photographers who violated a ban

against photos of a prisoner on his way to arraignment were

also upheld. However, few examples of upholding of contempt

by the court in recent years turn up in the case reporters.40

At any rate, as of 1980, 45 states (all but Indiana,

Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and South Dakota--

along with the District of Columbia)--permitted some type of

courtroom coverage. (Texas allows audio coverage only in

appellate courts.) States allowing cameras have adopted

guidelines governing such issues as coverage of cases

involving juveniles as well as testimony of certain

witnesses.41 New York's experiment with cameras in trial

courts received extensive press coverage, particularly the

child-abuse trial of Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum.42

However, despite the 1982 revision of Canon 3A(7) and the

activity in state courts, there are still no cameras allowed

in federal courts. (See Table 1-1, Camera Coverage of State

Courts.)










TABLE 1-1

CAMERA COVERAGE OF STATE COURTS


States with Permanent Rules


Effective Date Courts
Experimental Permanent Level Division


Alabama***
Arizona
Arkansas**
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho

Idaho


05/31/79
01/01/81
06/01/80

1982
07/05/77

01/01/84
12/04/78

10/09/79


Illinois 01/01/84
Iowa 01/01/80
Kansas 09/14/81
Kentucky
Louisiana**** 07/13/79
Maine 04/02/82
Maryland 01/01/81
Maryland** 01/01/81
Massachusetts 04/01/80
Massachusetts 06/01/80
Michigan 02/01/88
Minnesota 01/27/78
Montana 04/01/78
Nebraska 10/01/82
New Hampshire
New Jersey 05/01/79
New Jersey 05/01/79
New Mexico 07/01/80
New York
North Dakota 02/01/79
Ohio*** 06/01/79
Oklahoma*** 01/01/79
Tennessee***
Vermont 07/01/84
Washington***
West Virginia 01/01/79
Wisconsin 04/01/78


02/01/76 Trial & Appellate
07/01/83 Trial & Appellate
03/08/82 Trial & Appellate
07/01/84 Trial & Appellate
02/27/56 Trial & Appellate
10/01/84 Trial & Appellate
05/01/79 Trial & Appellate
05/12/77 Trial & Appellate
12/07/87 Trial & Appellate
08/27/79 Supreme Court in
Boise
10/01/80 Supreme Court on
Circuit


01/22/85
01/01/82
09/01/88
07/01/81
04/30/85
03/13/84
07/01/82
07/01/84
01/01/83
01/01/83
01/13/89
04/20/83
04/18/80
10/01/83
01/01/78
10/08/80
06/09/81
01/01/83
01/01/81
07/01/80
01/01/82
02/22/82
02/27/79
09/01/88
09/20/76
05/28/81
07/01/79


Appellate
Trial & Appellate
Trial & Appellate
Trial & Appellate
Appellate
Supreme Court
Appellate
Trial
Appellate
Trial
Trial & Appellate
Appellate
Trial & Appellate
Supreme Court
Trial & Appellate
Appellate
Trial
Dist. & Appellate
Appellate


Supreme
Trial &
Trial &
Trial &
Supreme
Trial &
Trial &
Trial &


Court
Appellate
Appellate
Appellate
Court
Appellate
Appellate
Appellate


Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil
Civil


Criminal*
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal*
Criminal
Criminal
Criminal*
Criminal


Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal




Civil

Civil & Criminal
Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal
Civil & Criminal


Civil
Civil
Civil

Civil
Civil
Civil


Criminal
Criminal*
Criminal*

Criminal
Criminal
Criminal











Table 1-1--Continued.


States with Experimental Rules


Effective Period Level Division
Date


Alaska

Delaware

Idaho

Minnesota**

Nevada

New Jersey
New York

North
Carolina
Oregon
Pennsylvania*

Rhode Island

Utah#


Virginia

Wyoming


08/24/78 To 1/15/90,
then permanent
05/01/82 Extended
Indefinitely
01/04/82 Extended
Indefinitely
04/18/83 Unofficially
Extended
04/01/80 Unofficially
Extended
01/03/84 Indefinite
12/01/87 Extended to
05/31/91
10/18/82 Extended to
6/30/90
06/01/83 Indefinite
*10/01/79 Extended
Indefinitely
10/01/81 Extended
Indefinitely
01/01/88 Completed,
awaiting
decision
07/01/87 Extended to
6/30/90
08/14/81 Extended
Indefinitely


Trial & Appellate

Supreme Court

Court of Appeals


Trial


Trial & Appellate

Municipal Courts
Selected Trial
Courts
Trial & Appellate

Appellate
Trial, nonjury

Trial & Appellate

Supreme Court


Trial & Appellate


Civil & Criminal

Civil


Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal
Civil & Criminal

Civil & Criminal


Civil
Civil,
Court
Civil


& Criminal
Superior

& Criminal


Civil & Criminal


Civil & Criminal


Supreme Court


* Consent of accused required in
** Consent of parties and witness
*** No coverage of individuals who


criminal trials.
required.
object.


**** Subject to approval of the individual court.
# Still photography only in trial courts.


Used with permission of National Center for State Courts, 300
Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 (November, 1989).










The Federal Courts

Cameras have been banned from federal courts since the

1946 adoption of Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.43 In 1962, the Judicial Conference adopted a

resolution prohibiting cameras in any federal courts, thus

including civil proceedings, and, in 1972, the Judicial

Conference incorporated the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct

Canon 3A(7).44 As discussion of courtroom coverage in federal

courts generally has centered on the possibility of coverage

in the U.S. Supreme Court, a description of the development

of broadcast coverage of the High Court is appropriate at

this time.

The press corps covering the Supreme Court has grown

from fewer than half a dozen reporters in the 1930s to more

than 50 today,45 including correspondents from all three major

television networks and Cable News Network (CNN).46 Many

reporters, including those for the television networks

(beginning with NBC's Carl Stern in 1967 followed by CBS'

Fred Graham in 1972 and ABC's Tim O'Brien in 1977), have law

degrees.47

In 1983, researcher Ethan Katsh studied the extent to

which the three television networks covered the Supreme

Court.48 He reported that .from 1967-1981, each network had

covered approximately one out of five decisions handed down,

with one out of ten of the decisions analyzed by the

network's legal correspondent.49










In 1987, researcher Richard Davis included CBS News

coverage (along with that of two newspapers) in a study of

media portrayal of the U.S. Supreme Court.50 Of a random

sample of 32 CBS Evening News broadcasts, Davis found only

one included a story on the Supreme Court.51

There is general agreement that the institution of the

Supreme Court itself is a major impediment to more coverage

by television. As Congressional Ouarterly explains, "[T]he

Court, almost by definition, is a rigid, tradition-bound, and

intensely secretive institution, while the press is, by

necessity, adaptive, exploratory, and devoted as a matter of

principle to the elimination of secrecy."52 Paletz and Entman

point out the two main strategies of the Supreme Court in

dealing with the media: "[A]ccentuate the majesty of the

Court, and minimize access to its inner workings."53

The Court makes minimal accommodation to the press and

at one time considered closing the press work room.54 Until

1965, decisions were announced only on Mondays; since 1971

the practice has been when hearing arguments (October through

April), the Court announces opinions only on Tuesdays and

Wednesday, then, in May and June, on Mondays along with the

orders.55 There is no prior announcement as to when cases

will be handed down.56 Since 1971, the Justices announce most

opinions, many of them complex and confusing even for members

of the legal profession, in two to four minutes, stating only

the result of each case.









As Katsh points out, announcing the decisions in

clusters on one or two days makes it less likely any single

decision will be covered, as does the practice of announcing

more than one third of the decisions in June.57 ABC's Tim

O'Brien says that Katsh's study of the Evening News leaves

out the other 90 percent of news and public affairs

programming such as ABC's "Nightline" which explores issues

confronting the Supreme Court. However, O'Brien does cite

the networks' 22-minute limit for the Evening News combined

with the Court's tendency to announce the preponderance of

its decisions in June as an "annual, unyielding nightmare."58

Furthermore, the veil of secrecy surrounding the

activities of the .members of the High Court is well

documented (most dramatically in Woodward and Armstrong's

1979 The Brethren).59 At times when reporters penetrate the

shield of secrecy surrounding the Justices or the Court (as

NPR's Nina Totenberg did in 1977 and ABC's O'Brien did in

1979),60 the Court responds by limiting access even more.61

As Tim O'Brien once described it, "Most Justices avoid

reporters like lepers."62

Researcher Davis suggests certain constitutional and

political weaknesses of the Court--for instance, the need to

exercise caution in defining its own role in the national

government--have necessitated a norm of institutional

loyalty, with individual Justices' avoiding actions

detrimental to the Court.63 However, the norm










notwithstanding, some individual Justices have recently

allowed reporters, including broadcast journalists, to

interview them, such as Justice Brennan on NBC's "Today Show"

in April 1986,64 and Justice Blackmun on the syndicated

"Superior Court" in February of 1987,65 and Justice Brennan on

NPR's "All Things Considered," also in February of 1987.66 In

1987-1988, in honor of the Bicentennial of the U.S.

Constitution, the Justices participated in several

educational programs. The most elaborate was a two-part

documentary on the High Court which included unprecedented

behind-the-scenes footage; it was aired on PBS stations in

May, 1988.67

There have been some recent attempts to open federal

courts to cameras. For instance, in 1982, an attempt to

televise hearings on a lawsuit concerning a congressional

redistricting plan--hearings which were held in the federal

courthouse in Denver--was unsuccessful: in Combined

Communications v. Finesilver (672 F.2d, 818, 1982), the court

held the local rule banning electronic media in the federal

courthouse applied, and the question of application of the

Colorado Open Meetings Law was "irrelevant."

In 1983, then U.S. District Judge Alcee Hastings of

Miami unsuccessfully sued to allow cameras into his trial for

allegedly conspiring to solicit a bribe. Although his

request was denied and the denial upheld on appeal, a

concurring judge in the appeals case said the issue of camera









coverage of federal courts is "ripe for reconsideration by

the appropriate rulemaking authority."68

A petition by CBS to televise the libel trial--in which

the network news department was the defendant--brought by

General William Westmoreland was denied (Westmoreland v. CBS

in re Waiver, 752 F.2d 16, 1984): the appeals court held that

although it acknowledged that such coverage would provide a

public service, "[U]ntil the First Amendment expands to

include television access to the courtroom as a protected

interest, television coverage of federal trials is a right

created by consent of the judiciary .a consent which the

federal courts have not given" (at 24).69 Also in 1984,

a newspaper reporter's request to bring a tape recorder into

a courtroom in a civil trial was denied: in U.S. v. Yonkers

Board of Education (747 F.2d 111), the court held that the

local rule banning electronic equipment in a courtroom was a

reasonable "time, place, and manner" regulation.

In U.S. v. Kerley (753 F.2d 617, 1985), the defendant

(indicted for failure to register for the draft) petitioned

the court to be allowed to videotape his own proceedings:

citing Hastings, the court held Rule 53 was not

unconstitutional. Journalists wishing to televise coverage

of the federal fraud and racketeering trial of Louisiana

Governor Edwin Edwards were likewise unsuccessful (U.S. v.

Edwards v. Wise, 785 F.2d 1293, 5th Cir., 1986), as were

those attempting to cover electronically the racketeering










trial of union officials (Conway v. U.S., Presser, 852 F.2d

187, 6th Cir., 1988).

However, in at least one case (Dorfman v. Meiszner, 430

F.2d 558, 1970), the court held that the local rule

forbidding broadcasting in a Chicago courthouse/federal

office building went beyond the scope of the First Amendment,

and parts of the building were opened to the electronic

media. And in 1983 in Hutchinson v. Marshall (9 Med. L.

Rptr. 2443), the federal district court dismissed the

petition of a state prisoner who complained about a four-

month delay in his trial while television stations challenged

bans on broadcast coverage. (The Ohio state case was

discussed earlier, Ex Rel Miami Valley Broadcasting.)

Moreover, as in the state courts, most attempts to have

convictions overturned on courtroom-camera/due-process

grounds have generally failed in the federal courts. For

instance, in Bell v. Patterson (279 F. Supp. 760, 1968), the

court upheld a murder conviction on various grounds, despite

charges of disruption by photographers (still and television,

allowed in the courtroom only for the verdict). In Texas

(which allowed cameras in courts until 1974),70 in Bradley v.

Texas (470 F.2d 785, 1972), an aiding and abetting murder

conviction was upheld despite complaints including camera

coverage. In Iowa, the conviction for murder of a police

officer in Zaehringer v. Brewer (635 F.2d 734, 1980) was

upheld. In Zaehringer, the court held that televising of the









sentencing hearing "deprived the petitioner of his right of

due process"--both the trial judge and the prosecuting

attorney were candidates for reelection a month after the

hearings and figured prominently in the coverage. However,

the conviction was upheld due to lack of evidence that the

sentence itself was prejudiced by the cameras.

In at least two cases, contempt citations for

photographers violating camera bans in federal courts were

upheld on due process grounds. In Seymour v. U.S. (373 F.2d

629, 1967), a television news photographer in Texas

photographed a defendant in the hallway outside the

courtroom. And in Kansas in 1975, a newspaper photographer

was cited for contempt for taking pictures of federal

prisoners in prohibited areas of the federal courthouse: in

In re Mazzetti v. U.S. (518 F.2d 781), the bans were found to

be a reasonable implementation of due process safeguards.

However, despite the record in the federal courts,

proponents of federal courtroom camera coverage see some

signs of possible change in developments outside the court.

For instance, in April of 1986, the cable television network

C-SPAN produced a five-hour segment of its series "America

and the Courts" entitled "A Focus on the Federal Judiciary."71

The program included interviews "live" from inside the U.S.

Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, as well as recorded

interviews such as one with then D.C. Circuit Judge Antonin

Scalia.72 The same week, then Chief Justice Warren Burger









told the American Society of Newspaper Editors he might

consider allowing C-SPAN to cover arguments in the Supreme

Court if the cable channel could guarantee full presentation

of the proceedings, without editing--and prevent excerpts of

coverage by other broadcasters:73 C-SPAN did commit to

coverage of all 160 hours of oral argument each year.74

When Justice Potter Stewart retired, he held a press

conference in which he suggested camera coverage of the High

Court would be most appropriate: "Our courtroom is an open

courtroom. The public and the press are there routinely, and

since today television is part of the press, I have a hard

time seeing why it should not be there too as long as it is

not a disruptive influence."75

However, the High Court turned down a request for live

radio coverage of arguments on the constitutionality of the

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in 1986. But three of the

Justices--Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens--announced they

would have granted the request.76 Also in 1986, then dean of

the College of Law at the Florida State University, Talbot

(Sandy) D'Alemberte--a longtime supporter of courtroom

cameras77--sent Chief Justice William Rehnquist a proposal for

implementation of camera coverage under the auspices of FSU

and the American Judicature Society; D'Alemberte suggested

implementation of a modification of the Florida Guidelines.78

Justice Antonin Scalia, who might represent a vote for

courtroom cameras, indicated to members of the Federal







37

Communications Bar Association that if broadcasters would air

arguments in their entirety, he would not object to cameras.79

And Justice Brennan stated in an NPR interview in 1987, "I

don't understand why two or three hundred people can sit in

our courtroom when [radio and television] could expand that

audience to millions."80

Thus, the time is ripe for a study of courtroom

cameras. In September, 1988, the Judicial Conference

approved an experimental program permitting use of video

cameras to create the official court record of proceedings in

a designated federal court.81 In November, 1988, three of the

Supreme Court Justices--Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who

had promised to give the issue "sympathetic consideration")

and Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy--witnessed a

courtroom camera demonstration conducted by CBS News and 12

other media organizations.82 In February, 1989, the Court of

Military Appeals, the three-member high court in all military

cases, allowed ABC News to film oral arguments in two cases

involving drug testing. It was the first time a legal

argument had ever been filmed in a federal courtroom.83

Although in September, 1989, a special committee to consider

the issue recommended to the Judicial Conference that the

flat ban on cameras in federal courts continue, one of the

five members of the committee voted to end the ban, and the

committee did suggest judges should continue to monitor state

court coverage with an eye to future change.84










Finally, other countries--including Australia, Canada,

France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain--have

experimented with courtroom cameras.85 After more than 60

years, in 1989, even Britain considered revising its ban

(part of the Criminal Justice Act of 1925, Section 41).

After visiting courtrooms in New York and Florida in 1989,

the members of the bar committee considering the question

unanimously recommended rescinding the ban in England.86

Evidence in the U.S. also points to a reconsideration of the

question of the "mischievous potentialities" of courtroom

cameras. 87


Hypotheses

The preceding discussion describes the development of

the law regarding the use of news cameras in courtrooms,

along with descriptions of the growing use of cameras in

state courts since 1981 and the possibility of overturning of

the ban on cameras in federal courts, particularly in the

U.S. Supreme Court. The literature review (Chapter 2) will

discuss in depth three areas in which speculation has been

presented regarding possible effects of courtroom cameras:

general history, law, and social science.

Briefly, in the area of general history, there have

been frequent debates speculating on the merits of and

drawbacks to camera coverage. Also, the process of news

production has changed, with various news media becoming









increasingly similar in electronic means of assimilation.

Thus, there has been a growing body of literature on the

resultant "convergence of modes," i.e., the blurring of lines

between print and electronic media, and the appropriateness

of continued differential treatment of newspaper and

broadcast journalists in light of this technological advance.

Legal scholars have discussed the constitutional

dimensions of the right of access to courtrooms as well as

speculated on the possible impact of cameras on courtroom

participants. As already touched upon, the case law,

including the landmark Supreme Court decisions, speculates on

effects of cameras and calls for empirical research.

Finally, due to the recency of most of the camera

implementation, as well as to the traditional conservative

approach regarding social science in the courts, there has

been little gathering of empirical data regarding actual

behavior of broadcast journalists employing courtroom

cameras. Studies of the role of the journalist, the

adversarial relationship between the press and the

government, and the political aspects of televised coverage

put the issue into perspective. Surveys of those involved in

experimental camera coverage as well as a handful of

(noncourtroom) experiments with cameras fuel the speculation.

Therefore, the question of whether broadcast

journalists actually do disrupt judicial proceedings, until

now only a matter of speculation, would be an important










subject of study. However, as discussed more fully in the

methodology section (Chapter 3), rather than starting off

with a priori formal hypotheses, a pioneering researcher

would more appropriately select a theory-generating method of

study. Field research, specifically participant observation,

is one such approach.

One of the major differences between a quantitative

study and one involving such methods as participant

observation is the lesser emphasis on construction of formal

theories and hypotheses by the field researcher. The

participant observer would not approach the study with

precisely-defined hypotheses to be tested but would rather

alternate deduction and induction during the course of the

study to continuously modify the research design.

Thus, participant observation is considered a theory-

generating process. According to Earl Babbie, the author of

The Practice of Social Research, "To the field researcher,

the formulation of theoretical propositions, the observation

of empirical events, and the evaluation of theory are

typically all part of the same ongoing process."88

Moreover, Clifford Christians and James Carey,

describing "The Logic and Aims of Qualitative Research" in

Research Methods in Mass Communication, state it is not

necessary for qualitative social science research to be so

closely modeled on the hard sciences as quantitative social

science research may be. The contribution of the qualitative










researcher may be in adding to dialogue rather than in

theoretical generalizations.89

Thus, rather than stating formal hypotheses, the

appropriate method in this case study involves setting out

research questions. Analysis of the issues studied should

yield data eventually leading to theoretical propositions,

the basis for more formal quantitative research in the

future.

Accordingly, four questions regarding courtroom cameras

were asked in advance of the study.

Q1: How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?

Broadcast journalists refer to reporters,

photographers, producers, or other employees of broadcast

stations (both radio and television) assigned to present news

coverage of trials.

State guidelines are the rules such as those included

in the Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing

Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage of Judicial

Proceedings, codified in the Florida Rules as Code of

Judicial Conduct 3A(7) and hereafter called "Guidelines."

(See Appendix A.)

Criminal Trials refer to trials of defendants indicted

on such charges as murder or aggravated assault (excluding

sexual battery and lewd assaults) or other felonious charges,

limited to such cases heard in the judicial circuit studied










during the period of observation (and excluding subsequent

related appellate court action).

Q2: What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?

Impact refers to effect on methods of gathering news

and broadcast presentation of courtroom coverage, as may be

apparent to the observer in the courtroom, as may be

described by media personnel and trial participants, and as

may be evident in the work product of the broadcast

journalists covering the trial.

Q3: Do broadcast journalists present undistorted
coverage of criminal trial proceedings?

Undistorted coverage refers to a high degree of

correspondence between events (as perceived by the

researcher, described by print journalists, and evaluated by

trial participants) with the work product of the broadcast

journalists covering the same criminal trial (taking into

account assumed stylistic differences).

Q4: Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?

Observably disrupt the judicial process refers to

incidents which might be noted by the researcher or by

members of the print media and/or any trial participants

regarding behavior of broadcast journalists. It can also

refer to formal motions for and/or possible granting of

mistrial due to behavior of broadcast journalists during the

period of observation.










In the following chapter, a review of literature

related to this study will be presented. Chapter 3 will

include a description of the methodology employed, while the

results and conclusions will be presented in Chapters 4 and

5, respectively.


Notes

'U.S. v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 49 No. 14692g, 1807. For
general discussion of basic Free Press/Fair Trial issues,
see, e.g., Henry Abraham, "Press Freedom and Fair Trial and
Prior Restraint," in Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and
Liberties in the United States, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1982), 160-162; Jerome Barron & C. Thomas
Dienes, "Free Press and Fair Trial," in Handbook of Free
Speech and Free Press (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1979),
531-608; T. Barton Carter, Marc Franklin, & Jay Wright,
"Restrictions on Cameras and Other Equipment," in The First
Amendment and the Fifth Estate (Mineola, NY: Foundation
Press, 1986), 551-557; Marc Franklin, "Discrimination Among
Media," in Cases and Materials on Mass Media Law, 3rd ed.
(Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1987, 639-645; Warren
Freedman, Press & Media Access to the Criminal Courtroom (New
York: Quorum Books, 1988), 41-68; Donald Gillmor & Jerome
Barron, "Access to the Judicial Process: Free Press and Fair
Trial," in Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment, 4th ed.
(St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1984), 485-557; Yale Kamisar,
Wayne LaFave, & Jerold Israel, "Trial by Newspaper--and
Television," in Modern Criminal Procedure, 6th ed. (St. Paul:
West Publishing, 1986), 1298-1331; Kent Middleton and Bill F.
Chamberlin, "The Media and the Judiciary," in The Law of
Public Communication (New York: Longman, 1988), 385-434;
Harold Nelson & Dwight Teeter, "Publicity During Trial:
Cameras in the Courtroom," in Law of Mass Communications, 4th
ed. (Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1982), 432-444; Wayne
Overbeck & Rick Pullen, "Fair Trial/Free Press Conflicts," in
Major Principles of Media Law, 2d ed. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1985), 176-200; Don Pember, "Cameras in
the Courtroom," in Mass Media Law, 4th ed. (Dubuque: Wm. C.
Brown, 1987), 401-405. For specific overviews, see, e.g.,
American Bar Association, The Rights of Fair Trial and Free
Press (Chicago, 1981); American Society of Newspaper Editors/
American Newspaper Publishers Association, Free Press and
Fair Trial (Washington, DC, 1982); Chilton Bush, ed., Free
Press and Fair Trial: Some Dimensions of the Problem (Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 1970); Alfred Friendly & Ronald










Goldfarb, Crime and Publicity: The Impact of News on the
Administration of Justice (New York: Vintage Books, 1967); J.
Edward Gerald, News of Crime: Court and Press in Conflict
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983); Donald Gillmor, Free
Press and Fair Trial (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press,
1966); Peter Kane, Murder. Courts and the Press: Issues in
Free Pres-s/Fair Trial (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1986); John Lofton, Justice and the Press
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966); Paul Reardon & Clifton Daniel,
Fair Trial and Free Press (Washington, DC: American
Enterprises Institute for Public Policy Research, 1968).

2Lofton, Ibid.

3Friendly and Goldfarb.

4See, e.g., Palm Beach Newspapers v. Burk, 504 So. 2d
378 (1987); Florida Freedom Newspapers v. McCrary, 520 So.
2d 32 (1988).

5Seattle Times v. Rinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 1984.

6See, e.g., Diane Kightligner, "Judges Fight Trial
Publicity: Open the Courtroom But Close Participants'
Mouths," Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Portland OR, July 1988.

7For history of the ABA, including canons, see, e.g.,
American Bar Association, ABA Project on Minimum Standards
for Criminal Justice (New York: Institute of Judicial
Administration, 1968); Edson Sunderland, History of the
American Bar Association and Its Work (Ann Arbor: R. Heber
Smith, 1953); Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of
Judicial Conduct (Chicago, 1973). For discussion of typical
state standards, see, e.g., Special Committee on Radio,
Television, and the Administration of Justice of the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Radio,
Television, and the Administration of Justice (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1965), and Freedom of the Press
and Fair Trial (1967). For revisionist history of Canon 35,
see, e.g., Susanna Barber, Chapter Two, "A History of Cameras
in the Courtroom: A Social Scientific Evaluation," Ph.D.
dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1981; Joseph
Costa, "Cameras in Courtrooms: A Position Paper," Muncie, IN,
1980; Richard Kielbowicz, "The Making of Canon 35: A Blow to
Press-Bar Cooperation," Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Houston, 1979; and "The
Story Behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras,"
Judicature 63:1 (June-July 1979):14-23. Also, S.L.
Alexander, "Curious History: The ABA Code of Judicial Ethics









Canon 35," Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Portland, OR, 1988.

8New Jersey v. Hauptmann, 115 N.J.L. 412, 180 A. 809,
cert. denied, 296 U.S. 649 (1935).

9Discussion here based on accounts of the trial in
Alexander, Barber, Costa, & Kielbowicz; and Oscar Hallam,
"Some Object Lessons on Publicity in Criminal Trials,"
Minnesota Law Review 24:4 (March 1940):453-477, and Appendix:
"Report of Special Committee on Publicity in Criminal Trials"
(1935):477-508.

o1Kielbowicz ("Story," 19) points out that the cameras
could run without the judge's knowledge, which seems to
contradict traditional speculation that film equipment 50
years ago was too crude to allow cameras in courts without
distraction.

11Throughout the 1920s, cameras were allowed in some
courtrooms and banned in others. For example, Judge J.
Raultson allowed them at the "monkey trial." (Scopes v.
Tennessee, 152 Tenn. 424, 1925); Judge Eugene O'Dunne
prohibited them and cited photographers who defied his orders
for contempt at a murder trial in Baltimore (Ex part sturm,
152 Md. 114, 136 A. 312, Ct. App. 1927): "The liberty of the
press does not include the privilege of taking advantage of
the incarceration of a person accused of crime to photograph
his face and figure against his will," at 314.) The ABA
Ethics Committee recommended condemnation of broadcasting in
1932 (Formal Opinion 67, 57 ABA Reports, 147). However, the
practice continued: e.g., a Chicago traffic court judge, upon
finding 90% of tickets were "fixed," began broadcasting
proceedings in 1934. See Mitchell Dawson, "Broadcast Trials?
Yes," The Lawyer, March 1938, 8-10.

12Costa.

13Kielbowicz.

14Author's interview with Ethel Stockton, Ocala, FL
(July 31, 1989).

IsBarber, 11-12.

16Hallam, 493-494. A sidelight reflective of the times
is the agreement of all the gentlemen on the Committee of the
need to show concern for certain trial participants: "Women
and children whose presence at a trial is compelled are often
humiliated by the thought that they are accidentally
associated with the sordid details of a criminal trial. It










seems an unjustifiable addition to their distress that they
should be photographed against their will, pictured in the
Press, and their personal appearance and clothes made the
subject of gossiping comment."

1762 ABA Reports, 1937, 860.

18See Christopher Sterling and John Kittross, Stay
Tuned: A Concise History of American Broadcasting (Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, 1978), 122-123. Also Broadcasting,
specifically "UP and INS May Sell Radio News," April 15,
1935, 11; "Publishers Liberalize Press-Radio Plan," May 1,
1935, 7; "Rival News Services Acquire More Clients at NAB
Session," July 15, 1935, 15; "Pirating of Press Service News
Adjudged Unfair Competition," Jan. 1, 1936, 12; "Exclusion of
Press Services From Radio to be Proposed at Publishers
Session," Feb. 15, 1936, 16; "Press Drops Cudgel, Ends Radio
Feud," May 1, 1936, 9; "News 'Piracy,'" Jan. 1, 1937, 44.

1961 ABA Reports, 1936, 801.

2062 ABA Reports, 1937, 852.

21Ibid, 1134-1135.

22"The Case of the Controversial Canon," ABA Journal
May 1962, 431.

2383 ABA Reports, 1958, 660.

24See ABA: Opinions of the Committee on Professional
Ethics and Grievances, Chicago, 1967; Standing Committee on
Professional Ethics: Informal Opinions, Vols. I & II,
Chicago, 1969; Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility: Formal and Informal Ethics Opinions, Chicago,
1985; Recent Ethics Opinions, 1985.

2577 ABA Reports, 1952, 607-611.

26Frank White, "Cameras in the Courtroom: A U.S.
Survey," Journalism Monographs 60 (April 1979) 3.

27Marshall v. U.S., 360 U.S. 310 (1959); Irvin v. Dowd,
366 U.S. 717 (1961); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723
(1963); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). See Kent Middleton and Bill F.
Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication (New York:
Longman, 1988), 394.

28See also Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50; 71 S. Ct.
549 (1951), in which a rape conviction was overturned on









grounds "prejudicial influences outside the courtroom .
were brought to bear on this jury with such force that the
conclusion is inescapable that these defendants were
prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to
register a verdict already dictated by the press and the
public opinion which it generates" (at 51).

29Broadcaster Joseph Brechner wrote a response to the
Reardon Report in which he claimed the media was a scapegoat.
"News Media & the Courts," FoI Report No. 004, Columbia, MO,
June 1967.

30107 ABA Reports, 1982, 729. The 1984 Lawyers Manual
on Professional Conduct (Chicago) presents the 1982 revision
and is quoted here.

31A Statement from the Central Florida Chapter SDX/SPJ,
In Re Case No. 46835," Orlando, 1978.

32In Re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370 So. 2d
764 (1979).

33Zamora v. Fla., 372 So. 2d 472 (1979). See also
Zamora v. CBS, ABC, NBC, 480 F. Supp. 199 (1979): complaint
against the TV networks for negligence dismissed on First
Amendment grounds: "The importance of the First Amendment to
our freedoms as a whole cannot be overemphasized" (at 203).

34See, e.g., Martin Bass, "Cameras in the Courtroom:
The Florida Experience," Television Ouarterly 17:2 (Summer
1980):13-17; Raymond Buchanan, Bert Pryor, Milan Meske, &
David Strawn, "The Florida Experiment," Trial 15:4 (April
1979):34-36; "Courtroom Cameras Face Crucial Test," Editor &
Publisher, October 8, 1977, 11; R. Stephen Craig, "Cameras in
Courtrooms in Florida," Journalism Ouarterly 56 (1979): 703-
710; "Florida Trial of 'TV Addict' Goes on the Air,"
Broadcasting, October 3, 1977, 31; Terry Knopf, "The State of
Florida v. Ronny Zamora: Camera Coverage on Trial," The Quill
65:10 (1977):21-23+; Judith Kreeger, "Cameras in the
Courtroom," The Florida Bar Journal 52:6 (1978):450-52;
"Valid Judgment," Broadcasting, October 3, 1977, 82.
However, John Hanchette points out that at one point the
jurors did ask the judge if they could see themselves on
television; the judge denied the request. ("Courtroom is
Laboratory for Photography Experiment," Gannetteer, December
1977, 14). See also, "TV on Trial," a two-hour documentary
aired on PBS May 23, 1978. For a recent update on the Zamora
trial, see Donna Gehrke, "Trial Over But Ordeal Continues: TV
Intoxication Murder Case Still Haunts Principles," Miami
Herald, 3 December 1989, 1 G+.









35For coverage of the case, see, e.g., Jean Chance,
"Cameras in Court: Is Presence Prejudicial?" Florida Freedom
of Information Clearing House Newsletter, 4:8 (September-
October 1980) 5; "A David Among Goliaths on the Chandler
Case," The Quill, September 1980, 9.

36See, e.g., Norman Davis, "Courtroom Television on
Trial: It's Here, It Works," Television Ouarterly 18:3 (1981)
85-86.

37Herman v. Florida, (77-1236, 1978); 402 So. 2d 610
(1981).

38Bundy v. Florida, 362 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1978). For
press coverage, see, e.g., "The Cameras Were Rolling at
Murder Trial in Florida," The Ouill 67:8 (September 1979):7;
"Defendant 'Stars' in Televised Trial," Editor & Publisher,
August 18, 1979, 54; "Proof of Performance," Broadcasting,
July 23, 1979, 74.

39See Note 27.

40It should be noted that most contempt trials are on
the state trial court level and thus would remain unreported.
Moreover, the prime supplementary data base--Media Law
Reporter--relies on self-reported cases, so the lack of
contempt citations might not accurately reflect the
situation.

41"Summary of TV Cameras in the State Courts," November
22, 1989, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts;
"Five States, DC Ban Cameras From Courtrooms," Society of
Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi Freedom of
Information Report 1988-89, Washington, DC, 1989, 3-5.

42See, e.g., "Audio-Visual Coverage on Trial in
States," The News Media & the Law 13:1 (Winter 1988):48-50;
"Cameras Barred From New York, Alaska Murder Trials Despite
Coverage Rules," The News Media & the Law 13:2 (Spring 1988):
46-48; "Cameras Put Followers of Steinberg Case in
Courtroom," Broadcasting, December 18, 1988, 65-66; David
Friedman, "Court of Public Opinion," Newsday, 6 December
1988, 11:5; "Gauging Effect of TV Trials," Newsday, 29
January 1989, 5; D. Guttenplan, "Hottest Ticket in Town is to
Court," Newsday, 6 December 1988, 31; Kirk Johnson, "New York
Courts Allowing Cameras for First Time in 50 Years," New York
Times, 18 December 1987, 16 Y; David Kaplan, "TV View: The
Camera is Proving Its Case in the Courtroom," New York Times,
18 December 1988, 11:37; "Keep the Justice Windows Open," New
York Times, 28 March 1989, 22; "Light from Courtroom
Cameras," New York Times, 6 December 1988, 18 Y; Sam Roberts,









"TV in the Court: Titillation or Education?, New York Times,
27 November 1987, B:l; Albert Scardino, "Court TV is a
Fixture Even as New York is Deciding," New York Times, 22
January 1989, 7 E; Patricia Volk, "The Steinberg Trial:
Scenes from a Tragedy," New York Times Magazine, January 15,
1989, 21-25. Also, in 1988-89, a syndicated television
program, "On Trial," presented condensed coverage of actual
trials from states which allow cameras. See'Kevin Goldman,
"Courtrooms 'On Trial,'" Newsday, 4 April 1988; Richard
Mahler, "'On Trial' Raises Questions of Cameras in
Courtrooms," Electronic Media, January 1989, 96+; Richard
Zoglin, "A Walk on the Seamy Side: New Tabloid Shows Are
Thriving on Sex & Violent Crime," Time, October 31, 1988, 78.

43FED R. CRIM. P. 53.

44See, e.g., Richard Lindsey, "An Assessment of the Use
of Cameras in State and Federal Courts," Georgia Law Review
18:3 (Spring 1984):389-424; and Diane Kiesel, "Will There
Ever Be Cameras in the Federal Courtrooms?" Communications
Lawyer 1:4 (1983):1+.

45Elder Witt, Congressional Ouarterly's Guide to the
U.S. Supreme Court, 1990, Washington, DC, 713. For how it
used to be, see David Grey, The Supreme Court and The News
Media (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968).

46David O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in
American Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 82.

47Richard Reeves, "The Supreme Court vs. the Press," TV
Guide, December 1, 1979, 8.

48"The Supreme Court Beat: How Television Covers the
U.S. Supreme Court," Judicature 67:1 (June-July 1983) 1.

49Ibid., 8.

50"Lifting the Shroud: News Media Portrayal of the U.S.
Supreme Court," Communications and the Law 9 (October
1987):43.

5lIbid., 44-45.

52Congressional Ouarterly, 712.

53David Paletz & Robert Entman, "The Supreme Court," in
Media. Power. Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1981), 101.

54Conaressional Ouarterly, 713. However, in this
revised edition, Elder Witt points out the Court has taken










some steps to make it easier on the press, including use of
headnotes on decisions, making available a preview of Supreme
Court cases (published by the ABA and the ANPA) and
attempting to limit the number of decisions handed down in a
given day (747).

55Ibid., 737. According to former public information
officer for the Supreme Court Barrett McGurn, despite efforts
to improve, "The Court's order list is impossible for an
unprepared reporter to understand." ("Public Information at
the United States Supreme Court," American Bar Association
Journal 69 (January 1983):42.)

56David O'Brien.

57Ethan Katsh, 11.

58Tim O'Brien, "Yes, but ," Judicature 67:1 (June-
July 1983):12.

59The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1979).

6oCongressional Ouarterly, 715 & 749.

61William Rivers, "Justice Takes the Veil," The Quill
70:6 (June 1982):33.

62Cited by Katsh, "Why We're Not Getting the Full Story
on the Supreme Court," TV Guide, March 3, 1984, 9.

63Richard Davis, 47.

64Ibid., 46.

65Reported by Associated Press, "Supreme Court Justice
Blackmun to Discuss His Views on 'Superior Court,'"
Gainesville Sun, January, 1987.

66"Brennan Says He Doesn't Think Rehnquist is Opposed
to Electronic Coverage of Supreme Court Proceedings," Radio-
Television News Directors Association Intercom, February
1987, 1.

67"This Honorable Court," (Press Release), WETA-TV,
Washington, DC, 1988. See also Tony Mauro, "Clearer Signals?
TV Milestone: Justices at Work & Play," Legal Times, 18
January 1988, 18.









68U.S. v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir.); reh'g en
banc denied, 704 F.2d 559 (1983). For news coverage of the
issue, see, e.g., "Judge Strikes Blow in TV Trial Coverage,"
Broadcasting, December 6, 1982, 69; "Judicial Conference
Blocks Broadcast Media Access to Federal Courts,"
Broadcasting, September 24, 1984, 36; Thomas Julin, "Federal
Electronic Media Ban Challenged," Florida Freedom of
Information Clearing House Newsletter, 7:4 (May 1983):4;
"Supreme Court Declines to Review Cameras in Court Case,"
Broadcasting, May 23, 1983, 38; "U.S. Judicial Conference
Votes Overwhelmingly to Continue Ban Against Television and
Radio Coverage of Federal Court Proceedings," SNPA Bulletin,
October 17, 1984.

69For news coverage of the case, see, e.g., "Judge
Denies CNN Request to Televise CBS/Westmoreland Libel Trial,"
Broadcasting, September 24, 1984, 80.

70Frank White, 47.

71"Press at the Bench," Broadcasting, April 14, 1986,
150.

72 Ibid.

73"All or Nothing at All," Broadcasting, April 14,
1986, 204; Gilbert Cranberg, "Warren Burger's Flimsy Case,"
Columbia Journalism Review, July-August 1986, 19-20.

74Lamb, Brian, "TV: Making Democracy Come Alive," USA
Today, 28 June 1988, 10 A.

75"Justice Stewart Retires," American Bar Association
Journal 67 (August 1981):954.

76"High Court Rejects Radio Coverage," Radio Television
News Directors Association Bulletin, May 1986, 1. See also,
Susan Lamontagne, "Cameras in the Supreme Court?" C-SPAN
Update, January 11, 1986, 1+; "Supreme Court Still Says No,
But Some Justices Favor Broadcast Coverage," Broadcasting,
April 28, 1986, 65. (Senator Jeremiah Denton (R-AL), who
proposed federal courtroom camera guidelines, was defeated by
Richard C. Shelby in 1986.); "No Cameras in Burger's Court,"
Broadcasting, November 19, 1984, 71; and Steve Caminis,
"Analysis: Miami Herald Interview with U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice Warren Burger," Radio-Television News Directors
Association Communicator, July 1985, 149-150.

77See, for example, D'Alemberte, "Cameras in the
Courtroom," Litigation (Fall 1982) 20-23; "Let the Sunshine
In," in Mass Media and the Supreme Court: The Legacv of the









Warren Years, ed. Kenneth Devol, 2d ed. (New York: Hastings
House, 1976), 433-436. (Dean D'Alemberte was counsel for
Post-Newsweek in 1979; he returned to private practice from
FSU in 1989.)

78Letter from Dean D'Alemberte to Justice Rehnquist,
September 30, 1986.

79"Supreme Court May Allow Cameras," National Newspaper
Publishers Association News Media Update, May 25, 1987, 3.
However, the newest justice, Anthony Kennedy, reportedly said
he opposes cameras in part because a sketch artist once
disrupted his courtroom by dropping pencils. See Tony Mauro,
"Throw Doors Open, Let Public In," USA Today, 28 June 1988,
10 A. See also, Charles Firestone, "It's Time to Open the
Supreme Court to Cameras," Broadcasting, October 3, 1988, 23;
James Kilpatrick, "Televising the High Court? Of Course!"
(syndicated column), Tallahassee Democrat, 26 November 1988,
11 A.

so0"Brennan Says."

81Some Federal Court Video-Taping Approved," Florida
Press Association Bulletin, October 1988, 6-7; "Official
Cameras in U.S. Courts?" The News Media & the Law 12:4 (Fall
1988):52-53.

82"Cameras in the Supreme Court: A Dry Run for the
Justices," Broadcasting, November 28, 1988, 57-58; "Decision
Time," Broadcasting, December 5, 1988, 98; Richard Kleeman,
"Is the High Court Still Camera Shy?" The Quill 77:1 (January
1989):8-9; "3 Justices Show Interest in Camera
Demonstration," The News Media and the Law 13:1 (Winter
1989):23-24; "Three Supreme Court Justices Watch Electronic
Coverage Demo," Radio Television News Directors Association
Intercom, December 1988, 4; "TV and the High Court," New York
Times, 22 November 1988, 10.

83"A Lens in the Door," New York Times, 28 February
1989, 12 Y; "Military Court Allows Cameras in Courtroom,"
(AP) Gainesville Sun, 26 February 1989; "Military Court of
Appeals Lets ABC Tape Argument," The News Media & the Law
13:2 (Spring 1989):38-39.

84"Bartlett: High Court Perpetuates 'Medieval
Atmosphere of Mystery,'" Radio Television News Directors
Association Intercom, November 3, 1989, 1+; Lyle Denniston,
"Judges, Jurors, & Videotape," Washington Journalism Review
11:10 (December 1989):9; "Judges Keep Court Clear of
Cameras," (AP) Gainesville Sun, 22 September 1989, 4 A.









85See, e.g., Jonathan Caplan, "Court in the Eye of the
Camera," Times (London), 23 May 1989, 34.

86Ibid. See also, e.g., "Electronic Courtroom Coverage
to be Studied in Great Britain," Radio-Television News
Directors Association Intercom, August 1988, 1; Richard
Evans, "Bar Committee Sees No Threat to Justice From Cameras:
TV and Radio Should Broadcast Court Cases, Say Lawyers,"
Times (London) 23 May 1989, 6; Valerie Grove, "Out to Open a
Window on the Law," Times (London), 28 May 1989, B 5; Robert
Rice, "Bar Wants Courts to be Televised," Financial Times
(London), 23 May 1989, 11; Terence Shaw, "Allow the Courts to
be Televised, Says Bar Council," Daily Telegraph (London), 23
May 1989, 3.

87See, e.g., S.L. Alexander, "Courtroom Cameras:
Florida at Center Stage," The Brechner Report, 13:5 (May
1989):4.

88Earl Babbie, "Field Research," in The Practice of
Social Research, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986) 254.

89Clifford Christians & James Carey, ed. Guido Stempel
& Bruce Westley (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1981)
342-362.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature on Free Press/Fair Trial issues is

fairly extensive, including general commentary on the history

and status of courtroom cameras as well as discussions of

constitutional aspects of coverage. However, the suggestions

of the need for more data by Justice White in Estes and

Justice Burger in Chandler notwithstanding, a survey of the

literature shows there have been few empirical studies;

particularly lacking are field studies involving broadcast

journalists' coverage of actual trials. Therefore, as

discussed in Chapter 1, the literature review will look at

three areas in which speculation has been presented regarding

possible effects of courtroom cameras: general history, law,

and social science. In the area of social science in

particular, discussion of tangential studies of theories

regarding behavior of journalists, surveys of those involved

in experimental courtroom coverage, as well as description of

the handful of noncourtroom experiments with cameras will put

the issue into perspective.


General History

Perhaps the definitive survey of the literature is

found in Susanna Barber's 1987 News Cameras in the Courtroom:








A Free Press-Fair Trial Debate.l An outgrowth of her 1981

doctoral dissertation2 and much earlier writing on the

subject,3 the study is the first comprehensive look at the

issue, including sections on the development of the ban, the

constitutional issues involved, the research to date, and

what she sees as a shift of the focus of discussion from the

courtroom to the audience.4

ABA members Elisha Hanson in 19585 and Albert

Blashfield in 1962,6 each representing media interests

determined to revise or revoke Canon 35, should be credited

as the first two to point out the internal ABA politics

involved in the 1937 ban, which Hanson described as the

result of "curious history." Their work stands in contrast

to Judge Oscar Hallam's nonrepentant apologia for the major

role he played in the development of the ban, "Some Object

Lessons on Publicity in Criminal Trials," published in 1940.7

Another with first-hand knowledge of the development of

Canon 35, photographer Joseph Costa, who covered the

Hauptmann trial, published his version of the story in 1980.8

Costa said the traditional interpretation, that the behavior

of the cameramen caused the "carnival atmosphere" which led

to the ban, was a "myth" which persisted, picked up time and

again by researchers. One doctoral student, Richard

Kielbowicz, supported Costa's viewpoint in his writings, and,

like Barber, presented the revisionist interpretation that it

was the behavior of the press and the public, both inside and









outside the courtroom, which had distracted from due process--

not the cameras.9

As the state began to experiment with courtroom

coverage during the 1970s, researchers studied the

developments in individual states and even individual trials.

Perhaps the most comprehensive look at the events in the

keynote state of Florida is R.S. Craig's 1979 "Cameras in

Courtrooms in Florida."o0 Craig discussed the major studies

during the experimental years, the Zamora and Hermann trials,

and the bench-press guidelines for coverage. He concluded

current technology allows for coverage without disruption.

Martin Bass11 and Don White12 similarly described Florida's

success with courtroom cameras.

Others in Florida discussed the issue. In addition to

writing numerous stories in the popular press, reporters such

as the Miami Herald's Terry Knopf wrote "The State of Florida

v. Ronny Zamora: Camera Coverage on Trial" for the Society of

Professional Journalists/SDX's Ouill in 1977.13 Then-Post-

Newsweek News Vice President Norm Davis debated Baltimore Sun

reporter Curt Matthews about the merits of courtroom cameras

as implemented in Florida in the pages of the Washington

Journalism Review.14

Others described experimental coverage in various

states.15 General discussions on courtroom cameras include

those of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Edward Pringle

(former chairman of the Conference of Chief Justices) in










1979; Pringle and six other state supreme court justices also

discussed courtroom cameras in a one-hour documentary on

PBS.16 Witt wrote an excellent pre-Chandler summary.17

As far as the development of courtroom coverage in the

states, several researchers have produced state-by-state

surveys. Frank White published an extensive survey in 1979.18

The National Center for State Courts publishes an annual in-

depth survey which includes state-by-state guidelines.19 The

Radio-Television News Directors Association publishes a

"Survey of Courtroom Access" every six months (and an

excellent source of information is the organization's

periodic "News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings," with

references to statutes and case cites as well as various

compilations),20 while the Society of Professional Journalists

publishes an annual roundup.21 Others who have gathered

surveys include James Hoyt,22 David Graves,23 and Lyle

Denniston.24

Denniston has also written frequently on courtroom

cameras in Ouill and Washington Journalism Review.25 Others

who have written generally on the issue include Martin Bass,26

Talbot D'Alemberte,27 Edward Estlow,28 and John Weisman,29 as

well as the authors of the American Society of Newspaper

Editors/American Newspaper Publisher's Association "Free

Press and Fair Trial."30

CBS newsman (and attorney) Fred Graham debated the

merits of camera coverage with California Superior Court










Judge Donald Fretz.31 Judith Lindahl, one of the defense

attorneys for the widely publicized rape trial in New

Bedford, Massachusetts (Massachusetts v. Corderiro), later

wrote a critical piece in which she suggested cameras have

negative impact on the judicial process: at the least, she

says, a seven-second delay device on live coverage would have

avoided the accidental broadcast of the victim's name as

occurred in this case.32

Regarding the general question of cameras in federal

courts, helpful background material on the issue is found in

Congressional Ouarterly,33 in David O'Brien's Storm Center:

The Supreme Court in American Politics,34 and in Grey's The

Supreme Court and the News Media.35

William L. Rivers describes why the Supreme Court is so

reluctant to allow coverage,36 as do Richard Reeves37 and

Ethan Katsh.38 Diane Kiesel answers her question "Will There

Ever Be Cameras in the Federal Courtrooms?" with a "yes, and

maybe soon."39 Mauro recently suggested a range of political

reasons why the High Court remains reluctant to implement

coverage, including the highly televised political demise of

nominee Robert Bork in 1987 and the advanced age of many of

the Justices who might be embarrassed if cameras recorded

their actions. He cites thepresident of the Radio-

Television News Directors Association, Ernie Schultz, who

says, "You would think the justices would look at the

evidence--that's what courts are supposed to do--and see the










reality of what the states have done, but they completely

ignore it."40 (As Lou Prato, describing the efforts of the

Radio-TV News Directors Association to work with the National

Judicial College, claims, "No group is more adversarial in

its relationship with the news media than judges.")41

In addition to the discussion of the historical

development of courtroom cameras, there is a small but

growing body of literature on the related issue of the

continued appropriateness of broadcast regulation in general

as well as of the differential treatment of traditional

"print" and "broadcast" media under the First Amendment--the

differential which allows for restrictions on courtroom

cameras despite the First Amendment. The traditional

rationale for broadcast regulation has been the concept of

limitation of access due to technological scarcity. However,

today, due to the process referred to as "convergence of

modes," there is a blurring of lines between different media,

including print, broadcast, cable, teletext, and videotex.

Smith42 points out the perplexing problem of

determining whether new media should be considered as mere

extensions of newspapers and thus should be unregulated, or

whether it would be better to treat computer-controlled

information systems differently, as sovereignty over text

moves from the message creator to the message receiver.

Wicklein43 suggests the backbone of the new

communication system be treated as a common carrier, to avoid









governmental control of content as evolved in broadcasting.

He cites Oettinger on the danger to First Amendment rights of

a regulated press: "The fiction that newspapers are distinct

from television and cable television, is just that--a

fiction. If rights, First Amendment rights, either of

publishers or broadcasters or of the public are abrogated in

the broadcast medium .they will sooner or later

disappear in the print media."44

Fowler and Brenner45 propose that the trusteeship model

of broadcast regulation be replaced by a deregulated

marketplace approach. The authors point out the flaw of the

scarcity rationale and suggest the legal basis for the

marketplace approach, emphasizing the First Amendment rights

of the broadcaster rather than those of the audience.

Finally, de Sola Pool considers the current electronic

revolution as significant as the development of writing and

later of printing: he says the justification for regulation

of electronic media in contrast to First Amendment

protections offered the print media is no longer appropriate.

Regarding the specific area of courtroom cameras, de Sola

Pool suggests one cause of judicial reluctance to implement

the new technology: "Technical laymen, such as judges,

perceive the new technology in early clumsy form, which then

becomes their image of its nature, possibilities and use.

This perception is an incubus on later understanding."46









Thus, based on an examination of the literature, the

revisionists' interpretations of the development of the

courtroom camera ban lead to the conclusion that at the

least, the ban was politically motivated; moreover, with the

development of the new technology, the flat ban against

cameras in federal courtrooms may no longer be appropriate.


Law

The constitutional dimensions of the right to access

might begin with a discussion of Blasi,47 who, building on

Meiklejohn,48 suggests the First Amendment is an absolute in

the coverage of issues which lead to an informed electorate,

with the press to serve as a watchdog for possible government

abuse.

The "Triangle of Information Theory" developed by

Emerson,49 and elaborated upon by Kuriyama,50 further adds

support to the suggestion that the camera ban, distinguishing

between print and electronic media, is unconstitutional. In

brief, Emerson discerned a "triangle" involving

newsgathering, dissemination of news, and the right to

receive news, with all three elements of the triangle under

the umbrella of the First Amendment.

Following Emerson, Kuriyama's interpretation of Justice

Potter Stewart's concurrence in Houchins v. KQED (438 U.S. 1,

1978) leads to what he calls a "First Amendment pathway to

the courthouse" for electronic journalists, along with the










tools of their trade, under the newsgathering element of the

triangle. According to Kuriyama, Justice Stewart implies

that if the public is allowed access, the electronic media

must be allowed to bring in cameras for analogous "effective

access." Then, as Branzburg v. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 1972)

supports a newsgathering right for the press, and as Richmond

implies parity between the public and the press, electronic

media and print media, both with rights equivalent to those

accorded to the general public, have equivalent rights of

full access.

Regarding the second leg of the triangle, citing U.S.

v. A.P. (326 U.S. 1, 1945), Kuriyama suggests it would

likewise be "constitutional folly" to deny an electronic

journalist the right to disseminate information he has

recorded. Finally, regarding the third leg of the triangle,

Emerson says the public has a right to receive information,

and since most people today receive most of their news from

the electronic media, according to Kuriyama's interpretation,

the public has a right to full coverage by the electronic

media.

Some of the best summaries of the law regarding

courtroom cameras are to be found in case law itself. For

instance, the Colorado Supreme Court, per curiam, adopted a

report rejecting Canon 35 in 1956 (In Re Hearings Concerning

Canon 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, 296 P.2d 465).

Citing the lack of disruption caused by extensive use of









photographic equipment, Justice Otto Moore noted he was not

even aware of when equipment was being operated in his

courtroom and held there was no need for the ban: "We are

concerned with realities, and not conjecture" (at 468). The

court also held that the educational value of courtroom

coverage was crucial: "Generally only idle people pursing

idle curiosity have time to visit court rooms in person. .

That which is carried out with dignity will not become

undignified because more people may be permitted to see and

hear" (at 469).

Included in the Appendix to Justice Harlan's opinion in

Estes (at 596-601) is an amicus curiae brief of the ABA with

a complete legal history of Canon 35. Similarly, the

decision in Florida's landmark Post-Newsweek case includes,

in addition to results of surveys undertaken during the

experimental period, a legal history including a state-by-

state survey prepared by the National Center for State Courts

and relevant material relating to the Code of Judicial

Conduct (at Appendix 2). "Validity, Propriety, and Effect of

Allowing or Prohibiting Media Broadcasting, Recording, or

Photographing Court Proceedings," published by American Law

Reports, presents a thorough background of the issue.51

Back in 1938, "Distinguished American Lawyer Mitchell

Dawson" and British MP Robert Bernays debated the pros and

cons of cameras in courts.52 Dawson suggested that although

the use of cameras might shock lawyers and judges, not only










would use extend the public's right to known, but it would

also serve to "counteract the perversions of the press."53

Bernays, however, insisted "Crime is something shameful, and

it is highly dangerous to advertise criminals as if they were

as interesting as Presidents or Prime Ministers or film stars

or professional footballers."54

The author of a 1958 Iowa Note, "Television and

Newsreel Coverage of a Trial,"55 opted for retention of the

ban absent a reliable standard for determining whether-

coverage would interfere with due process. However, the same

year in Florida, Hodges and Staggs made a legal case in favor

of courtroom cameras, on the grounds that the Colorado

solution--in which the judge has the responsibility of

assuring decorum--is the "most sensible" solution to the

problem of balancing constitutional rights.56

In 1976, Roberts and Goodman,57 and, in 1978, Wolf58

presented general perspectives on courtroom cameras. In

1978, California Superior Court Judge Donald Fretz, then-

chairman of the ABA Committee on Criminal Justice and the

Media, called for a national clearing house on courtroom

camera data.59 The same year, Judith Kreeger, then-chairman

of the Florida Bar Media Relations Committee, described the

state's pilot program with courtroom cameras.60 In Georgia,

Stone and Edlin described the "demanding challenge" presented

by courtroom cameras,61 while in Kansas, Loewen insisted the

press had matured enough to handle cameras in the courtroom.62






65

A thorough look at the issue was taken by federal Judge

Paul Goldman of Nevada and Richard Larson in 1978 in "News

Cameras in the Courtroom during State v. Solorzano: End to

the Estes Mandate?"63 Goldman had been chief judge of the

district at the time of the Solorzano attempted-murder case

and had authorized the videotaped coverage. After an

extensive discussion of the development of Canon 35, the

writers described the production details of coverage,

including a diagram of equipment placement during the 35

hours of the trial. All but the jury deliberations were

taped. After a year of post-production, five hours of

coverage was broadcast in 1976.

The writers found that, in general, none of the

"detrimental behavior modification" predicted in Estes, such

as witness intimidation or playing to the camera, took place.

The only point at which the predictions were borne out was

that the trial participants, at least initially, seemed aware

of the presence of the cameras. However, the writers

concluded the effect was the opposite of what had been

predicted in Estes: the presence of the cameras actually had

a benign, if not beneficial, influence, acting as a "catalyst

to heighten individual performances." The writers include a

look at post-Solorzano cases in other jurisdictions where

camera coverage subsequently developed (including Alabama,

Washington, Georgia, and Florida) and closed with a

prediction that "Traditional hostility toward the presence of









the in-court news camera will diminish as the nation's state

courts become increasingly familiar with the new video

technology."64

Tongue and Lintotte make "The Case Against Television

in the Courtroom"65 by arguing that the news media's coverage

of mostly sensational trials "warps the public understanding

of courtroom proceedings."66 They suggest that it is

unrealistic to expect witnesses to admit their testimony

might have been different but for the cameras and that jurors

may enter the courtroom remembering incorrect "facts" from

earlier television hearings or trials. They conclude that

courtroom cameras violate privacy of witnesses and jurors,

have a negative impact on public opinion, and are an added

burden on the trial judge and court administration.

At the same time, Nevas makes "The Case for Cameras in

the Courtroom,"67 arguing their presence is required by the

tradition of open courts. Nevas emphasizes the need for

research, primarily to see whether the effects of print

coverage are any different from those of modern electronic

media, research which he says should take into account the

novelty of current courtroom coverage. Townend68 similarly

suggests "Cameras in the Courtroom: Let's Give Them Another

Try," arguing that cameras would help the electorate access

judicial candidates (the very notion of which might

contribute to judicial reluctance to courtroom cameras).









Zimmerman69 presents what she calls a "modest proposal"

for the constitutional protection of courtroom cameras; as

did Kuriyama,70 Zimmerman cites Stewart's dissent in Houchins

and suggests absolute bans cannot be justified. After

describing the "parade of horribles" often associated with

courtroom cameras, she suggests any controls over courtroom

cameras must involve the least restrictive means possible,

and thus she concludes her "modest proposal" that the High

Court recognize a constitutional right of technological

access.

"Television in the Courtroom Devil or Saint?" ask

Tornquist and Grifall--and the answer seems to be neither.71

Discussing the possibility of a camera experiment in Oregon,

the authors suggest the court maintain control over

production of the tapes and allow the tapes to become part of

the court record (and this unique approach was, in fact,

taken by the state in its experiment).

Naturally, the implications of the Chandler decision in

1981 were the subject of legal discussion. Ares72 argues that

the court reached the right result but failed to justify the

decision in a persuasive way. Ares suggests that exclusion

of television--the most "important" source of information

about the courts--absent compelling reason, cannot be squared

with the First Amendment, and he concludes that "[I]t is hard

to see how the Court, once it directly faces the question,

can hold that properly controlled television reporters do not









have the same constitutional right of access to the courts as

do other news people."73

Beisman74 discusses the impact of the Chandler decision

and suggests television stations wishing to cover trials

should petition a panel--made up of the trial judge, both

attorneys, and the media representative--outlining procedures

to be followed. Beisman also suggests the broadcaster sign a

statement promising to maintain decorum--and, if covering a

sensational criminal trial, a promise to cover a civil trial.

(The last would surely be the immediate subject of a First

Amendment challenge should any court employ such a

restriction.)

Pequignot75 says the Chandler decision is consistent

with the Burger Court's pattern of subordinating all rights

of criminal defendants (and, when they coincide, the rights

of the press) to the rights of the state. Rather than the

Post-Newsweek "qualitative difference test" to determine

worthiness of coverage, Pequinot proposes a checklist of

questions the court might ask to determine merits of

exclusion, including how crucial the movant's testimony is to

the case, whether the witness is fearful of reprisals for

specific testimony, and whether the press can present a

viable alternative to excluding cameras which would protect

the witness from reprisals.

Tajgiman76 suggests an analytical approach analogizing

the court arguments in Estes and Chandler to the paradigm of









Herbert Packer, who contrasted a "due process model" and a

"crime control model" of law enforcement. Tajgiman insists

"[T]he television reporter, without his camera, cannot cover

the trial proceedings with analogous comprehensiveness."77

A year after Chandler, writing about the significance

of the case in removing "the cloud of Estes," Robert Hughes78

pointed out that the Court in Chandler emphasized a lack of

reliable data; Hughes urged researchers to heed the call of

the Court for more research. Similarly, Jeremy Cohen79

analyzed Chandler and suggested the Court's repeated

invitations for more empirical research may indicate "not

only a desire for fairness but an uneasiness with its current

decision."

A year later, Cohen80 again wrote on the issue; he

discussed cameras in Washington and Florida and supported the

Post-Newsweek "qualitative difference test"--i.e.,

determination of whether cameras will have a substantial

effect different from traditional coverage. Cohen says such

a test must take into account both First Amendment and Sixth

Amendment rights, must be practical, and must be

understandable. He concludes more social science research on

effects of courtroom cameras is needed.

Julin81 discusses the 1983 request of indicted federal

judge (now former judge) Alcee Hastings to allow broadcast of

his trial on bribery charges (U.S. v. Hastings, 695 F.2d

1278); Julin was among the counsel for the 28 media









organizations who subsequently petitioned the court to extend

broadcast coverage to the federal courts. Julin says

absolute legislative bans are inappropriate for access

questions concerning the judicial system and concludes the

issue is not longer whether electronic media will be granted

access to federal courts, but when. (The petition itself82 is

a wonderful compendium of information on courtroom cameras.)

Richard Lindsey presented an in-depth study, "An

Assessment of the Use of Cameras in State and Federal Courts"

in 1984.83 Lindsey discusses the Constitutional implications

of the issue including First and Sixth Amendment aspects of

concern as well as problems with due process considerations,

which he argues are caused primarily by the failure of

Chandler to override Estes. As did Goldman and Larson,

Lindsey includes a state-by-state survey. Lindsey suggests a

strong state interest for occasional denial of access: for

instance, compelling desire for confidentiality or for

protection of minors involved in the juvenile justice system

might override First Amendment rights of coverage. Moreover,

Lindsey finds a weak First Amendment interest in

indiscriminate photographing of a jury. However, Lindsey

concludes that jurisdictions which condition coverage upon

consent give too much power to participants to deny access

and suggests the most sound policy is one allowing coverage

on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the judge.









McCall84 also posits a procedure for determining when

it is appropriate to sustain objections to the presence of

cameras. McCall's approach draws on the recent line of cases

establishing the defendant's right to evidence under the.

Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause. McCall suggests

that when exclusion of cameras is requested, the court should

determine whether the presence of cameras would cause a

defendant to lose evidence that might be relevant, material,

and vital to the defense.

In a footnote-heavy piece,85 Riemer calls for

constitutional protection against absolute bans on cameras

absent a compelling government interest. Riemer says (Kerley

and Hastings notwithstanding) absolute bans are not "time,

place, and manner" regulations and are unconstitutional. Her

suggested test for whether cameras might be excluded requires

the government to show a compelling interest, narrowly drawn,

before exclusion should be allowed.

Dyer and Hauserman86 present a comprehensive look at

the issue of courtroom cameras. They recommend coverage be

permitted in all cases, with exceptions based on coverage of

participants. Rather than the Post-Newsweek "qualified

differential" test, they suggest mere "good cause" suffice

for exclusion, with recommended exemptions for victims of

rape, child abuse, and "other violent crimes" (the last the

most likely cases the media would choose to televise).









Gardner87 describes the need for uniform state

guidelines for courtroom coverage and presents a model which

includes automatic exemptions of camera coverage of victims

of sex crimes, juveniles, and undercover agents--which is

already the case in many states--as well as automatic

exemptions for any witness who objects to coverage--which

would be problematic in many states such as Florida. She

also suggests all broadcasters would have to keep all

equipment and personnel in the courtroom throughout the

entire trial, which might make it impossible for all but

private production companies to cover most trials. (Her

suggested requirement that all broadcasters must present

balanced coverage of the prosecution and defense might be

found unconstitutional, particularly in light of the recent

FCC abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine--assuming Congress

does not reinstate it.)

Douglas P. Killian also discusses "The Propriety of

Restrictive Guidelines for Cameras in the Court."88 Killian

supports the broadcasters' position that party consent should

not be a precondition to coverage. Joining the bandwagon

decrying the paucity of reliable empirical data, Killian says

flawed methodology notwithstanding, the few studies available

have failed to confirm feared negative impact of coverage on

trial participants, and he concludes the time is ripe for

full courtroom coverage.









Thus, although opinions differ, there is a good deal of

support for the constitutionality of courtroom cameras.

Moreover, with few exceptions, legal scholars support the

concept of courtroom cameras, differing mostly regarding the

best test for determining the details of coverage.


Social Science

The field of social science has been strangely lacking

in the gathering of empirical data regarding the question of

courtroom cameras. Therefore, a brief description of the

literature on the values of journalists, particularly those

affecting the relationship of the press and the judiciary in

regard to broadcast coverage of courts, will be followed by a

general discussion of the approach of social scientists to

the specific question of courtroom cameras, followed by an

examination of the handful of empirical studies on the

subject.

Although researchers have found differences in the

effect on the audience depending on the dominant source of

news (print or broadcast),89 in general those who gather,

prepare, and present the news share the same basic values and

attitudes. Weaver and Wilhoit90 updated the classic Johnstone

study91 to present a picture of the typical journalist.

Becker92 reanalyzed Johnstone's data and found similar

results, with the major differences between print and

broadcast journalists including the increased likelihood the









broadcasters would deal with conflict since they are more

likely to seek contrasting viewpoints in preparing coverage.

(This would have potentially important consequences for the

way a trial is presented by broadcast journalists compared to

print journalists.)

Paul Weaver93 studied differences between print and

broadcast journalists and concluded broadcasters are more

likely to organize "stories" with a beginning, a middle, and

an end, leading to charges broadcast coverage is

"simplistic." Weaver also suggested the broadcaster's

personality intrudes into the story, since he cannot maintain

a print journalist's impersonal narrative voice. Moreover,

television's need for visuals vitiates the interpretive

capabilities of the television news story and reinforces the

image of television coverage as superficial and melodramatic.

Fico94 surveyed broadcast and print reporters covering

a session of the Indiana legislature and found the broadcast

reporters relied slightly more on establishment sources of

news. However, Fico stresses the tentative nature of his

findings and suggests that sweeping generalizations about the

performance of broadcast reporters may be unwarranted.

Sheldon et al.95 recently completed a study of Bench-

Bar-Press guidelines in Washington state. The authors

surveyed members of the press, the judiciary, and the bar

regarding three areas: free press, fair trial, and privacy

protection for trial participants. Regarding press adherence









to the guidelines, although more than half of the broadcast

journalists felt they consistently followed the guidelines,

only a third of the other respondents agreed; print reporters

felt they followed the guidelines 85% of the time; only 42%

of the others agreed. In other words, all the respondents

gave print journalists higher marks for consistency with the

guidelines than they gave broadcast journalists--and none of

the respondents was nearly so confident in any of the

journalists as the journalists were in themselves. In the

area of trial coverage accuracy and bias, more than two-

thirds of the broadcast journalists felt their coverage was

accurate and unbiased; only one-third of the others agreed;

print reporters gave their own work high marks 90% of the

time while only 38% of the others agreed. In other words,

once again, all the respondents gave print journalists higher

marks for accuracy and lack of bias than they gave broadcast

journalists--and again, none of the respondents was nearly so

positive about the journalists as the journalists were about

themselves.

Weinthal and O'Keefe96 surveyed broadcast journalists

in Denver. Their findings supported a profile of broadcast

journalists similar to that of print journalists, with the

only differences including broadcasters' higher desire for

freedom from close supervision and for excitement and variety

as well as for working with congenial colleagues.









A field of study of broadcast journalists at all three

network affiliates in each of six television markets in

Wisconsin led Idsvoog & Hoyt97 to conclude market size did not

affect level of professionalism (measured on the McLeod &

Hawley scale), and, as predicted, professional journalists

perform with more skill on the job than less professional

journalists.

Epstein,98 Altheide,99 and Gans100 conducted expansive

studies of values of broadcast journalists; presumably,

broadcast journalists in courtrooms might share this set of

values. For instance, Epstein spent four months at NBC,

backed up with interviews and material from ABC and CBS; in

all, he interviewed nearly 100 broadcast journalists. He

concluded organizational imperatives of news organizations

shape the news, imperatives which include the budget of the

news department, the need to maintain an audience flow due to

network dependence on ratings, the nationalization of news

due to the network affiliate systems, and external factors

such as the FCC's fairness rules and other governmental

requirements.

Altheide spent four months in a network affiliate's

newsroom, along with nearly a year off and on at a second and

three days at a network owned-and-operated station in a third

market, backed up with a colleague's research. He found that

the "news perspective" of the journalist creates a "bias."

Factors affecting this perspective include commercialism and









ratings, competition with other stations, and community

context.

Sociologist Gans used the method of content analysis

along with participant observation to study CBS Evening News,

NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Gans concluded the

news is shaped by the power of official sources, the need for

efficiency in organizations, and journalistic news values,

particularly such "enduring values" as ethnocentrism,

altruistic democracy, responsible capitalism, small-town

pastoralism, individualism, and moderatism.

Bantz, McCorkle, and Baade101 presented an analogue of

the local television newsroom as a factory. They suggested

the organizational consequences of this include lack of

flexibility, lack of personal investment in the product,

evaluation of newswork in production terms, and goal

incongruence between the newsworker's job expectations and

job reality.

Breed102 had interviewed more than 120 newspapermen in

an attempt to discover why they followed the publishers'

policies regarding orientation of editorials and news. He

had described six characteristics of what he called a system

of "social control": institutional authority and sanctions,

feelings of obligation and esteem for superiors, mobility

aspirations, absence of conflicting group allegiance, the

pleasant nature of the activity, and news as a value.









Garvey'03 later replicated Breed's work in broadcast newsrooms

with similar results.

Phillips' study104 of the differences between

journalistic versus social science perspectives included

unobtrusive measures and surveys as well as participant

observation at a newspaper, two commercial radio stations,

and a commercial TV station. Phillips concluded that the

journalist's perspective was based on direct sense experience

rather than on theoretical, abstract reflection.

In addition to conducting interviews, Tuchmani05 was a

participant observer at a newspaper, a city hall press room,

and a major market noncommercial television station. Tuchman

described the routine processing of news events and explained

how even "exceptional" stories were forced into

routinization.

White,106 building on the work of sociologist Kurt

Lewin, had spent a week with a wire editor at a daily and had

described the "gatekeeping" process by which editors made

selection decisions. White questioned "Mr. Gates" on the

influence of the categories of news, his personal prejudices,

his concept of the audience and of the subject matter of the

story on his choices. Dimmick107 expanded on White's theory,

suggesting journalists seek validation of their choices, thus

leading to charges of "pack journalism."

Buckalew108 applied gatekeeping theory to broadcasting.

He first sat through the production of newscasts with 12








television news editors and found only slight variety in

selection of stories, variety which he said was related to

the size of the community: smaller markets were more

concerned with proximity of stories, larger with timeliness.

Buckalew also studied gatekeeping methods at 29 radio

stations. He found seven of the stations took most of their

news directly from the wire services ("rip 'n' read"), two

rewrote wire copy, and the rest used the wire copy as impetus

for following up stories.109

Harless110 presented what he called a "quasi-

replication" of the original White study, only this time in a

broadcast newsroom. His gatekeeper, "Mr. Collins," seemed to

show a slight bias for business and civic news, and Harless

concluded the television gatekeeper was more creative than

"Mr. Gates" and more medium-oriented than subjective or

prejudiced.

Drew111 suggested role expectation theory plays a part

in gatekeeping. Studying three city hall beat reporters at

three television stations in a medium-sized Midwest market,

Drew found Reporter A based his choices on his own idea of

what the audience expected in the news, Reporter B based his

choices on what Breed had described as the "social control"

of the newsroom, and Reporter C on his own ideas of his role

as a news producer.

Finally, most recently, Wickham'12 did a content

analysis of a week's newscasts at the three network









affiliates in Memphis. She suggested the role of the

television reporter in the overall gatekeeping process is not

as isolated as that of the newspaper reporter, and the

television reporter is also more affected by technical

limitations than his counterpart.

Thus, the typical journalist holds certain values and

follows certain norms, some of which, such as the intrusion

of the broadcast journalist's personality into his coverage

of a process which holds to an ideal of objectivity and

neutrality ("blind justice"), have the potential to

contribute to judicial reluctance regarding cameras in court.

These theoretical suggestions have been borne out by judicial

response to actual broadcast coverage of courts, as evidenced

by surveys of judges and judges' reports on cases, which will

be discussed shortly.

First, however, brief mention of several other general

issues studied by the social scientists is also appropriate

to the discussion of courtroom cameras. For instance, the

"mediated reality" of political news in the U.S.--from the

possible unwitting bias produced by news coverage of

political events to the underlying "adversary model," the

assumption of varying degrees of conflict of interest between

journalists and government and political figures113--has been

described by researchers such as Lang and Lang,114 Blumler and

Gurevitch,115 Ostroff,116 Paletz and Entman,117 Ranney,118 and

Rivers.119 Members of the judiciary might assume an analogous









possible bias and adversarial relationship underlie press

coverage in the courts.

The catalogue of objections to the televising of

Congress, ranging from predictions of "undignified behavior"

to potential political abuse, might also affect the

judiciary.120 Although canons of judicial decorum preclude

public discussion of the political aspects of a judge's

career, trial judges in most jurisdictions today are subject

to the electorate (and the political nature of the appellate

judiciary, particularly the High Court, has already been

mentioned.)121 Barber most directly refers to this possible

"hidden agenda": "Judges may be worried that television

exposure will make them more accountable to the public for

their rulings and courtroom behavior."122

Thus, even a brief discussion of news values of

broadcast journalists, the traditional adversarial

relationship between the press and government, and the

political aspects of televised coverage, puts the issue into

perspective for the social scientist concerned with

researching courtroom cameras.

Turning to the specific question of social science

research on the topic of courtroom cameras, just prior to

Chandler, George Gerbner wrote "Trial by Television: Are We

at the Point of No Return?"123 According to Gerbner, the

social functions of television and of the courts are at cross

purposes, and in the absence of conclusive research, he









suggested restriction of courtroom coverage. Gerbner said

the purpose of trials is to protect the defendant, not to

entertain or to educate, and he called for more research

based on actual court studies.

During the experiment with cameras in Florida in 1978-

78, several studies were conducted, some of which became part

of the court record in Post-Newsweek.124 Reports of five

judges as well as results of four surveys will be briefly

discussed.

Judge Paul Baker presided over the most spectacular of

the cases, Zamora v. Florida (372 So. 2d 473, 1979; 77-25123-

A, 11/30/77), covered gavel-to-gavel by Miami's WPBT (PBS).

Despite the massive publicity and complex logistics

necessitated by the trial, Judge Baker came out in favor of

cameras. He made several recommendations for future cases,

including sequestering of jurors in some case, admonishing of

witnesses, and providing a separate room for the media in

major cases.125

Judge Edward P. Cowart, Chief Justice of Florida's llth

Circuit (and later presiding judge in the trial of serial

murderer Ted Bundy) joined two other judges in a report

supporting the pilot program: "We think it is just another

extension of the first amendment through a different medium.

The disorder, disarray, and carnival atmosphere of the past

trials are not here today."126









Justice Dorothy Pate,127 who presided over four trials

during the experiment, could find few specific ill effects;

however, in her report she was generally negative toward

courtroom cameras. Similarly, Judge Marvin Mounts,128 who

presided over a murder trial, said the cameras made him

nervous, and his reading of Marshall McLuhan on the enormous

impact of television led him to a cautious approach toward

courtroom coverage.

Finally, the most negative opinion was that of Judge

Thomas Sholts,129 who had presided over the Mark Herman murder

case. Sholts conceded current technology allowed for

coverage without distraction, and the experiment worked out

much better than he had predicted. However, Sholts objected

on general grounds that use of television does not contribute

to the objective of ascertaining truth and has the potential

to cause burdens on the judge and extra expense as well as

possible grounds for appeal.

The first of the four surveys regarding courtroom

cameras in Florida was conducted by the Office of the State

Court Administrator.130 A total of 2,660 jurors, witnesses,

attorneys, and court personnel involved in cases of courtroom

coverage were questioned, with a 62% response rate. Although

methodological flaws led to conclusions considered

statistically insignificant, the court administrator found

the survey in general indicated little or no effect of

courtroom cameras.









A second survey was conducted by Judge Arthur Franza,

then-Chairman of the Public Information Press Relations

Committee of the Florida Circuit Judges.131 Judge Franza

polled the 286 circuit judges (with a 54% response rate).

Most of the judges either favored cameras or were neutral

toward courtroom cameras.

A third survey was conducted by Judge David Strawn and

three researchers from Florida Technological University.132

Participants in five of the trials which took place during

the experiment were surveyed, including two of the presiding

judges. Questionnaires were then sent to the 286 state

circuit judges (with a 45% return rate) and 181 county judges

(with a 56% return rate). The results of the survey

indicated that although judges were prejudiced against

cameras in general, once they had some actual experience with

cameras in their own courtrooms, they tended to become more

inclined to favor courtroom cameras.

A fourth brief study was conducted by Jean Chance at

the University of Florida.133 Her 18 questions went to news

directors, managing editors, and 20 presiding circuit judges

(with a 60% return rate for the judges before the experiment,

20% return rate a year later). Although the response rate

was too low for significant conclusions, the judges who

returned the second questionnaire tended to be those who had

negative feelings toward courtroom cameras.









The Justices in Estes and Chandler and writers such as

Hughes, Cohen, and Gerbner lamented the lack of empirical

research, particularly case studies of media behavior in

actual courtrooms. Indeed, few such field studies turn up in

the literature survey.

Barber,134 who has gathered a definitive bibliography on

the subject of courtroom cameras, could find only 19 direct

studies of the question, with 15 of these case studies and/or

surveys commissioned by various bench/bar committees or state

courts (such as those Florida studies discussed) studying the

possibility of implementation of courtroom cameras. (The

sixteenth study is the aforementioned case study by Goldman

and Larson.)135 Only three empirical studies were discussed.

The first, Hoyt's 1979 experiment, 36 involved 36

volunteers in a media class in Madison, Wisconsin. The

students were shown a film and questioned afterward: half

were in a room in which a video cameraman very obviously was

taping their answers; half were in a room in which the camera

was not actually in sight, although they were told it was

there. Hoyt reported no significant difference in

respondents' verbal behavior and concluded cameras might

actually lead to fairer trials with witnesses giving more

complete answers.

The second study, Netteburg's 1980 survey,137 involved

300 people selected at random from telephone directories in

two Wisconsin cities. Netteburg asked respondents about a









recently-televised trial in which the defendant had been

tried for murder and arson and had been found guilty of the

former, innocent of the latter. According to Netteburg,

although many subjects recognized the defendant's name--and

mistakenly thought she had been convicted of both crimes--

most were not aware of either her name or of the outcome of

the case. Netteburg concluded that the data contradict the

proposition that television can destroy an accused's case.

The final study cited by Barber is Short's 1981 survey

and experiment.138 Part of this study involved observer

evaluations of participant behavior in experiment versus

control conditions; another part of the study gathered data

via survey questionnaires. Short found little negative

impact of courtroom cameras, with little negative disposition

toward the cameras, and what there was, primarily among

defense attorneys. The study also suggested other potential

sources of distraction--including conventional media, court

personnel, trial participants, and audience--were

approximately equal to the cameras in causing distraction.

After a detailed analysis of the Short study, along

with the earlier research, Barber concluded

It seems fairly striking that 19 pieces of independent
research, conducted in 11 states over a span of over 8
years, reached similar conclusions about the relative
lack of behavioral prejudice caused by news cameras in
courtrooms. This is not to say that many trial
participants do not have mixed or negative attitudes
toward courtroom coverage, only that the bulk of
empirical research conducted to date shows little
correlation between the presence of cameras at trials









and perceived prejudicial behavior on the part of
jurors, witnesses, judges, or attorneys.139

Several other studies, although not included in

Barber's survey, seem on point with the present discussion.

For instance, Einsiede1140 did not actually attend the murder

trial she studied, but she did interview some participants

after the trial, mostly by telephone. She reported a

generally positive response to courtroom coverage with

unobtrusive cameras.

Underwritten in part by the Scripps-Howard Foundation,

Lancaster141 made a comparative study of two trials for the

same $6 million robbery and murder: the trial of one

defendant involved courtroom coverage, the other did not.

Lancaster found the public claimed to learn more about the

trials and the criminal justice system in general when

cameras were allowed, and the majority of those questioned--

including the jurors--did not believe the cameras jeopardized

the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lancaster found it

was the "celebrity factor" of the presence of television

reporters rather than the cameras which signalled

participants that the trial rated the attention of the media.

Three recent studies also involved experimental (non-

courtroom) studies of the impact of courtroom cameras.

Pasternack142 asked whether, if'juror's identities became

known through televising of trials, they would become more

susceptible to community pressure to convict. In a









laboratory setting, he handed subjects news stories (some of

which included an extra paragraph expressing community

interest in convicting criminals), showed them a videotape,

and had them fill out a questionnaire. He found subjects

exposed to more pressure (i.e., reading the doctored story)

were more likely to deliver a guilty verdict, and he

recommended states might prohibit televising of the jury.

However, Pasternack himself points out some of the obvious

limitations of the study--the artificiality of the

experiment, the subject awareness of the project, the

expectation of the test's possibly leading to more diligent

viewing of the tape, the lack of external validity. Even

more significant, however, is an additional limitation that

might be noted by a critic: the leap Pasternack makes in

assuming, first, that jurors are "unknown" if untelevised (an

actual trial takes place in an open courtroom; if a TV camera

is present, it is likely print journalists will also be

covering the trial, and with all eyes on the jurors,

particularly during voir dire, they are hardly "unknown").

And there is a second leap in logic in assuming that exposure

of jurors' identities is the most relevant factor in making a

juror feel more subject to community pressure to convict.

Finally, the responses of college students, many of whom do

not register to vote and would not be called to jury duty in

many states, may not be representative of an actual jury

pool.









A second study, by Paddon,143 described the differences

between trial coverage using video versus those using

sketches from the courtroom. Building on information

processing theory, this study involved exposing subjects to

one of four treatments in a half-hour newscast followed by a

questionnaire. Paddon found cameras appeared to enhance a

viewer's information about the trial but led to no attitude

changes which might threaten justice. She points out some of

the obvious limitations of the study--for instance, the

artificiality of the experimental situation where one brief

exposure to news of a crime is not representative of the real

world, where newspaper coverage would reinforce exposure.

Finally, Kassin144 showed 51 "mock jurors" a videotape

of a civil trial either in the presence of or absence of a

camera; they then were questioned about the trial. He

concluded the impact of cameras at a trial would be minimal,

could be mitigated with pretrial warnings, and generally

would have no effect on the outcome of a trial. Major

limitations of the study which Kassin points out include its

lack of concern with the indirect effects of cameras on the

jury compared with those of print coverage, as well as the

fact that different types of cases might affect the degree of

impact of cameras.

Rimmer145 recently presented a study of the status of

research regarding courtroom cameras. He suggested that from

a legal perspective, it appears there is little support for a









ban on electronic media access, and from a social science

perspective, evidence suggests access does not appear to

produce the effects its critics assert. However, he notes

that much of the evidence available has not really focused on

whether access actually causes the effects claimed for it.

Rimmer cites Boggs' review146 of 72 empirically based studies

of state court experience with television coverage which

found in 20 of the studies basic methodological flaws which

mar the reliability and validity of the findings. In short,

Rimmer concludes, studies of effects attributed to electronic

media access to the court were often "generalized beyond

their data."

Thus, it is apparent that, as Rimmer says, "[T]here is

a dearth of valid, reliable, and generalizable social science

evidence" regarding courtroom cameras.147 Rimmer suggests,

first, there is a need to gain access to actual courtrooms so

data can be gathered in real time/space conditions rather

than in courtroom simulations; second, concerns about the

longer term impact of electronic media access suggest

research designs which measure impact over time. Among the

subjects Rimmer suggests for further research include

replication of case studies and surveys with better controls;

a study of the differences between effects associated with

routine trials and sensational trials; examination of impact

of cameras inside the courtroom vis-a-vis the courthouse

environs; and the nature of possible long-term effects.




Full Text

PAGE 2

0,6&+,(9286 327(17,$/,7,(6 $ &$6( 678'< 2) &28575220 &$0(5$ *8,'(/,1(6 (,*+7+ -8',&,$/ &,5&8,7 )/25,'$ %\ 6/ $/(;$1'(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ /,65WI6(6

PAGE 3

&RS\ULJKW E\ 6/ $OH[DQGHU

PAGE 4

$&.12:/('*0(176 )LUVW P\ DSSUHFLDWLRQ LV H[WHQGHG WR DOO WKRVH ZKR DLGHG PH LQ WKH ILHOG ZRUN PRVW RI ZKRP DUH QDPHG LQ &KDSWHU DV WKRVH ZKRVH ZRUN LV WKH VXEMHFW RI WKH VWXG\f PHPEHUV RI WKH PHGLD SDUWLFXODUO\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI :&-%79 $%&f :58)$0)0 &%6f :8)7)0 135f :8)779 3%6f DQG WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ DQG WKH +RQRUDEOH &KHVWHU &KDQFH &KLHI -XGJH RI )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW DV ZHOO DV WKH RWKHU MXGJHV DWWRUQH\V FRXUW SHUVRQQHO DQG DQRQ\PRXV MXURUV ZKR ZHUH LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH FDVH VWXG\ ZLVK WR H[SUHVV VSHFLDO JUDWLWXGH WR WKH IROORZLQJ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SURIHVVRUV ZKR VHUYHG DV VXSHUYLVRU\ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV JHQWOHPHQ DQG VFKRODUVf 'UV 'DYLG 2VWURII &KDLUPDQf %LOO ) &KDPEHUOLQ .HUPLW +DOO $OEHUW 0DWKHQ\ DQG -RKQ :ULJKW 'HDQ 5DOSK /RZHQVWHLQ &ROOHJH RI -RXUQDOLVP DQG &RPPXQLFDWLRQVf $VVLVWDQW 'HDQ .XUW .HQW *UDGXDWH 6WXGLHVf DQG 'HDQ -HII /HZLV &ROOHJH RI /DZf OLEUDULDQV 5LFN 'RQQHOO\ 'RORUHV -HQNLQV DQG 5RVDOLH 6DQGHUVRQ DQG FRS\ HGLWRUV 0RUJDQ 3LD]]D DQG %DUEDUD 6PHUDJH ZLOO UHPHPEHU ZLWK IRQGQHVV WKH ODWH -RVHSK / %UHFKQHU ZKR ZDV WKH SULPDU\ SDWURQ RI P\ VWXGLHV DQG D ZDUP VLQFHUH VXSSRUWHU 0\ WKDQNV DOVR JR WR WKH :LOOLDP & LLL

PAGE 5

6WHHO 0HGLD $FFHVV )XQG DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ 6WHHO +HFWRU 'DYLV DWWRUQH\V 'HDQ 6DQG\ 'n$OHPEHUWH 1RUP 'DYLV DQG 7RP -XOLQf )LQDOO\ P\ WKDQNV DUH RIIHUHG WR WKH DGYLVRUV ZKR UHQGHUHG YDULRXV W\SHV RI SHUVRQDO DVVLVWDQFH D GHEW RI JUDWLWXGH FDQ QHYHU UHSD\f 'HH %HDQV 5LFKDUG &KDUOHV &KULVWRSKHU DQG $OH[DQGUD ,9

PAGE 6

7$%/( 2) &217(176 SDJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLL $%675$&7 YLLL &+$37(56 ,1752'8&7,21 )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO 7KH &XULRXV +LVWRU\ RI &DQRQ 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 'HFLVLRQV DQG &DPHUDV LQ 6WDWH &RXUWV 7KH )HGHUDO &RXUWV +\SRWKHVHV 1RWHV 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( *HQHUDO +LVWRU\ /DZ 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 1RWHV 0(7+2'6 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ 5HILQHPHQW RI 0HWKRGRORJ\ /LPLWDWLRQV 1RWHV 5(68/76 $1' ',6&866,21 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6WXG\ (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t 3 +DUULV )ORULGD Y 6SLNHV )ORULGD Y 6WDQOH\ 1RWHV Y

PAGE 7

6800$5< $1' &21&/86,216 &DVH 6WXG\ $QDO\VLV &RQFOXVLRQV DQG 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK 1RWHV $33(1',&(6 $ 67$1'$5'6 2) &21'8&7 $1' 7(&+12/2*< *29(51,1* (/(&7521,& 0(',$ $1' 67,// 3+272*5$3+< &29(5$*( 2) -8',&,$/ 352&((',1*6 *8,'(/,1(6f % &28575220 3$57,&,3$17 48(67,211$,5( & &217(17 $1$/<6(6 6(/(&7(' $57,&/(6 $1' 6&5,376 ( -8525 (;,7 32// %,%/,2*5$3+< %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ YL

PAGE 8

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 SDJH &$0(5$ &29(5$*( 2) 67$7( &28576 &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t 3 +DUULV &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y 6SLNHV &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y 6WDQOH\ -8525 5(63216( -8525 5(63216( 3(5&(17$*(6 YLL

PAGE 9

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nV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW LQ )RXU UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DQDO\]HG +RZ FORVHO\ GR EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU EHKDYLRU LQ FRXUWURRPV GXULQJ FULPLQDO WULDOV" :KDW LPSDFW GR WKH JXLGHOLQHV KDYH RQ FRYHUDJH" 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDO SURFHHGLQJV" 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DW WKH WULDO FRXUW OHYHO" YLLL

PAGE 10

7KH SULPDU\ PHWKRG RI GDWD FROOHFWLRQ ZDV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZV ZLWK WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG SULRU WR WKH REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG DQG GXULQJ HDFK WULDO &RQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI WULDO FRYHUDJH SUHVHQWHG E\ IRXU EURDGFDVW VWDWLRQV ZDV DOVR LQFOXGHG 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH JHQHUDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK PHGLD EHKDYLRU E\ FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV -XURU H[LW SROOV b UHVSRQVH UDWHf DSSHDU WR XSKROG WKHVH UHVXOWV UHVSRQGHQWV VHOHFWHG DQVZHUV PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b RI WKH WLPH DQVZHUV QHXWUDO WRZDUG WKH SUHVV b DQG DQVZHUV OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b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

PAGE 11

7KH ILUVW IXOO VWXG\ RI DFWXDO FRXUWURRP EHKDYLRU LV RI OLPLWHG JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ +RZHYHU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK VKRXOG YDOLGDWH LWV ILQGLQJV WKDW WUDGLWLRQDO VSHFXODWLRQ DV WR SRVVLEOH GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV E\ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DSSHDUV WR EH XQZDUUDQWHG [

PAGE 12

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nV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW LQ 7UDGLWLRQDO REMHFWLRQV WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KDYH UHYROYHG DURXQG WKHLU SUHVXPHG LPSDFW RQ WKH SURFHVV RI WKH WULDO /HJDO VFKRODUV KDYH GLVFXVVHG WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDO DVSHFWV RI FRYHUDJH DQG VRFLDO VFLHQWLILF UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG LQ H[SHULPHQWDO VHWWLQJV WR WHVW DSSDUHQW HIIHFWV 1RZ WKDW QHZV FDPHUDV DUH DOORZHG LQ FRXUWURRPV LW LV WLPH WR H[DPLQH WKHLU DFWXDO UROH LQ QHZV PHGLD FRYHUDJH RI WKH

PAGE 13

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f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

PAGE 14

+RZHYHU WKH GHFLVLRQV LQ D KDOI GR]HQ +LJK &RXUW FDVHV LQ PRUH UHFHQW WLPHV PD\ EH EULHIO\ PHQWLRQHG WR KLJKOLJKW VXFK LVVXHV DV SULRU UHVWUDLQW JDJ RUGHUV DQG DFFHVV WR FRXUWVEHIRUH WXUQLQJ WR WKH VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV f§DV WKH &RXUW EDODQFHV WKH ULJKWV RI WKH SUHVV WR UHSRUW FRXUW SURFHHGLQJV DJDLQVW WKH GHIHQGDQWnV ULJKW WR UHFHLYH D WULDO E\ DQ LPSDUWLDO MXU\ 2I SDUWLFXODU UHOHYDQFH LV 1HEUDVND 3UHVV $VVQ Y 6WXDUW 86 f ,Q WKLV FDVH LQ DGYDQFH RI D WULDO RI D 1HEUDVND IDUPKDQG IRU WKH PXUGHUV RI DOO VL[ PHPEHUV RI D IDPLO\ IRU ZKLFK WKH GHIHQGDQW ZDV XOWLPDWHO\ FRQYLFWHGf WKH MXGJH RUGHUHG DOO QHZV PHGLD WR UHIUDLQ IURP SXEOLVKLQJ DQ\ FRQIHVVLRQV RU RWKHU IDFWV VWURQJO\ LPSOLFDWLYH RI WKH DFFXVHG 6SHDNLQJ IRU D XQDQLPRXV &RXUW &KLHI -XVWLFH :DUUHQ %XUJHU KHOG WKDW WKH WULDO MXGJH VKRXOG KDYH FRQVLGHUHG DOWHUQDWLYH PHDQV RI SURWHFWLQJ WKH GHIHQGDQWnV ULJKWV VXFK DV FKDQJH RI YHQXH FRQWLQXDQFH VWULFW YRLU GLUH DGPRQLWLRQV RU VHTXHVWHULQJ RI WKH MXU\ LQ SUHIHUHQFH WR WKH UHVWUDLQWV RQ WKH SUHVV $FFRUGLQJ WR %XUJHU f>3@ULRU UHVWUDLQWV RQ VSHHFK DQG SXEOLFDWLRQ DUH WKH PRVW VHULRXV DQG WKH OHDVW WROHUDEOH LQIULQJHPHQW RQ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW ULJKWV DW f $ VHFRQG DUHD LQ ZKLFK WKH &RXUW PXVW EDODQFH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW DQG 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW ULJKWV UHJDUGV DFFHVV WR FRXUWV KHUH WRR WKH &RXUW JHQHUDOO\ WLSV WKH VFDOH LQ

PAGE 15

IDYRU RI IUHH H[SUHVVLRQ DOWKRXJK OHVV DEVROXWHO\ WKDQ LQ WKH FDVH RI SULRU UHVWUDLQWV 7KH &RXUW KHOG LQ &UDLJ Y +DUQH\ 86 f WKDW >$@ WULDO LV D SXEOLF HYHQW :KDW WUDQVSLUHV LQ WKH FRXUW URRP LV SXEOLF SURSHUW\ 7KRVH ZKR VHH DQG KHDU ZKDW WUDQVSLUHG FDQ UHSRUW LW ZLWK LPSXQLW\ DW f $OWKRXJK LQ *DQQHWW Y 'H3DVTXDOH 86 f WKH &RXUW KHOG WKH SUHVV KDG QR FRQVWLWXWLRQDO ULJKW WR DWWHQG SUHWULDO KHDULQJV LQ D ODWHU FDVH 3UHVV(QWHUSULVH Y 5LYHUVLGH 6XS &W 86 f WKH &RXUW KHOG WKH GHIHQGDQW PXVW VKRZ RSHQQHVV ZRXOG FDXVH VXEVWDQWLDO SUREDELOLW\ RI GDQJHU WR D IUHH WULDO KRZHYHU WKH FRXUW HPSKDVL]HG WKH TXDOLILHG QDWXUH RI WKH SUHVXPSWLRQ RI RSHQQHVV $ \HDU DIWHU *DQQHWW WKH &RXUW VZLWFKLQJ IURP D 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW WR D )LUVW $PHQGPHQW DSSURDFK UXOHG WKDW FORVLQJ D WULDO DEVHQW DQ RYHUULGLQJ FRPSHWLQJ LQWHUHVW YLRODWHG WKH )LUVW DQG )RXUWHHQWK $PHQGPHQWV $OWKRXJK 5LFKPRQG 1HZVSDSHUV Y 9LUJLQLD 86 f GLG QRW RYHUUXOH *DQQHWWLQVWHDG GLVWLQJXLVKLQJ RQ JURXQGV RI WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ D SUHWULDO KHDULQJ DQG D WULDO5LFKPRQG LV JHQHUDOO\ UHJDUGHG DV D ODQGPDUN FDVH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ SUHVV ULJKWV RI DFFHVV ,Q 5LFKPRQG WKH &RXUW KHOG D GHIHQGDQWnV UHTXHVW WR H[FOXGH WKH SXEOLF IURP KLV WULDO VKRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ JUDQWHG -XVWLFH :DUUHQ %XUJHU MRLQHG E\ :KLWH DQG 6WHYHQVf GLVFXVVHG WKH KLVWRU\ RI RSHQ WULDOV 3HRSOH LQ DQ RSHQ

PAGE 16

VRFLHW\ GR QRW GHPDQG LQIDOOLELOLW\ IURP WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV EXW LW LV GLIILFXOW IRU WKHP WR DFFHSW ZKDW WKH\ DUH SURKLELWHG IURP REVHUYLQJ DW f DQG KH FRQFOXGHG 3ODLQO\ LW ZRXOG EH GLIILFXOW WR VLQJOH RXW DQ\ DVSHFW RI JRYHUQPHQW RI KLJKHU FRQFHUQ DQG LPSRUWDQFH WR WKH SHRSOH WKDQ WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK FULPLQDO WULDOV DUH FRQGXFWHG DW f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n VWDWHPHQWV RXWVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP DQ DOWHUQDWLYH WR FORVHG FRXUWURRPV RIIHUHG E\ 6KHSSDUG Y 0D[ZHOO 86 f PD\ EHFRPH PRUH DWWUDFWLYH WR MXGJHV 7KLV DSSDUHQW WUHQG DPRQJ MXGJHV XSRQ ZKRP UHVWV WKH LQLWLDO EXUGHQ RI EDODQFLQJ WKH ULJKWV RI WKH SUHVV DQG WKH ULJKWV RI WKH GHIHQGDQW LV QRWHZRUWK\ 0HQWLRQ RI FORVHO\ UHODWHG LVVXHV FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKH +LJK &RXUW LV UHOHYDQW LQ DQ\ GLVFXVVLRQ RI )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO )RU LQVWDQFH UHJDUGLQJ FRQWHPSW WKH &RXUW KDV

PAGE 17

OLPLWHG WKH SRZHU RI MXGJHV WR SXQLVK IRU SXEOLFDWLRQ RI PDWHULDO REWDLQHG RXW RI FRXUW %ULGJHV Y &D 86 f $V IRU PDWHULDO REWDLQHG GXULQJ WKH WULDO WKH SUHVV PXVW IROORZ WKH MXGJHnV RUGHUV HYHQ LI WKH\ DUH ODWHU GHWHUPLQHG XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO 86 Y 'LFNLQVRQ )G WK &LU %XW IRU D GLIIHUHQW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ VHH 86 Y 3URYLGHQFH -RXUQDO 86 GLVPLVVHG RQ SURFHGXUDO JURXQGV WKH DSSHDOV FRXUW KDG KHOG WKDW LI WKH SXEOLVKHU PDGH D JRRG IDLWK HIIRUW WR DSSHDO D WUDQVSDUHQWO\ XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO RUGHU DQG ZDV GHQLHG D KHDULQJ KH PLJKW JR DKHDG DQG SXEOLVK LQ WKH LQWHULPf +RZHYHU LW LV LQ WKH ILQDO DUHD RI )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO FRQIOLFW FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV WKDW WKH ODZ LV PRVW XQVHWWOHG LQ WKH +LJK &RXUWnV ZHLJKLQJ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW YHUVXV 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW ULJKWV (YHQ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW DEVROXWLVWV VXFK DV -XVWLFH :LOOLDP 'RXJODV KDYH GHFULHG FDPHUDV DV DQ LQVLGLRXV LQWUXVLRQ LQWR WKH GHFRUXP RI WKH FRXUW DQG WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH &XULRXV +LVWRU\ RI &DQRQ &DQRQ WKH $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQnV SURKLELWLRQ DJDLQVW FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV VWRRG YLUWXDOO\ LQWDFW IRU QHDUO\ \HDUV 2QO\ UHFHQWO\ KRZHYHU KDYH WKH UHYLVLRQLVWV EURXJKW RQH RU WZR FXULRXV DVSHFWV RI WKH LVVXH WR OLJKW )RU LQVWDQFH LW KDG JHQHUDOO\ EHHQ DFFHSWHG WKDW WKH EHKDYLRU RI FDPHUDPHQ LQVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP DW WKH WULDO RI

PAGE 18

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

PAGE 19

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
PAGE 20

WUDGLWLRQDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH +DXSWPDQQ WULDO ZHUH LQGHHG LQFRUUHFW 7KH FDUQLYDO DWPRVSKHUHf LQ WKH FRXUWURRP ZDV QRW FUHDWHG SULPDULO\ E\ SKRWRJUDSKHUV EXW E\ SUHMXGLFLDO SUHVV UHSRUWV FRQWHPSWXRXV VWDWHPHQWV E\ WKH WULDO DWWRUQH\V DQG SROLFH WKH URZG\ EHKDYLRU RI WKH VSHFWDWRUV FUDPPHG LQVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP E\ WKH WRR QXPHURXV UHSRUWHUV ZKR GHVFHQGHG RQ WKH WULDO DQG E\ WKH QHJOHFWIXO MXGJH 7KH $%$ DSSRLQWHG D 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH RQ 3XEOLFLW\ LQ &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV KHDGHG E\ -XGJH 2VFDU +DOODP WR VWXG\ WKH SUREOHPV FDXVHG E\ SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI WKH +DXSWPDQQ WULDO DQG +DOODPnV 5HSRUW RI WKH 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH RQ 3XEOLFLW\ LQ &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV FLWHG IRXU VSHFLILF UHDVRQV IRU WKH FRPPLWWHHnV REMHFWLRQV WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV VRXQG UHSURGXFWLRQ GLG QRW DOORZ IRU GHOHWLRQ RI RIIHQVLYH PDWWHU FDPHUDV LQFOXGHG LQDGPLVVLEOH DQG SUHMXGLFLDO PDWHULDO FDPHUDV GUDPDWL]HG FRXUW SURFHHGLQJV DQG WKH XVH RI FDPHUDV LH UDGLRf EURXJKW WKH UHYROWLQJ GHWDLOV RI D PXUGHU WULDO LWV FULPH VWRU\ DQG LWV VHQVDWLRQDO PDWWHU WR FKLOGUHQ RI DOO DJHV +DOODP DQG KLV FRPPLWWHHnV VWURQJ REMHFWLRQ WR FRYHUDJH PD\ KDYH EHHQ WKH PRVW LQIOXHQWLDO DVSHFW RI WKH HYHQWV ZKLFK XOWLPDWHO\ OHG WR WKH IODW EDQ RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV &DQRQ 7KH $%$nV 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH RQ 3UHVV 5DGLR DQG %DU FKDLUHG E\ 1HZWRQ %DNHU VXFFHHGHG +DOODPnV FRPPLWWHH LQ 7KHUH ZHUH VHYHQ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKH $PHULFDQ

PAGE 21

1HZVSDSHU 3XEOLVKHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ $13$f RQ WKH QHZ FRPPLWWHH DQG ILYH ZKR UHSUHVHQWHG WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI 1HZVSDSHU (GLWRUV $61(f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

PAGE 22

WR LPSOHPHQW FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJHQRW ZKHWKHU FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH VKRXOG EH DOORZHG 2Q 6HSWHPEHU WKH $%$ FRQYHQWLRQ GHOHJDWHV YRWHG WR DFFHSW WKH %DNHU &RPPLWWHH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG WR H[WHQG WKH %DNHU &RPPLWWHH IRU DQRWKHU \HDU VR WKDW WKH ILQDO LVVXH RI FRQIOLFWVSHFLILFV RI FRQWURO RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV FRXOG EH UHVROYHG 7KHQ MXVW WKUHH GD\V DIWHU WKH %DNHU 5HSRUW ZDV DFFHSWHG WKH VDPH GHOHJDWHV DW WKH VDPH $%$ FRQYHQWLRQ YRWHG ZLWKRXW GLVFXVVLRQ WR DFFHSW D SDFNDJH RI UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IURP WKH 6WDQGLQJ &RPPLWWHH RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO (WKLFV 7KLV SDFNDJH LQFOXGHG D IODW EDQ RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV &DQRQ ,PSURSHU 3XEOLFL]LQJ RI &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV 3URFHHGLQJV LQ FRXUW VKRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG ZLWK ILWWLQJ GLJQLW\ DQG GHFRUXP 7KH WDNLQJ RI SKRWRJUDSKV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP GXULQJ VHVVLRQV RI WKH FRXUW RU UHFHVVHV EHWZHHQ VHVVLRQV DQG WKH EURDGFDVWLQJ RI VXFK SURFHHGLQJV DUH FDOFXODWHG WR GHWUDFW IURP WKH HVVHQWLDO GLJQLW\ RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV GHJUDGH WKH FRXUW DQG FUHDWH PLVFRQFHSWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WKHUHWR LQ WKH PLQG RI WKH SXEOLF DQG VKRXOG QRW EH SHUPLWWHG :K\ GLG WKH $%$ SDVV &DQRQ WKUHH GD\V DIWHU YRWLQJ WR DFFHSW WKH %DNHU &RPPLWWHH 5HSRUW ZKLFK FDOOHG IRU DQRWKHU \HDU WR ZRUN RXW VSHFLILFV RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH" :K\ ZRXOG DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ LJQRUH WZR \HDUVn ZRUN E\ RQH FRPPLWWHH VSHFLILFDOO\ DSSRLQWHG WR ZRUN RXW )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO JXLGHOLQHV DQG DGRSW D FRQIOLFWLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IURP D VWDQGLQJ FRPPLWWHH" 2QH SRWHQWLDO H[SODQDWLRQ OLHV LQ WKH SROLWLFV RI WKH $%$

PAGE 23

7KH SULQFLSDO $%$ PHPEHU RQ WKH 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHHWKH RQH ZKR LURQLFDOO\f ZDV VHOHFWHG DFWXDOO\ WR GHOLYHU WKH %DNHU 5HSRUW WR WKH $%$ FRQYHQWLRQf§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

PAGE 24

(QWLUHO\ ZLWKRXW UHIHUHQFH WR WKH ZRUN RI WKH 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH RQ &RRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH 0HGLD WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO (WKLFV DQG *ULHYDQFHV SURSRVHG WKH DGRSWLRQ RI D QHZ FDQRQf§WKH SUHVHQW &DQRQ ,WV PRWLRQ ZDV FDUULHG ZLWKRXW GLVFXVVLRQ &DQRQ ZDV QRW RQO\ GUDVWLF EXW SXQLWLYH LQ HIIHFWf§WKH YHU\ DQWLWKHVLV RI ZKDW WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ &RRSHUDWLRQ ZDV VWULYLQJ IRU ,WV DGRSWLRQ ZDV D UHEXII QRW RQO\ WR WKH 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH EXW WR WKH PHGLD FRPPLWWHHV DV ZHOO ,WV DGRSWLRQ SRLQWHG XS QRW RQO\ D GHHSVHDWHG FRQIOLFW ZLWKLQ WKLV $VVRFLDWLRQ EXW DQ HTXDOO\ GHHSVHDWHG UHVHQWPHQW E\ VRPH PHPEHUV RI WKLV $VVRFLDWLRQ DJDLQVW WKH PHGLD 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 'HFLVLRQV DQG &DPHUDV LQ 6WDWH &RXUWV &DQRQ UHPDLQHG LQ HIIHFW IRU PRUH WKDQ \HDUV 7KH $%$ &RPPLWWHH RQ (WKLFV KDQGHG GRZQ D KDQGIXO RI RSLQLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH &DQRQ 7KHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH VLJQLILFDQW UHYLVLRQ WHOHYLVLRQ ZDV VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGHG WR WKH SURKLELWLRQ LQ $OWKRXJK WKHUH ZDV FRQWLQXHG GHEDWH DERXW UHYLVLQJ RU HYHQ UHYRNLQJ &DQRQ DQG VRPH FRYHUDJH ZDV SHUPLWWHG LQ VXFK VWDWH FRXUWV DV .DQVDV E\ VWDWH EDU DVVRFLDWLRQV HYHU\ZKHUH EXW LQ &RORUDGR DQG 7H[DV KDG DGRSWHG EDQV RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 0RUHRYHU IURP WKURXJK WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDG RYHUWXUQHG FRQYLFWLRQV LQ ILYH FDVHV GXH WR ODFN RI GXH SURFHVV FDXVHG E\ SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ RU SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI WULDOV 7ZR RI WKHVH FDVHV (VWHV Y 7H[DV DQG 6KHSSDUG Y 0D[ZHOO WR GLIIHUHQW GHJUHHV KDG LQYROYHG WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUDV (VWHV Y 7H[DV 86 f LV FRQVLGHUHG WKH ILUVW RI WZR ODQGPDUN FRXUWURRP FDPHUD FDVHV WKH VHFRQG EHLQJ &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 86 f 7KH FRXUW

PAGE 25

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f &KLHI -XVWLFH :DUUHQ MRLQHG E\ -XVWLFHV 'RXJODV DQG *ROGEHUJf FRQFXUUHG FLWLQJ WKH LQKHUHQW SUHMXGLFH RI WHOHYLVHG WULDOV DW f -XVWLFH +DUODQ OLPLWHG KLV FRQFXUUHQFH KH ZDQWHG WR HQFRXUDJH H[SHULPHQWDWLRQ GHVSLWH WHOHYLVLRQnV PLVFKLHYRXV SRWHQWLDOLWLHV DW f -XVWLFH 6WHZDUW MRLQHG E\ %ODFN %UHQQDQ DQG :KLWHf GLVVHQWHG VD\LQJ 7KH LGHD RI LPSRVLQJ XSRQ DQ\ PHGLXP RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKH EXUGHQ RI MXVWLI\LQJ LWV SUHVHQFH LV FRQWUDU\ WR ZKHUH KDG DOZD\V WKRXJKW WKH SUHVXPSWLRQ PXVW OLH LQ WKH DUHD RI )LUVW $PHQGPHQW IUHHGRPV DW f -XVWLFHV :KLWH DQG %UHQQDQ DOVR DGGHG VHSDUDWH GLVVHQWV ZLWK -XVWLFH %UHQQDQnV SRLQWLQJ RXW WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI +DUODQnV YRWH DQG LQVLVWLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV QRW D EODQNHW FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURKLELWLRQ DW f +RZHYHU -XVWLFH %UHQQDQnV FDYHDW QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ WKH FDVH ZDV UHJDUGHG DV VXFK

PAGE 26

$OWKRXJK WKH GHFLVLRQ LQ 6KHSSDUG Y 0D[ZHOO GHDOW ZLWK SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ LW UHLQIRUFHG IRU PDQ\ WKH LGHD WKDW FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 6KHSSDUG UHSUHVHQWV SHUKDSV WKH PRVW HJUHJLRXV UHSRUWHG H[DPSOH RI SUHVV LQWHUIHUHQFH ZLWK GXH SURFHVV 'U 6DP 6KHSSDUG KDG EHHQ WULHG IRU PXUGHU RI KLV ZLIH LQ $ ILYHKRXU WKUHHGD\ LQTXHVW ZDV WHOHYLVHG OLYH D SULVRQHUnV FODLPV VKH KDG ERUQH 6KHSSDUGnV FKLOG ZHUH ZLGHO\ SXEOLFL]HG GXULQJ WKH WULDO D GHEDWH RQ WKH FDVH ZDV EURDGFDVW OLYH 7KH &RXUW KHOG -XVWLFH %ODFN GLVVHQWLQJ ZLWKRXW FRPPHQWf WKDW GXH SURFHVV KDG EHHQ GHQLHG DQG WKH FRQYLFWLRQ ZDV RYHUWXUQHG 2IWHQ RYHUORRNHG LQ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH FDVH LV WKH &RXUWn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f 7KH &RXUW VXJJHVWHG DOWHUQDWLYHV LQFOXGLQJ UHJXODWLQJ FRQGXFW RI WKH SUHVV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP LQVXODWLQJ WKH ZLWQHVVHV DQG FRQWUROOLQJ WKH EHKDYLRU RI WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KHVH VXJJHVWLRQV ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH

PAGE 27

$%$nV 5HDUGRQ 5HSRUW 7KH 5LJKWV RI )DLU 7ULDO DQG )UHH 3UHVV ZKLFK PDGH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DV WR KRZ WR DYRLG IXWXUH GXH SURFHVV SUREOHPV ZKLFK KDG UHVXOWHG LQ RYHUWXUQHG FRQYLFWLRQV $IWHU (VWHV DQG 6KHSSDUG WKH $%$ VWUHQJWKHQHG LWV SRVLWLRQ RQ &DQRQ ,Q WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ UHYLVHG LWV &RGH RI 3URIHVVLRQDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG &DQRQ EHFDPH &DQRQ $f 7KH UHYLVHG FDQRQ DOORZHG FDPHUDV IRU XVH E\ WKH FRXUW IRU HGXFDWLRQDO SXUSRVHV RQO\ LQ HVVHQFH WKH EDQ UHPDLQHG )LQDOO\ DIWHU WKH &KDQGOHU GHFLVLRQ DQG WKH LQFUHDVH LQ XVH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ WKH VWDWHV DW WKH $%$ FRQYHQWLRQ WKH GHOHJDWHV YRWHG WR UHYLVH &DQQRQ $f WR DOORZ IRU EURDGFDVW QHZV FRYHUDJH DW WKH GLVFUHWLRQ RI HDFK VWDWHnV KLJK FRXUW &DQRQ $f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

PAGE 28

DWWLWXGH RI WKH $%$ ,Q WKH 3RVW1HZVZHHN WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQV LQ )ORULGD SHWLWLRQHG WKH )ORULGD 6XSUHPH &RXUW WR UHYLVH WKH VWDWHnV &DQRQ $f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

PAGE 29

UHFRJQL]HG ULJKW RI SULYDF\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D MXGLFLDO SURFHHGLQJ DW f 'XULQJ WKH 3RVW1HZVZHHN H[SHULPHQW WKH ILUVW WULDO WR EH WHOHYLVHG LQYROYHG D \HDUROG 0LDPL %HDFK ER\ 5RQQ\ =DPRUD DFFXVHG RI NLOOLQJ KLV HOGHUO\ QHLJKERU 7KH QRYHOW\ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DV ZHOO DV WKH QRYHO GHIHQVHf§ =DPRUDnV DWWRUQH\ DUJXHG WKH ER\ ZDV WKH YLFWLP RI WRR PXFK 79 ZDWFKLQJf§OHG WKH ORFDO SXEOLF WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ :3%7 WR SURYLGH JDYHOWRJDYHO FRYHUDJH RI WKH FDVH LQ 0LDPL DQG VWDWLRQV DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\ FDUULHG H[FHUSWV :LWK GR]HQV RI UHSRUWHUV IURP DURXQG WKH ZRUOG FRYHULQJ WKH FDVH WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU D UHSHDW RI (VWHV RU 6KHSSDUG H[LVWHG +RZHYHU WKH FDVH ZDV H[WHQVLYHO\ VWXGLHG DQG WKH JHQHUDO FRQFOXVLRQ DPRQJ UHVHDUFKHUV DQG OHJDO FRPPHQWDWRUV ZDV WKH FRYHUDJH GLG QRW DIIHFW =DPRUDfV 6L[WK RU )RXUWHHQWK $PHQGPHQW ULJKWV ,Q WKH VHFRQG ODQGPDUN FDPHUD FDVH nV &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD WZR SROLFHPHQ LQ 0LDPL %HDFK DSSHDOHG WKHLU FRQYLFWLRQV IRU EXUJODU\ RQ WKH JURXQGV WKH\ KDG QRW KDG D IDLU WULDO GXH WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI FDPHUDV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WKHLU WULDO KDG DOVR WDNHQ SODFH GXULQJ )ORULGDnV \HDUORQJ H[SHULPHQW ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZKLFK DOORZHG FRYHUDJH GHVSLWH WKH GHIHQGDQWVn REMHFWLRQV /HVV WKDQ WKUHH PLQXWHV RI WKH WULDO KDG EHHQ EURDGFDVW DOO RI LW IURP WKH SURVHFXWLRQnV FDVH &KLHI -XVWLFH :DUUHQ %XUJHU GHOLYHUHG WKH RSLQLRQ RI WKH FRXUW ZKLFK XSKHOG WKH FRQYLFWLRQV RQ

PAGE 30

WKH JURXQGV WKH PHUH SUHVHQFH RI FDPHUDV GLG QRW YLRODWH WKH GHIHQGDQWVn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nV H[SHULPHQW ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DW f -XVWLFHV 6WHZDUW DQG :KLWH HDFK ZURWH VHSDUDWH FRQFXUUHQFHV VD\LQJ WKH\ IHOW LW QHFHVVDU\ WR RYHUWXUQ (VWHV DW f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n ULJKWV

PAGE 31

6LQFH )ORULGDn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f $IWHU &KDQGOHU LQ WKUHH FDVHV )ORULGD Y 5XVVHOO 0HG / 5SWU )ORULGD Y 3U\RU 0HG / 5SWU DQG )ORULGD Y *DUFLD 0HG / 5SWU f WKH FRXUWV GHQLHG SHWLWLRQV WR H[FOXGH FDPHUDV RQ JURXQGV RI IDLOXUH WR PHHW WKH TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQWLDO WHVW LH WKH VXJJHVWLRQ LQ 3RVW1HZVZHHN WKDW WKH EXUGHQ ZRXOG EH RQ WKH GHIHQGDQW WR VKRZ HOHFWURQLF FRYHUDJH ZRXOG KDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW LPSDFW IURP SULQW FRYHUDJH D GLIIHUHQFH ZKLFK ZRXOG DIIHFW GXH SURFHVV ULJKWV ,Q WZR VHQVLWLYH FDVHV RQH LQYROYLQJ D MXYHQLOH FKDUJHG ZLWK NLOOLQJ KLV SDUHQWV ,Q 5H %3 0HG / 5SWU f DQG RQH LQYROYLQJ D GHIHQGDQW FKDUJHG ZLWK UDSH /DQJ Y 7DPSD 79 0HG / 5SWU f WHOHYLVLRQ

PAGE 32

FDPHUDV ZHUH SHUPLWWHG DOWKRXJK VKRZLQJ WKH MXYHQLOH LQ WKH IRUPHU DQG WKH YLFWLP LQ WKH ODWWHU ZHUH SURKLELWHGf $OVR LQ )ORULGD Y 3DOP %HDFK 1HZVSDSHUV 6R G f WKH FRXUW KHOG WKDW DOWKRXJK LW PLJKW KDYH JUDQWHG D UHTXHVW WR H[FOXGH FDPHUDV ZKHQ SULVRQHU ZLWQHVVHV DW D FRQYLFWnV PXUGHU WULDO UHIXVHG WR WHVWLI\ ZLWK FDPHUDV SUHVHQW 7KH HOHFWURQLF PHGLDnV SUHVHQFH LQ )ORULGDnV FRXUWURRPV LV GHVLUDEOH EXW LW LV QRW LQGLVSHQVLEOH DW f LQ WKLV VSHFLILF FDVH WKH H[FOXVLRQDU\ KHDULQJ KDG EHHQ IDXOW\ DQG WKH LVVXH ZDV PRRW LQ DQ\ FDVHf /LNHZLVH )ORULGD FRXUWV UDUHO\ RYHUWXUQ FRQYLFWLRQV ZKHUH FDPHUDV DUH DOOHJHG WR KDYH LQWHUIHUHG ZLWK GXH SURFHVV 2QH H[FHSWLRQDO FDVH ZDV )ORULGD Y *UHHQ 6R G f LQ ZKLFK WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI FDPHUDV IURP D ODZ\HUnV JUDQG ODUFHQ\ FDVH KDG EHHQ GHQLHG HYHQ WKRXJK WKH GHIHQGDQWnV SV\FKRORJLVW KDG WHVWLILHG FRYHUDJH ZRXOG UHQGHU KHU FOLHQW LQFRPSHWHQW WR VWDQG WULDO WKH FRXUW UHPDQGHG IRU D QHZ WULDO %XW DW OHDVW WKUHH RWKHU DWWHPSWV WR KDYH PXUGHU FRQYLFWLRQV LQ )ORULGD FRXUWV RYHUWXUQHG RQ JURXQGV LQFOXGLQJ SUHVHQFH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZHUH GHQLHG RQ JURXQGV RI IDLOXUH WR VKRZ LQWHUIHUHQFH ZLWK GXH SURFHVV &ODUN Y )ORULGD 6R G f .LQJ Y )ORULGD 6R G f DQG WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG +HUPDQ Y )ORULGD 6R G VHQWHQFLQJ SDUWLDOO\ UHYHUVHG RQ RWKHU JURXQGVf

PAGE 33

$V )ORULGD DQG WKH RWKHU VWDWHV KDYH FRQWLQXHG WR H[SHULPHQW ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV WZR PRGHVW WUHQGV DPRQJ UHSRUWHG FDVHV PLJKW EH QRWHG 7KH ILUVW LV WRZDUG PRUH JHQHUDOO\ DOORZLQJ FDPHUDV LQWR WKH FRXUWV DEVHQW H[FHSWLRQDO FLUFXPVWDQFHV )RU LQVWDQFH LQ RQO\ D KDQGIXO RI UHSRUWHG FDVHV KDYH FDPHUDV EHHQ GHQLHG HQWU\ %HIRUH &KDQGOHU 7ULEXQH 5HYLHZ Y 7KRPDV )G f XSKHOG WKH 3HQQV\OYDQLD EDQ DIWHU &KDQGOHU .$5.79 Y /RIWRQ 0HG / 5SWU f XSKHOG WKH $UNDQVDV SURYLVLRQ DOORZLQJ H[FOXVLRQ RI FDPHUDV XSRQ WKH GHIHQGDQWnV UHTXHVW ,Q *HRUJLD D EDQ ZDV XSKHOG LQ WKH VHQVDWLRQDO FKLOGPXUGHU FDVH RI :D\QH :LOOLDPV *HRUJLD Y :LOOLDPV 0HG / 5SWU f DIWHU WHVWLPRQ\ WKDW SV\FKRORJLFDO KDUP PLJKW EH LQIOLFWHG RQ FKLOG YLHZHUV $ VHFRQG EDQ LQ *HRUJLD ZDV XSKHOG LQ WKH FDVH RI D UHWULDO RI D GHIHQGDQW ZKRVH SULRU FRQYLFWLRQ KDG EHHQ YDFDWHG GXH WR H[WHQVLYH SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ *HRUJLD 79 Y *HRUJLD 6(G f $QG LQ 1HZ
PAGE 34

WKH GHIHQGDQWnV REMHFWLRQV )RU LQVWDQFH WKHUH KDYH EHHQ WKUHH FDVHV LQ 2KLR ([ 5HO *ULQQHOO &RPPXQLFDWLRQV Y /RYH 1(G 2KLR ([ 5HO 0LDPL 9DOOH\ %URDGFDVWLQJ Y .HVVOHU 1(G DQG 2KLR ([ 5HO &RVPRV %URDGFDVWLQJ Y %URZQ 1(G GHFLVLRQ EDVHG RQ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW JURXQGV>8@QOHVV WKHUH LV DQ RYHUULGLQJ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WR WKH FRQWUDU\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKH HOHFWURQLF QHZV PHGLD PXVW EH DOORZHG WR EULQJ WKHLU WHFKQRORJ\ ZLWK WKHP LQWR WKH FRXUWURRP DW f 7KXV WKH PHGLD KDYH VXFFHVVIXOO\ VXUYLYHG FKDOOHQJHV WR HQWU\ WR WKH FRXUWURRP )XUWKHU H[DPSOHV LQFOXGH FDVHV LQ 1HZ 0H[LFR 1HZ 0H[LFR H[ UHO -RXUQDO 3XEOLVKLQJ Y $OOHQ 0HG / 5SWU DOWKRXJK WKH LVVXH ZDV PRRWf LQ :LVFRQVLQ :LVFRQVLQ Y .RSXW 0HG / 5SWU f LQ WZR FDVHV LQ *HRUJLD 0XOWLPHGLD Y *HRUJLD 6(G DOWKRXJK WKH LVVXH ZDV PRRW DQG *HRUJLD 79 Y 1DSSHU 0HG / 5SWU f§DOORZLQJ FRYHUDJH RI KHDULQJV RQ DOOHJDWLRQV RI GUXJ XVH E\ IRUPHU 6WDWH 6HQDWRU -XOLDQ %RQGf LQ .DQVDV .DQVDV Y *DUUHWW 0HG / 5SWU DOWKRXJK FRYHUDJH RI WKH GHIHQGDQW ZDV SURKLELWHGf DQG LQ 1HZ
PAGE 35

FDPHUD XVDJH 7UXH D IHZ FRQYLFWLRQV ZHUH RYHUWXUQHG IRU LQVWDQFH LQ RQH HDUO\ ,OOLQRLV FDVH 3HRSOH Y 0XQGD\ 1( f WKH FRQYLFWLRQ ZDV RYHUWXUQHG RQ VHYHUDO JURXQGV LQFOXGLQJ DFWXDO LQWHUUXSWLRQ RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV E\ SKRWRJUDSKHUV $QG WKH IOXUU\ RI UHYHUVDOV LQ WKH :DUUHQ &RXUW \HDUV RI WKH V DOWKRXJK QRQH EXW (VWHV VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQYROYHG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDVf KDV DOUHDG\ EHHQ QRWHG /LNHZLVH D FRQYLFWLRQ ZDV RYHUWXUQHG LQ +XGVRQ Y *HRUJLD 6(G f LQ WKDW FDVH D UDGLR PLFURSKRQH KDG EHHQ SODFHG ZLWKLQ ILYH IHHW RI WKH GHIHQVH WDEOH ,Q &DOODKDQ Y /DVK ) 6XSS LQYROYLQJ D FRQYLFWLRQ IRU PXUGHU RI D SROLFH RIILFHUf D QHZ WULDO ZDV RUGHUHG RQ GXH SURFHVV JURXQGV LQFOXGLQJ WKH SUHVHQFH RI IRXU FDPHUDV LQVLGH DQ H[FHVVLYHO\ FOXWWHUHG FRXUWURRP +RZHYHU ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG )ORULGD Y *UHHQ LW DSSHDUV QR FRQYLFWLRQV KDYH EHHQ RYHUWXUQHG GXH WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV VLQFH &KDQGOHU $QG HYHQ EDFN LQ LQ &DOLIRUQLD LQ 3HRSOH Y 6WUREOH 3G f WKH FRXUW KDG KHOG WKDW DOWKRXJK DW WKDW WLPH FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZHUH LPSURSHU WKHUH ZDV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH MXU\nV YHUGLFW ZDV LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH WDNLQJ RI WKH SLFWXUHV RU WKH WHOHYLVLQJ RI FRXUWURRP VFHQHV DW f DQG WKH FRQYLFWLRQ KDG EHHQ XSKHOG $ VLPLODU GHFLVLRQ ZDV UHDFKHG LQ 2NODKRPD LQ /\OHV Y 2NODKRPD 3G f 7KH FRXUW KHOG WKDW WKH

PAGE 36

EDQV ZHUH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV QRW ODZ DQG WKDW %DVLFDOO\ WKHUH LV QR VRXQG UHDVRQ ZK\ SKRWRJUDSKHUV DQG WHOHYLVLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV VKRXOG QRW EH HQWLWOHG WR WKH VDPH SULYLOHJHV RI WKH FRXUWURRP DV RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH SUHVV DW f ,Q VHYHUDO RWKHU FDVHV WKH FRXUWV KDYH XSKHOG FRQYLFWLRQV GHVSLWH GXH SURFHVV FKDOOHQJHV LQFOXGLQJ UHIHUHQFH WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ([DPSOHV LQFOXGH *RQ]DOHV Y &RORUDGR 3G f 2UHJRQ Y :DPSOHU 3G f 1HZ -HUVH\ Y 1HZVRPH $G f :DVKLQJWRQ Y :L[RQ 3 G f DQG +DOVH\ Y %RQDU 6:G f 0RVW GUDPDWLFDOO\ LQ 0DVVDFKXVHWWV Y &RUGHLUR 1(G f WKH FRQYLFWLRQV RI WKH GHIHQGDQWV LQ WKH %LJ 'DQ 5DSH &DVH ZHUH XSKHOG GHVSLWH WKHLU FKDUJHV RI GHQLDO RI GXH SURFHVV 7KH GHIHQGDQWV FRQWHQGHG WKDW WKH MXGJHnV GHFLVLRQ DOORZLQJ EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI WKH WULDO EXW H[FOXGLQJ FRYHUDJH RI WKH DOOHJHG YLFWLP SUHMXGLFHG WKH MXURUV DJDLQVW WKHP WKH FRXUW KHOG LW ZDV ZLWKLQ WKH GLVFUHWLRQ RI WKH WULDO MXGJH WR FRQWURO FRYHUDJH 0RUHRYHU WKHUH VHHP WR EH IHZHU LQVWDQFHV RI WKH FRXUWVn XSKROGLQJ FRQWHPSW FRQYLFWLRQV RI WKRVH ZKR YLRODWH WKH EDQV 2QH RI WKH ILUVW FRQWHPSW FDVHV ,Q 5H 0DFN $G f LQYROYHG SKRWRJUDSKHUV VXSSRUWHG E\ QHZVSDSHU SXEOLVKHUV ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR D FRXUWnV VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH\ FKDOOHQJH WKH FRXUW EDQ E\ YLRODWLQJ LWf§DQG WKHLU VXEVHTXHQW FLWDWLRQV IRU FRQWHPSW ZHUH XSKHOG E\ WKH DSSHDOV

PAGE 37

FRXUW $SSHDOV &RXUW -XGJH 0LFKDHO 0XVPDQQRf§ZKR KDG EHHQ D MXGJH DW WKH 1XUHPEHUJ WULDOV ZKLFK KH SRLQWHG RXW KDG EHHQ WHOHYLVHGf§ZURWH D OHQJWK\ GLVVHQW WR WKH XOWLPDWH LQ ZKLFK KH VDLG WKH MRXUQDOLVWV KDG EHHQ GRXEOHFURVVHG E\ WKH FRXUW ,Q %UXPILHOG Y )OD 6R G f WKH FRQWHPSW FLWDWLRQV IRU SKRWRJUDSKHUV ZKR YLRODWHG D EDQ DJDLQVW SKRWRV RI D SULVRQHU RQ KLV ZD\ WR DUUDLJQPHQW ZHUH DOVR XSKHOG +RZHYHU IHZ H[DPSOHV RI XSKROGLQJ RI FRQWHPSW E\ WKH FRXUW LQ UHFHQW \HDUV WXUQ XS LQ WKH FDVH UHSRUWHUV $W DQ\ UDWH DV RI VWDWHV DOO EXW ,QGLDQD 0LVVLVVLSSL 0LVVRXUL 6RXWK &DUROLQD DQG 6RXWK 'DNRWDf§ DORQJ ZLWK WKH 'LVWULFW RI &ROXPELDff§SHUPLWWHG VRPH W\SH RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH 7H[DV DOORZV DXGLR FRYHUDJH RQO\ LQ DSSHOODWH FRXUWVf 6WDWHV DOORZLQJ FDPHUDV KDYH DGRSWHG JXLGHOLQHV JRYHUQLQJ VXFK LVVXHV DV FRYHUDJH RI FDVHV LQYROYLQJ MXYHQLOHV DV ZHOO DV WHVWLPRQ\ RI FHUWDLQ ZLWQHVVHV 1HZ
PAGE 38

7$%/( &$0(5$ &29(5$*( 2) 67$7( &28576 6WDWHV ZLWK 3HUPDQHQW 5XOHV (IIHFWLYH 'DWH &RXUWV ([SHULPHQWDO 3HUPDQHQW /HYHO 'LYLVLRQ $ODEDPDrrr 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDOr $UL]RQD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO $UNDQVDVrr 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO &DOLIRUQLD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO &RORUDGR 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDOr &RQQHFWLFXW 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO )ORULGD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO *HRUJLD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDOr +DZDLL 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO ,GDKR 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ %RLVH ,GDKR 6XSUHPH &RXUW RQ &LUFXLW ,OOLQRLV $SSHOODWH ,RZD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO .DQVDV 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH .HQWXFN\ 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO /RXLVLDQDrrrr $SSHOODWH 0DLQH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 0DU\ODQG $SSHOODWH 0DU\ODQGr r 7ULDO &LYLO 0DVVDFKXVHWWV $SSHOODWH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV 7ULDO &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 0LFKLJDQ 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 0LQQHVRWD $SSHOODWH 0RQWDQD 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HEUDVND 6XSUHPH &RXUW 1HZ +DPSVKLUH 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HZ -HUVH\ $SSHOODWH 1HZ -HUVH\ 7ULDO &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HZ 0H[LFR 'LVW t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HZ
PAGE 39

7DEOH f§&RQWLQXHG 6WDWHV ZLWK ([SHULPHQWDO 5XOHV (IIHFWLYH 3HULRG /HYHO 'LYLVLRQ 'DWH $ODVND 7R WKHQ SHUPDQHQW 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 'HODZDUH ([WHQGHG ,QGHILQLWHO\ 6XSUHPH &RXUW &LYLO ,GDKR ([WHQGHG ,QGHILQLWHO\ &RXUW RI $SSHDOV 0LQQHVRWDrr 8QRIILFLDOO\ ([WHQGHG 7ULDO &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HYDGD 8QRIILFLDOO\ ([WHQGHG 7ULDO t $SSHOODWH &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HZ -HUVH\ ,QGHILQLWH 0XQLFLSDO &RXUWV &LYLO t &ULPLQDO 1HZ
PAGE 40

7KH )HGHUDO &RXUWV &DPHUDV KDYH EHHQ EDQQHG IURP IHGHUDO FRXUWV VLQFH WKH DGRSWLRQ RI 5XOH RI WKH )HGHUDO 5XOHV RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH ,Q WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH DGRSWHG D UHVROXWLRQ SURKLELWLQJ FDPHUDV LQ DQ\ IHGHUDO FRXUWV WKXV LQFOXGLQJ FLYLO SURFHHGLQJV DQG LQ WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH LQFRUSRUDWHG WKH $%$ &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW &DQRQ $f $V GLVFXVVLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH LQ IHGHUDO FRXUWV JHQHUDOO\ KDV FHQWHUHG RQ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI FRYHUDJH LQ WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI WKH +LJK &RXUW LV DSSURSULDWH DW WKLV WLPH 7KH SUHVV FRUSV FRYHULQJ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDV JURZQ IURP IHZHU WKDQ KDOI D GR]HQ UHSRUWHUV LQ WKH V WR PRUH WKDQ WRGD\ LQFOXGLQJ FRUUHVSRQGHQWV IURP DOO WKUHH PDMRU WHOHYLVLRQ QHWZRUNV DQG &DEOH 1HZV 1HWZRUN &11f 0DQ\ UHSRUWHUV LQFOXGLQJ WKRVH IRU WKH WHOHYLVLRQ QHWZRUNV EHJLQQLQJ ZLWK 1%&nV &DUO 6WHUQ LQ IROORZHG E\ &%6n )UHG *UDKDP LQ DQG $%&nV 7LP 2n%ULHQ LQ f KDYH ODZ GHJUHHV ,Q UHVHDUFKHU (WKDQ .DWVK VWXGLHG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH WKUHH WHOHYLVLRQ QHWZRUNV FRYHUHG WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW +H UHSRUWHG WKDW IURP HDFK QHWZRUN KDG FRYHUHG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH RXW RI ILYH GHFLVLRQV KDQGHG GRZQ ZLWK RQH RXW RI WHQ RI WKH GHFLVLRQV DQDO\]HG E\ WKH QHWZRUNnV OHJDO FRUUHVSRQGHQW

PAGE 41

,Q UHVHDUFKHU 5LFKDUG 'DYLV LQFOXGHG &%6 1HZV FRYHUDJH DORQJ ZLWK WKDW RI WZR QHZVSDSHUVf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f WKH &RXUW DQQRXQFHV RSLQLRQV RQO\ RQ 7XHVGD\V DQG :HGQHVGD\V WKHQ LQ 0D\ DQG -XQH RQ 0RQGD\V DORQJ ZLWK WKH RUGHUV 7KHUH LV QR SULRU DQQRXQFHPHQW DV WR ZKHQ FDVHV ZLOO EH KDQGHG GRZQ 6LQFH WKH -XVWLFHV DQQRXQFH PRVW RSLQLRQV PDQ\ RI WKHP FRPSOH[ DQG FRQIXVLQJ HYHQ IRU PHPEHUV RI WKH OHJDO SURIHVVLRQ LQ WZR WR IRXU PLQXWHV VWDWLQJ RQO\ WKH UHVXOW RI HDFK FDVH

PAGE 42

$V .DWVK SRLQWV RXW DQQRXQFLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQV LQ FOXVWHUV RQ RQH RU WZR GD\V PDNHV LW OHVV OLNHO\ DQ\ VLQJOH GHFLVLRQ ZLOO EH FRYHUHG DV GRHV WKH SUDFWLFH RI DQQRXQFLQJ PRUH WKDQ RQH WKLUG RI WKH GHFLVLRQV LQ -XQH $%&nV 7LP 2n%ULHQ VD\V WKDW .DWVKfV VWXG\ RI WKH (YHQLQJ 1HZV OHDYHV RXW WKH RWKHU SHUFHQW RI QHZV DQG SXEOLF DIIDLUV SURJUDPPLQJ VXFK DV $%&nV 1LJKWOLQH ZKLFK H[SORUHV LVVXHV FRQIURQWLQJ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW +RZHYHU 2n%ULHQ GRHV FLWH WKH QHWZRUNVn PLQXWH OLPLW IRU WKH (YHQLQJ 1HZV FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH &RXUWnV WHQGHQF\ WR DQQRXQFH WKH SUHSRQGHUDQFH RI LWV GHFLVLRQV LQ -XQH DV DQ DQQXDO XQ\LHOGLQJ QLJKWPDUH )XUWKHUPRUH WKH YHLO RI VHFUHF\ VXUURXQGLQJ WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI WKH PHPEHUV RI WKH +LJK &RXUW LV ZHOO GRFXPHQWHG PRVW GUDPDWLFDOO\ LQ :RRGZDUG DQG $UPVWURQJnV 7KH %UHWKUHQf $W WLPHV ZKHQ UHSRUWHUV SHQHWUDWH WKH VKLHOG RI VHFUHF\ VXUURXQGLQJ WKH -XVWLFHV RU WKH &RXUW DV 135nV 1LQD 7RWHQEHUJ GLG LQ DQG $%&nV 2n%ULHQ GLG LQ f WKH &RXUW UHVSRQGV E\ OLPLWLQJ DFFHVV HYHQ PRUH $V 7LP 2n%ULHQ RQFH GHVFULEHG LW 0RVW -XVWLFHV DYRLG UHSRUWHUV OLNH OHSHUV 5HVHDUFKHU 'DYLV VXJJHVWV FHUWDLQ FRQVWLWXWLRQDO DQG SROLWLFDO ZHDNQHVVHV RI WKH &RXUWIRU LQVWDQFH WKH QHHG WR H[HUFLVH FDXWLRQ LQ GHILQLQJ LWV RZQ UROH LQ WKH QDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQWf§KDYH QHFHVVLWDWHG D QRUP RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO OR\DOW\ ZLWK LQGLYLGXDO -XVWLFHVn DYRLGLQJ DFWLRQV GHWULPHQWDO WR WKH &RXUW +RZHYHU WKH QRUP

PAGE 43

QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ VRPH LQGLYLGXDO -XVWLFHV KDYH UHFHQWO\ DOORZHG UHSRUWHUV LQFOXGLQJ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV WR LQWHUYLHZ WKHP VXFK DV -XVWLFH %UHQQDQ RQ 1%&nV 7RGD\ 6KRZ LQ $SULO DQG -XVWLFH %ODFNPXQ RQ WKH V\QGLFDWHG 6XSHULRU &RXUW LQ )HEUXDU\ RI DQG -XVWLFH %UHQQDQ RQ 135n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f§ZDV XQVXFFHVVIXO LQ &RPELQHG &RPPXQLFDWLRQV Y )LQHVLOYHU )G f WKH FRXUW KHOG WKH ORFDO UXOH EDQQLQJ HOHFWURQLF PHGLD LQ WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWKRXVH DSSOLHG DQG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH &RORUDGR 2SHQ 0HHWLQJV /DZ ZDV LUUHOHYDQW ,Q WKHQ 86 'LVWULFW -XGJH $OFHH +DVWLQJV RI 0LDPL XQVXFFHVVIXOO\ VXHG WR DOORZ FDPHUDV LQWR KLV WULDO IRU DOOHJHGO\ FRQVSLULQJ WR VROLFLW D EULEH $OWKRXJK KLV UHTXHVW ZDV GHQLHG DQG WKH GHQLDO XSKHOG RQ DSSHDO D FRQFXUULQJ MXGJH LQ WKH DSSHDOV FDVH VDLG WKH LVVXH RI FDPHUD

PAGE 44

FRYHUDJH RI IHGHUDO FRXUWV LV ULSH IRU UHFRQVLGHUDWLRQ E\ WKH DSSURSULDWH UXOHPDNLQJ DXWKRULW\ $ SHWLWLRQ E\ &%6 WR WHOHYLVH WKH OLEHO WULDOf§LQ ZKLFK WKH QHWZRUN QHZV GHSDUWPHQW ZDV WKH GHIHQGDQWf§EURXJKW E\ *HQHUDO :LOOLDP :HVWPRUHODQG ZDV GHQLHG :HVWPRUHODQG Y &%6 LQ UH :DLYHU )G f WKH DSSHDOV FRXUW KHOG WKDW DOWKRXJK LW DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW VXFK FRYHUDJH ZRXOG SURYLGH D SXEOLF VHUYLFH >8-QWLO WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW H[SDQGV WR LQFOXGH WHOHYLVLRQ DFFHVV WR WKH FRXUWURRP DV D SURWHFWHG LQWHUHVW WHOHYLVLRQ FRYHUDJH RI IHGHUDO WULDOV LV D ULJKW FUHDWHG E\ FRQVHQW RI WKH MXGLFLDU\ D FRQVHQW ZKLFK WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV KDYH QRW JLYHQ DW f $OVR LQ D QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHUnV UHTXHVW WR EULQJ D WDSH UHFRUGHU LQWR D FRXUWURRP LQ D FLYLO WULDO ZDV GHQLHG LQ 86 Y
PAGE 45

WULDO RI XQLRQ RIILFLDOV &RQZD\ Y 86 3UHVVHU )G WK &LU f +RZHYHU LQ DW OHDVW RQH FDVH 'RUIPDQ Y 0HLV]QHU )G f WKH FRXUW KHOG WKDW WKH ORFDO UXOH IRUELGGLQJ EURDGFDVWLQJ LQ D &KLFDJR FRXUWKRXVHIHGHUDO RIILFH EXLOGLQJ ZHQW EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW DQG SDUWV RI WKH EXLOGLQJ ZHUH RSHQHG WR WKH HOHFWURQLF PHGLD $QG LQ LQ +XWFKLQVRQ Y 0DUVKDOO 0HG / 5SWU f WKH IHGHUDO GLVWULFW FRXUW GLVPLVVHG WKH SHWLWLRQ RI D VWDWH SULVRQHU ZKR FRPSODLQHG DERXW D IRXU PRQWK GHOD\ LQ KLV WULDO ZKLOH WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQV FKDOOHQJHG EDQV RQ EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH 7KH 2KLR VWDWH FDVH ZDV GLVFXVVHG HDUOLHU ([ 5HO 0LDPL 9DOOH\ %URDGFDVWLQJf 0RUHRYHU DV LQ WKH VWDWH FRXUWV PRVW DWWHPSWV WR KDYH FRQYLFWLRQV RYHUWXUQHG RQ FRXUWURRPFDPHUDGXHSURFHVV JURXQGV KDYH JHQHUDOO\ IDLOHG LQ WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV )RU LQVWDQFH LQ %HOO Y 3DWWHUVRQ ) 6XSS f WKH FRXUW XSKHOG D PXUGHU FRQYLFWLRQ RQ YDULRXV JURXQGV GHVSLWH FKDUJHV RI GLVUXSWLRQ E\ SKRWRJUDSKHUV VWLOO DQG WHOHYLVLRQ DOORZHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP RQO\ IRU WKH YHUGLFWf ,Q 7H[DV ZKLFK DOORZHG FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWV XQWLO f LQ %UDGOH\ Y 7H[DV )G f DQ DLGLQJ DQG DEHWWLQJ PXUGHU FRQYLFWLRQ ZDV XSKHOG GHVSLWH FRPSODLQWV LQFOXGLQJ FDPHUD FRYHUDJH ,Q ,RZD WKH FRQYLFWLRQ IRU PXUGHU RI D SROLFH RIILFHU LQ =DHKULQJHU Y %UHZHU )G f ZDV XSKHOG ,Q =DHKULQJHU WKH FRXUW KHOG WKDW WHOHYLVLQJ RI WKH

PAGE 46

VHQWHQFLQJ KHDULQJ GHSULYHG WKH SHWLWLRQHU RI KLV ULJKW RI GXH SURFHVVf§ERWK WKH WULDO MXGJH DQG WKH SURVHFXWLQJ DWWRUQH\ ZHUH FDQGLGDWHV IRU UHHOHFWLRQ D PRQWK DIWHU WKH KHDULQJV DQG ILJXUHG SURPLQHQWO\ LQ WKH FRYHUDJH +RZHYHU WKH FRQYLFWLRQ ZDV XSKHOG GXH WR ODFN RI HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VHQWHQFH LWVHOI ZDV SUHMXGLFHG E\ WKH FDPHUDV ,Q DW OHDVW WZR FDVHV FRQWHPSW FLWDWLRQV IRU SKRWRJUDSKHUV YLRODWLQJ FDPHUD EDQV LQ IHGHUDO FRXUWV ZHUH XSKHOG RQ GXH SURFHVV JURXQGV ,Q 6H\PRXU Y 86 )G f D WHOHYLVLRQ QHZV SKRWRJUDSKHU LQ 7H[DV SKRWRJUDSKHG D GHIHQGDQW LQ WKH KDOOZD\ RXWVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP $QG LQ .DQVDV LQ D QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU ZDV FLWHG IRU FRQWHPSW IRU WDNLQJ SLFWXUHV RI IHGHUDO SULVRQHUV LQ SURKLELWHG DUHDV RI WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWKRXVH LQ ,Q UH 0D]]HWWL Y 86 )G f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

PAGE 47

WROG WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI 1HZVSDSHU (GLWRUV KH PLJKW FRQVLGHU DOORZLQJ &63$1 WR FRYHU DUJXPHQWV LQ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LI WKH FDEOH FKDQQHO FRXOG JXDUDQWHH IXOO SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV ZLWKRXW HGLWLQJf§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f§DQQRXQFHG WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH JUDQWHG WKH UHTXHVW $OVR LQ WKHQ GHDQ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI /DZ DW WKH )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ 7DOERW 6DQG\f 'n$OHPEHUWHf§D ORQJWLPH VXSSRUWHU RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDVVHQW &KLHI -XVWLFH :LOOLDP 5HKQTXLVW D SURSRVDO IRU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FDPHUD FRYHUDJH XQGHU WKH DXVSLFHV RI )68 DQG WKH $PHULFDQ -XGLFDWXUH 6RFLHW\ 'n$OHPEHUWH VXJJHVWHG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV -XVWLFH $QWRQLQ 6FDOLD ZKR PLJKW UHSUHVHQW D YRWH IRU FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQGLFDWHG WR PHPEHUV RI WKH )HGHUDO

PAGE 48

&RPPXQLFDWLRQV %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ WKDW LI EURDGFDVWHUV ZRXOG DLU DUJXPHQWV LQ WKHLU HQWLUHW\ KH ZRXOG QRW REMHFW WR FDPHUDV $QG -XVWLFH %UHQQDQ VWDWHG LQ DQ 135 LQWHUYLHZ LQ GRQn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f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

PAGE 49

)LQDOO\ RWKHU FRXQWULHVf§LQFOXGLQJ $XVWUDOLD &DQDGD )UDQFH ,VUDHO ,WDO\ WKH 1HWKHUODQGV DQG 6SDLQKDYH H[SHULPHQWHG ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV $IWHU PRUH WKDQ \HDUV LQ HYHQ %ULWDLQ FRQVLGHUHG UHYLVLQJ LWV EDQ SDUW RI WKH &ULPLQDO -XVWLFH $FW RI 6HFWLRQ f $IWHU YLVLWLQJ FRXUWURRPV LQ 1HZ
PAGE 50

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f H[SHULPHQWV ZLWK FDPHUDV IXHO WKH VSHFXODWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH WKH TXHVWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV DFWXDOO\ GR GLVUXSW MXGLFLDO SURFHHGLQJV XQWLO QRZ RQO\ D PDWWHU RI VSHFXODWLRQ ZRXOG EH DQ LPSRUWDQW

PAGE 51

VXEMHFW RI VWXG\ +RZHYHU DV GLVFXVVHG PRUH IXOO\ LQ WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ VHFWLRQ &KDSWHU f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n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

PAGE 52

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f DVVLJQHG WR SUHVHQW QHZV FRYHUDJH RI WULDOV 6WDWH JXLGHOLQHV DUH WKH UXOHV VXFK DV WKRVH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH 6WDQGDUGV RI &RQGXFW DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ *RYHUQLQJ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD DQG 6WLOO 3KRWRJUDSK\ &RYHUDJH RI -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV FRGLILHG LQ WKH )ORULGD 5XOHV DV &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW $f DQG KHUHDIWHU FDOOHG *XLGHOLQHV 6HH $SSHQGL[ $f &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV UHIHU WR WULDOV RI GHIHQGDQWV LQGLFWHG RQ VXFK FKDUJHV DV PXUGHU RU DJJUDYDWHG DVVDXOW H[FOXGLQJ VH[XDO EDWWHU\ DQG OHZG DVVDXOWVf RU RWKHU IHORQLRXV FKDUJHV OLPLWHG WR VXFK FDVHV KHDUG LQ WKH MXGLFLDO FLUFXLW VWXGLHG

PAGE 53

GXULQJ WKH SHULRG RI REVHUYDWLRQ DQG H[FOXGLQJ VXEVHTXHQW UHODWHG DSSHOODWH FRXUW DFWLRQf 4 :KDW LPSDFW GR WKH JXLGHOLQHV KDYH RQ FRYHUDJH" ,PSDFW UHIHUV WR HIIHFW RQ PHWKRGV RI JDWKHULQJ QHZV DQG EURDGFDVW SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH DV PD\ EH DSSDUHQW WR WKH REVHUYHU LQ WKH FRXUWURRP DV PD\ EH GHVFULEHG E\ PHGLD SHUVRQQHO DQG WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG DV PD\ EH HYLGHQW LQ WKH ZRUN SURGXFW RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV FRYHULQJ WKH WULDO 4 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDO SURFHHGLQJV" 8QGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH UHIHUV WR D KLJK GHJUHH RI FRUUHVSRQGHQFH EHWZHHQ HYHQWV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU GHVFULEHG E\ SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV DQG HYDOXDWHG E\ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWVf ZLWK WKH ZRUN SURGXFW RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV FRYHULQJ WKH VDPH FULPLQDO WULDO WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW DVVXPHG VW\OLVWLF GLIIHUHQFHVf 4 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DW WKH WULDO FRXUW OHYHO" 2EVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV UHIHUV WR LQFLGHQWV ZKLFK PLJKW EH QRWHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU RU E\ PHPEHUV RI WKH SULQW PHGLD DQGRU DQ\ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV UHJDUGLQJ EHKDYLRU RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV ,W FDQ DOVR UHIHU WR IRUPDO PRWLRQV IRU DQGRU SRVVLEOH JUDQWLQJ RI PLVWULDO GXH WR EHKDYLRU RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV GXULQJ WKH SHULRG RI REVHUYDWLRQ

PAGE 54

,Q WKH IROORZLQJ FKDSWHU D UHYLHZ RI OLWUDWXUH UHODWHG WR WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG &KDSWHU ZLOO LQFOXGH D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ HPSOR\HG ZKLOH WKH UHVXOWV DQG FRQFOXVLRQV ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHUV DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ 1RWHV O86 Y %XUU )HG &DV 1R J )RU JHQHUDO GLVFXVVLRQ RI EDVLF )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO LVVXHV VHH HJ +HQU\ $EUDKDP 3UHVV )UHHGRP DQG )DLU 7ULDO DQG 3ULRU 5HVWUDLQW LQ )UHHGRP DQG WKH &RXUW &LYLO 5LJKWV DQG /LEHUWLHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WK HG 1HZ
PAGE 55

*ROGIDUE &ULPH DQG 3XEOLFLW\ 7KH ,PSDFW RI 1HZV RQ WKH $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI -XVWLFH 1HZ
PAGE 56

&DQRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP DQG 0DVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 25 t1HZ -HUVH\ Y +DXSWPDQQ 1-/ $ FHUW GHQLHG 86 f 'LVFXVVLRQ KHUH EDVHG RQ DFFRXQWV RI WKH WULDO LQ $OH[DQGHU %DUEHU &RVWD t .LHOERZLF] DQG 2VFDU +DOODP 6RPH 2EMHFW /HVVRQV RQ 3XEOLFLW\ LQ &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV 0LQQHVRWD /DZ 5HYLHZ 0DUFK f DQG $SSHQGL[ 5HSRUW RI 6SHFLDO &RPPLWWHH RQ 3XEOLFLW\ LQ &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV f .LHOERZLF] 6WRU\ f SRLQWV RXW WKDW WKH FDPHUDV FRXOG UXQ ZLWKRXW WKH MXGJHnV NQRZOHGJH ZKLFK VHHPV WR FRQWUDGLFW WUDGLWLRQDO VSHFXODWLRQ WKDW ILOP HTXLSPHQW \HDUV DJR ZDV WRR FUXGH WR DOORZ FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWV ZLWKRXW GLVWUDFWLRQ A7KURXJKRXW WKH V FDPHUDV ZHUH DOORZHG LQ VRPH FRXUWURRPV DQG EDQQHG LQ RWKHUV )RU H[DPSOH -XGJH 5DXOWVRQ DOORZHG WKHP DW WKH PRQNH\ WULDO 6FRSHV Y 7HQQHVVHH 7HQQ f -XGJH (XJHQH 2n'XQQH SURKLELWHG WKHP DQG FLWHG SKRWRJUDSKHUV ZKR GHILHG KLV RUGHUV IRU FRQWHPSW DW D PXUGHU WULDO LQ %DOWLPRUH ([ SDUWH VWXUP 0G $ &W $SS f 7KH OLEHUW\ RI WKH SUHVV GRHV QRW LQFOXGH WKH SULYLOHJH RI WDNLQJ DGYDQWDJH RI WKH LQFDUFHUDWLRQ RI D SHUVRQ DFFXVHG RI FULPH WR SKRWRJUDSK KLV IDFH DQG ILJXUH DJDLQVW KLV ZLOO DW f 7KH $%$ (WKLFV &RPPLWWHH UHFRPPHQGHG FRQGHPQDWLRQ RI EURDGFDVWLQJ LQ )RUPDO 2SLQLRQ $%$ 5HSRUWV f +RZHYHU WKH SUDFWLFH FRQWLQXHG HJ D &KLFDJR WUDIILF FRXUW MXGJH XSRQ ILQGLQJ b RI WLFNHWV ZHUH IL[HG EHJDQ EURDGFDVWLQJ SURFHHGLQJV LQ 6HH 0LWFKHOO 'DZVRQ %URDGFDVW 7ULDOV"
PAGE 57

VHHPV DQ XQMXVWLILDEOH DGGLWLRQ WR WKHLU GLVWUHVV WKDW WKH\ VKRXOG EH SKRWRJUDSKHG DJDLQVW WKHLU ZLOO SLFWXUHG LQ WKH 3UHVV DQG WKHLU SHUVRQDO DSSHDUDQFH DQG FORWKHV PDGH WKH VXEMHFW RI JRVVLSLQJ FRPPHQW $%$ 5HSRUWV 6HH &KULVWRSKHU 6WHUOLQJ DQG -RKQ .LWWURVV 6WD\ 7XQHG $ &RQFLVH +LVWRU\ RI $PHULFDQ %URDGFDVWLQJ %HOPRQW &$ :DGVZRUWK f $OVR %URDGFDVWLQJ VSHFLILFDOO\ 83 DQG ,16 0D\ 6HOO 5DGLR 1HZV $SULO 3XEOLVKHUV /LEHUDOL]H 3UHVV5DGLR 3ODQ 0D\ 5LYDO 1HZV 6HUYLFHV $FTXLUH 0RUH &OLHQWV DW 1$% 6HVVLRQ -XO\ 3LUDWLQJ RI 3UHVV 6HUYLFH 1HZV $GMXGJHG 8QIDLU &RPSHWLWLRQ -DQ ([FOXVLRQ RI 3UHVV 6HUYLFHV )URP 5DGLR WR EH 3URSRVHG DW 3XEOLVKHUV 6HVVLRQ )HE 3UHVV 'URSV &XGJHO (QGV 5DGLR )HXG 0D\ 1HZV f3LUDF\n -DQ $%$ 5HSRUWV $%$ 5HSRUWV L ,ELG 7KH &DVH RI WKH &RQWURYHUVLDO &DQRQ $%$ -RXUQDO 0D\ $%$ 5HSRUWV 6HH $%$ 2SLQLRQV RI WKH &RPPLWWHH RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO (WKLFV DQG *ULHYDQFHV &KLFDJR 6WDQGLQJ &RPPLWWHH RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO (WKLFV ,QIRUPDO 2SLQLRQV 9ROV t ,, &KLFDJR 6WDQGLQJ &RPPLWWHH RQ (WKLFV DQG 3URIHVVLRQDO 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ )RUPDO DQG ,QIRUPDO (WKLFV 2SLQLRQV &KLFDJR 5HFHQW (WKLFV 2SLQLRQV $%$ 5HSRUWV )UDQN :KLWH &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 86 6XUYH\ -RXUQDOLVP 0RQRJUDSKV $SULO f 0DUVKDOO Y 86 86 f ,UYLQ Y 'RZG 86 f 5LGHDX Y /RXLVLDQD 86 f (VWHV Y 7H[DV 86 f 6KHSSDUG Y 0D[ZHOO 86 f 6HH .HQW 0LGGOHWRQ DQG %LOO ) &KDPEHUOLQ 7KH /DZ RI 3XEOLF &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 58

JURXQGV SUHMXGLFLDO LQIOXHQFHV RXWVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP ZHUH EURXJKW WR EHDU RQ WKLV MXU\ ZLWK VXFK IRUFH WKDW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ LV LQHVFDSDEOH WKDW WKHVH GHIHQGDQWV ZHUH SUHMXGJHG DV JXLOW\ DQG WKH WULDO ZDV EXW D OHJDO JHVWXUH WR UHJLVWHU D YHUGLFW DOUHDG\ GLFWDWHG E\ WKH SUHVV DQG WKH SXEOLF RSLQLRQ ZKLFK LW JHQHUDWHV DW f %URDGFDVWHU -RVHSK %UHFKQHU ZURWH D UHVSRQVH WR WKH 5HDUGRQ 5HSRUW LQ ZKLFK KH FODLPHG WKH PHGLD ZDV D VFDSHJRDW 1HZV 0HGLD t WKH &RXUWV )RO 5HSRUW 1R &ROXPELD 02 -XQH $%$ 5HSRUWV 7KH /DZ\HUV 0DQXDO RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO &RQGXFW &KLFDJRf SUHVHQWV WKH UHYLVLRQ DQG LV TXRWHG KHUH L$ 6WDWHPHQW IURP WKH &HQWUDO )ORULGD &KDSWHU 6';63,Q 5H &DVH 1R 2UODQGR ,Q 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV 6R G f =DPRUD Y )OD 6R G f 6HH DOVR =DPRUD Y &%6 $%& 1%& ) 6XSS f FRPSODLQW DJDLQVW WKH 79 QHWZRUNV IRU QHJOLJHQFH GLVPLVVHG RQ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW JURXQGV 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW WR RXU IUHHGRPV DV D ZKROH FDQQRW EH RYHUHPSKDVL]HG DW f 6HH HJ 0DUWLQ %DVV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULHQFH 7HOHYLVLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f 5D\PRQG %XFKDQDQ %HUW 3U\RU 0LODQ 0HVNH t 'DYLG 6WUDZQ 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULPHQW 7ULDO $SULO f &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV )DFH &UXFLDO 7HVW (GLWRU t 3XEOLVKHU 2FWREHU 5 6WHSKHQ &UDLJ &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRPV LQ )ORULGD -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ f )ORULGD 7ULDO RI n79 $GGLFWn *RHV RQ WKH $LU %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU 7HUU\ .QRSI 7KH 6WDWH RI )ORULGD Y 5RQQ\ =DPRUD &DPHUD &RYHUDJH RQ 7ULDO 7KH 4XLOO f -XGLWK .UHHJHU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH )ORULGD %DU -RXUQDO f 9DOLG -XGJPHQW %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU +RZHYHU -RKQ +DQFKHWWH SRLQWV RXW WKDW DW RQH SRLQW WKH MXURUV GLG DVN WKH MXGJH LI WKH\ FRXOG VHH WKHPVHOYHV RQ WHOHYLVLRQ WKH MXGJH GHQLHG WKH UHTXHVW &RXUWURRP LV /DERUDWRU\ IRU 3KRWRJUDSK\ ([SHULPHQW *DQQHWWHHU 'HFHPEHU f 6HH DOVR 79 RQ 7ULDO D WZRKRXU GRFXPHQWDU\ DLUHG RQ 3%6 0D\ )RU D UHFHQW XSGDWH RQ WKH =DPRUD WULDO VHH 'RQQD *HKUNH 7ULDO 2YHU %XW 2UGHDO &RQWLQXHV 79 ,QWR[LFDWLRQ 0XUGHU &DVH 6WLOO +DXQWV 3ULQFLSOHV 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU *

PAGE 59

)RU FRYHUDJH RI WKH FDVH VHH HJ -HDQ &KDQFH &DPHUDV LQ &RXUW ,V 3UHVHQFH 3UHMXGLFLDO" )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 6HSWHPEHU 2FWREHU f $ 'DYLG $PRQJ *ROLDWKV RQ WKH &KDQGOHU &DVH 7KH 4XLOO 6HSWHPEHU 6HH HJ 1RUPDQ 'DYLV &RXUWURRP 7HOHYLVLRQ RQ 7ULDO ,WnV +HUH ,W :RUNV 7HOHYLVLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ f +HUPDQ Y )ORULGD f 6R G f t%XQG\ Y )ORULGD 6R G )OD f )RU SUHVV FRYHUDJH VHH HJ 7KH &DPHUDV :HUH 5ROOLQJ DW 0XUGHU 7ULDO LQ )ORULGD 7KH 4XLOO 6HSWHPEHU f 'HIHQGDQW n6WDUVn LQ 7HOHYLVHG 7ULDO (GLWRU t 3XEOLVKHU $XJXVW 3URRI RI 3HUIRUPDQFH %URDGFDVWLQJ -XO\ 6HH 1RWH ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW PRVW FRQWHPSW WULDOV DUH RQ WKH VWDWH WULDO FRXUW OHYHO DQG WKXV ZRXOG UHPDLQ XQUHSRUWHG 0RUHRYHU WKH SULPH VXSSOHPHQWDU\ GDWD EDVH0HGLD /DZ 5HSRUWHUUHOLHV RQ VHOIUHSRUWHG FDVHV VR WKH ODFN RI FRQWHPSW FLWDWLRQV PLJKW QRW DFFXUDWHO\ UHIOHFW WKH VLWXDWLRQ 6XPPDU\ RI 79 &DPHUDV LQ WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV 1RYHPEHU :LOOLDPVEXUJ 9$ 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6WDWH &RXUWV )LYH 6WDWHV '& %DQ &DPHUDV )URP &RXUWURRPV 6RFLHW\ RI eU4IHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6LJPD 'HOWD &KL )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 5HSRUW :DVKLQJWRQ '& 6HH HJ $XGLR9LVXDO &RYHUDJH RQ 7ULDO LQ 6WDWHV 7KH 1HZV 0HGLD t WKH /DZ :LQWHU f &DPHUDV %DUUHG )URP 1HZ
PAGE 60

79 LQ WKH &RXUW 7LWLOODWLRQ RU (GXFDWLRQ" 1HZ
PAGE 61

VRPH VWHSV WR PDNH LW HDVLHU RQ WKH SUHVV LQFOXGLQJ XVH RI KHDGQRWHV RQ GHFLVLRQV PDNLQJ DYDLODEOH D SUHYLHZ RI 6XSUHPH &RXUW FDVHV SXEOLVKHG E\ WKH $%$ DQG WKH $13$f DQG DWWHPSWLQJ WR OLPLW WKH QXPEHU RI GHFLVLRQV KDQGHG GRZQ LQ D JLYHQ GD\ f ,ELG $FFRUGLQJ WR IRUPHU SXEOLF LQIRUPDWLRQ RIILFHU IRU WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW %DUUHWW 0F*XUQ GHVSLWH HIIRUWV WR LPSURYH 7KH &RXUWnV RUGHU OLVW LV LPSRVVLEOH IRU DQ XQSUHSDUHG UHSRUWHU WR XQGHUVWDQG 3XEOLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6XSUHPH &RXUW $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ -RXUQDO -DQXDU\ ff 'DYLG 2n%ULHQ (WKDQ .DWVK 7LP 2n%ULHQ
PAGE 62

> 6 Y +DVWLQJV )G WK &LUf UHKnJ HQ EDQF GHQLHG )G f )RU QHZV FRYHUDJH RI WKH LVVXH VHH HJ -XGJH 6WULNHV %ORZ LQ 79 7ULDO &RYHUDJH %URDGFDVWLQJ 'HFHPEHU -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH %ORFNV %URDGFDVW 0HGLD $FFHVV WR )HGHUDO &RXUWV %URDGFDVWLQJ 6HSWHPEHU 7KRPDV -XOLQ )HGHUDO (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD %DQ &KDOOHQJHG )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 0D\ f 6XSUHPH &RXUW 'HFOLQHV WR 5HYLHZ &DPHUDV LQ &RXUW &DVH %URDGFDVWLQJ 0D\ 86 -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH 9RWHV 2YHUZKHOPLQJO\ WR &RQWLQXH %DQ $JDLQVW 7HOHYLVLRQ DQG 5DGLR &RYHUDJH RI )HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV 613$ %XOOHWLQ 2FWREHU )RU QHZV FRYHUDJH RI WKH FDVH VHH HJ -XGJH 'HQLHV &11 5HTXHVW WR 7HOHYLVH &%6:HVWPRUHODQG /LEHO 7ULDO %URDGFDVWLQJ 6HSWHPEHU )UDQN :KLWH LSUHVV DW WKH %HQFK %URDGFDVWLQJ $SULO Lr ,ELG $ RU 1RWKLQJ DW $OO %URDGFDVWLQJ $SULO *LOEHUW &UDQEHUJ :DUUHQ %XUJHUnV )OLPV\ &DVH &ROXPELD -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ -XO\$XJXVW /DPE %ULDQ 79 0DNLQJ 'HPRFUDF\ &RPH $OLYH 86$ 7RGD\ -XQH $ -XVWLFH 6WHZDUW 5HWLUHV $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ -RXUQDO $XJXVW f +LJK &RXUW 5HMHFWV 5DGLR &RYHUDJH 5DGLR 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ %XOOHWLQ 0D\ 6HH DOVR 6XVDQ /DPRQWDJQH &DPHUDV LQ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW" &63$1 8SGDWH -DQXDU\ 6XSUHPH &RXUW 6WLOO 6D\V 1R %XW 6RPH -XVWLFHV )DYRU %URDGFDVW &RYHUDJH %URDGFDVWLQJ $SULO 6HQDWRU -HUHPLDK 'HQWRQ 5$/f ZKR SURSRVHG IHGHUDO FRXUWURRP FDPHUD JXLGHOLQHV ZDV GHIHDWHG E\ 5LFKDUG & 6KHOE\ LQ f 1R &DPHUDV LQ %XUJHUnV &RXUW %URDGFDVWLQJ 1RYHPEHU DQG 6WHYH &DPLQLV $QDO\VLV 0LDPL +HUDOG ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW &KLHI -XVWLFH :DUUHQ %XUJHU 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ &RPPXQLFDWRU -XO\ 6HH IRU H[DPSOH 'n$OHPEHUWH &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP /LWLJDWLRQ )DOO f /HW WKH 6XQVKLQH ,Q LQ 0DVV 0HGLD DQG WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 7KH /HJDF\ RI WKH

PAGE 63

:DUUHQ
PAGE 64

6HH HJ -RQDWKDQ &DSODQ &RXUW LQ WKH (\H RI WKH &DPHUD 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ ,ELG 6HH DOVR HJ (OHFWURQLF &RXUWURRP &RYHUDJH WR EH 6WXGLHG LQ *UHDW %ULWDLQ 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ ,QWHUFRP $XJXVW 5LFKDUG (YDQV %DU &RPPLWWHH 6HHV 1R 7KUHDW WR -XVWLFH )URP &DPHUDV 79 DQG 5DGLR 6KRXOG %URDGFDVW &RXUW &DVHV 6D\ /DZ\HUV 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ 9DOHULH *URYH 2XW WR 2SHQ D :LQGRZ RQ WKH /DZ 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ % 5REHUW 5LFH %DU :DQWV &RXUWV WR EH 7HOHYLVHG )LQDQFLDO 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ 7HUHQFH 6KDZ $OORZ WKH &RXUWV WR EH 7HOHYLVHG 6D\V %DU &RXQFLO 'DLO\ 7HOHJUDSK /RQGRQf 0D\ 6HH HJ 6/ $OH[DQGHU &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV )ORULGD DW &HQWHU 6WDJH 7KH %UHFKQHU 5HSRUW 0D\ f (DUO %DEELH )LHOG 5HVHDUFK LQ 7KH 3UDFWLFH RI 6RFLDO 5HVHDUFK WK HG %HOPRQW &$ :DGVZRUWK f &OLIIRUG &KULVWLDQV t -DPHV &DUH\ HG *XLGR 6WHPSHO t %UXFH :HVWOH\ (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH +DOO f

PAGE 65

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( 7KH OLWHUDWXUH RQ )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO LVVXHV LV IDLUO\ H[WHQVLYH LQFOXGLQJ JHQHUDO FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH KLVWRU\ DQG VWDWXV RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DV ZHOO DV GLVFXVVLRQV RI FRQVWLWXWLRQDO DVSHFWV RI FRYHUDJH +RZHYHU WKH VXJJHVWLRQV RI WKH QHHG IRU PRUH GDWD E\ -XVWLFH :KLWH LQ (VWHV DQG -XVWLFH %XUJHU LQ &KDQGOHU QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ D VXUYH\ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH VKRZV WKHUH KDYH EHHQ IHZ HPSLULFDO VWXGLHV SDUWLFXODUO\ ODFNLQJ DUH ILHOG VWXGLHV LQYROYLQJ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWVn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nV 1HZV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP

PAGE 66

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n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nV YLHZSRLQW LQ KLV ZULWLQJV DQG OLNH %DUEHU SUHVHQWHG WKH UHYLVLRQLVW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW LW ZDV WKH EHKDYLRU RI WKH SUHVV DQG WKH SXEOLF ERWK LQVLGH DQG

PAGE 67

RXWVLGH WKH FRXUWURRP ZKLFK KDG GLVWUDFWHG IURP GXH SURFHVV f§ QRW WKH FDPHUDV $V WKH VWDWH EHJDQ WR H[SHULPHQW ZLWK FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH GXULQJ WKH V UHVHDUFKHUV VWXGLHG WKH GHYHORSPHQWV LQ LQGLYLGXDO VWDWHV DQG HYHQ LQGLYLGXDO WULDOV 3HUKDSV WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYH ORRN DW WKH HYHQWV LQ WKH NH\QRWH VWDWH RI )ORULGD LV 56 &UDLJnV &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRPV LQ )ORULGD &UDLJ GLVFXVVHG WKH PDMRU VWXGLHV GXULQJ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO \HDUV WKH =DPRUD DQG +HUPDQQ WULDOV DQG WKH EHQFKSUHVV JXLGHOLQHV IRU FRYHUDJH +H FRQFOXGHG FXUUHQW WHFKQRORJ\ DOORZV IRU FRYHUDJH ZLWKRXW GLVUXSWLRQ 0DUWLQ %DVV DQG 'RQ :KLWH VLPLODUO\ GHVFULEHG )ORULGDnV VXFFHVV ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 2WKHUV LQ )ORULGD GLVFXVVHG WKH LVVXH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR ZULWLQJ QXPHURXV VWRULHV LQ WKH SRSXODU SUHVV UHSRUWHUV VXFK DV WKH 0LDPL +HUDOGnV 7HUU\ .QRSI ZURWH 7KH 6WDWH RI )ORULGD Y 5RQQ\ =DPRUD &DPHUD &RYHUDJH RQ 7ULDO IRU WKH 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6';nV 4XLOO LQ 7KHQ3RVW 1HZVZHHN 1HZV 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW 1RUP 'DYLV GHEDWHG %DOWLPRUH 6XQ UHSRUWHU &XUW 0DWWKHZV DERXW WKH PHULWV RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DV LPSOHPHQWHG LQ )ORULGD LQ WKH SDJHV RI WKH :DVKLQJWRQ -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ 2WKHUV GHVFULEHG H[SHULPHQWDO FRYHUDJH LQ YDULRXV VWDWHV *HQHUDO GLVFXVVLRQV RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQFOXGH WKRVH RI &RORUDGR 6XSUHPH &RXUW -XVWLFH (GZDUG 3ULQJOH IRUPHU FKDLUPDQ RI WKH &RQIHUHQFH RI &KLHI -XVWLFHVf LQ

PAGE 68

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nV SHULRGLF 1HZV 0HGLD &RYHUDJH RI -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV ZLWK UHIHUHQFHV WR VWDWXWHV DQG FDVH FLWHV DV ZHOO DV YDULRXV FRPSLODWLRQVf ZKLOH WKH 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV SXEOLVKHV DQ DQQXDO URXQGXS 2WKHUV ZKR KDYH JDWKHUHG VXUYH\V LQFOXGH -DPHV +R\W 'DYLG *UDYHV DQG /\OH 'HQQLVWRQ 'HQQLVWRQ KDV DOVR ZULWWHQ IUHTXHQWO\ RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ 4XLOO DQG :DVKLQJWRQ -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ 2WKHUV ZKR KDYH ZULWWHQ JHQHUDOO\ RQ WKH LVVXH LQFOXGH 0DUWLQ %DVV 7DOERW 'n$OHPEHUWH (GZDUG (VWORZ DQG -RKQ :HLVPDQ DV ZHOO DV WKH DXWKRUV RI WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI 1HZVSDSHU (GLWRUV$PHULFDQ 1HZVSDSHU 3XEOLVKHUnV $VVRFLDWLRQ )UHH 3UHVV DQG )DLU 7ULDO &%6 QHZVPDQ DQG DWWRUQH\f )UHG *UDKDP GHEDWHG WKH PHULWV RI FDPHUD FRYHUDJH ZLWK &DOLIRUQLD 6XSHULRU &RXUW

PAGE 69

-XGJH 'RQDOG )UHW] -XGLWK /LQGDKO RQH RI WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V IRU WKH ZLGHO\ SXEOLFL]HG UDSH WULDO LQ 1HZ %HGIRUG 0DVVDFKXVHWWV 0DVVDFKXVHWWV Y &RUGHULURf ODWHU ZURWH D FULWLFDO SLHFH LQ ZKLFK VKH VXJJHVWHG FDPHUDV KDYH QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RQ WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DW WKH OHDVW VKH VD\V D VHYHQVHFRQG GHOD\ GHYLFH RQ OLYH FRYHUDJH ZRXOG KDYH DYRLGHG WKH DFFLGHQWDO EURDGFDVW RI WKH YLFWLPnV QDPH DV RFFXUUHG LQ WKLV FDVH 5HJDUGLQJ WKH JHQHUDO TXHVWLRQ RI FDPHUDV LQ IHGHUDO FRXUWV KHOSIXO EDFNJURXQG PDWHULDO RQ WKH LVVXH LV IRXQG LQ &RQJUHVVLRQDO 4XDUWHUO\ LQ 'DYLG 2n%ULHQnV 6WRUP &HQWHU 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ $PHULFDQ 3ROLWLFV DQG LQ *UH\n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
PAGE 70

UHDOLW\ RI ZKDW WKH VWDWHV KDYH GRQH EXW WKH\ FRPSOHWHO\ LJQRUH LW $V /RX 3UDWR GHVFULELQJ WKH HIIRUWV RI WKH 5DGLR79 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ WR ZRUN ZLWK WKH 1DWLRQDO -XGLFLDO &ROOHJH FODLPV 1R JURXS LV PRUH DGYHUVDULDO LQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH QHZV PHGLD WKDQ MXGJHVf ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH KLVWRULFDO GHYHORSPHQW RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV WKHUH LV D VPDOO EXW JURZLQJ ERG\ RI OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKH UHODWHG LVVXH RI WKH FRQWLQXHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI EURDGFDVW UHJXODWLRQ LQ JHQHUDO DV ZHOO DV RI WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO WUHDWPHQW RI WUDGLWLRQDO SULQW DQG EURDGFDVW PHGLD XQGHU WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQWf§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

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

7KXV EDVHG RQ DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKH UHYLVLRQLVWVn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nV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI -XVWLFH 3RWWHU 6WHZDUWnV FRQFXUUHQFH LQ +RXFKLQV Y .4(' 86 f OHDGV WR ZKDW KH FDOOV D )LUVW $PHQGPHQW SDWKZD\ WR WKH FRXUWKRXVH IRU HOHFWURQLF MRXUQDOLVWV DORQJ ZLWK WKH

PAGE 73

WRROV RI WKHLU WUDGH XQGHU WKH QHZVJDWKHULQJ HOHPHQW RI WKH WULDQJOH $FFRUGLQJ WR .XUL\DPD -XVWLFH 6WHZDUW LPSOLHV WKDW LI WKH SXEOLF LV DOORZHG DFFHVV WKH HOHFWURQLF PHGLD PXVW EH DOORZHG WR EULQJ LQ FDPHUDV IRU DQDORJRXV HIIHFWLYH DFFHVV 7KHQ DV %UDQ]EXUJ Y +D\HV 86 f VXSSRUWV D QHZVJDWKHULQJ ULJKW IRU WKH SUHVV DQG DV 5LFKPRQG LPSOLHV SDULW\ EHWZHHQ WKH SXEOLF DQG WKH SUHVV HOHFWURQLF PHGLD DQG SULQW PHGLD ERWK ZLWK ULJKWV HTXLYDOHQW WR WKRVH DFFRUGHG WR WKH JHQHUDO SXEOLF KDYH HTXLYDOHQW ULJKWV RI IXOO DFFHVV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH VHFRQG OHJ RI WKH WULDQJOH FLWLQJ 86 Y $3 86 f .XUL\DPD VXJJHVWV LW ZRXOG OLNHZLVH EH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO IROO\ WR GHQ\ DQ HOHFWURQLF MRXUQDOLVW WKH ULJKW WR GLVVHPLQDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ KH KDV UHFRUGHG )LQDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH WKLUG OHJ RI WKH WULDQJOH (PHUVRQ VD\V WKH SXEOLF KDV D ULJKW WR UHFHLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG VLQFH PRVW SHRSOH WRGD\ UHFHLYH PRVW RI WKHLU QHZV IURP WKH HOHFWURQLF PHGLD DFFRUGLQJ WR .XUL\DPDnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKH SXEOLF KDV D ULJKW WR IXOO FRYHUDJH E\ WKH HOHFWURQLF PHGLD 6RPH RI WKH EHVW VXPPDULHV RI WKH ODZ UHJDUGLQJ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DUH WR EH IRXQG LQ FDVH ODZ LWVHOI )RU LQVWDQFH WKH &RORUDGR 6XSUHPH &RXUW SHU FXULDP DGRSWHG D UHSRUW UHMHFWLQJ &DQRQ LQ ,Q 5H +HDULQJV &RQFHUQLQJ &DQRQ RI WKH &DQRQV RI -XGLFLDO (WKLFV 3G f &LWLQJ WKH ODFN RI GLVUXSWLRQ FDXVHG E\ H[WHQVLYH XVH RI

PAGE 74

SKRWRJUDSKLF HTXLSPHQW -XVWLFH 2WWR 0RRUH QRWHG KH ZDV QRW HYHQ DZDUH RI ZKHQ HTXLSPHQW ZDV EHLQJ RSHUDWHG LQ KLV FRXUWURRP DQG KHOG WKHUH ZDV QR QHHG IRU WKH EDQ :H DUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK UHDOLWLHV DQG QRW FRQMHFWXUH DW f 7KH FRXUW DOVR KHOG WKDW WKH HGXFDWLRQDO YDOXH RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH ZDV FUXFLDO *HQHUDOO\ RQO\ LGOH SHRSOH SXUVLQJ LGOH FXULRVLW\ KDYH WLPH WR YLVLW FRXUW URRPV LQ SHUVRQ 7KDW ZKLFK LV FDUULHG RXW ZLWK GLJQLW\ ZLOO QRW EHFRPH XQGLJQLILHG EHFDXVH PRUH SHRSOH PD\ EH SHUPLWWHG WR VHH DQG KHDU DW f ,QFOXGHG LQ WKH $SSHQGL[ WR -XVWLFH +DUODQnV RSLQLRQ LQ (VWHV DW f LV DQ DPLFXV FXULDH EULHI RI WKH $%$ ZLWK D FRPSOHWH OHJDO KLVWRU\ RI &DQRQ 6LPLODUO\ WKH GHFLVLRQ LQ )ORULGDnV ODQGPDUN 3RVW1HZVZHHN FDVH LQFOXGHV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR UHVXOWV RI VXUYH\V XQGHUWDNHQ GXULQJ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO SHULRG D OHJDO KLVWRU\ LQFOXGLQJ D VWDWHE\n VWDWH VXUYH\ SUHSDUHG E\ WKH 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6WDWH &RXUWV DQG UHOHYDQW PDWHULDO UHODWLQJ WR WKH &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW DW $SSHQGL[ f 9DOLGLW\ 3URSULHW\ DQG (IIHFW RI $OORZLQJ RU 3URKLELWLQJ 0HGLD %URDGFDVWLQJ 5HFRUGLQJ RU 3KRWRJUDSKLQJ &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV SXEOLVKHG E\ $PHULFDQ /DZ 5HSRUWV SUHVHQWV D WKRURXJK EDFNJURXQG RI WKH LVVXH %DFN LQ 'LVWLQJXLVKHG $PHULFDQ /DZ\HU 0LWFKHOO 'DZVRQ DQG %ULWLVK 03 5REHUW %HUQD\V GHEDWHG WKH SURV DQG FRQV RI FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWV 'DZVRQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK WKH XVH RI FDPHUDV PLJKW VKRFN ODZ\HUV DQG MXGJHV QRW RQO\

PAGE 75

ZRXOG XVH H[WHQG WKH SXEOLFn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nV SLORW SURJUDP ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ,Q *HRUJLD 6WRQH DQG (GOLQ GHVFULEHG WKH GHPDQGLQJ FKDOOHQJH SUHVHQWHG E\ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZKLOH LQ .DQVDV /RHZHQ LQVLVWHG WKH SUHVV KDG PDWXUHG HQRXJK WR KDQGOH FDPHUDV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP

PAGE 76

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f DQG FORVHG ZLWK D SUHGLFWLRQ WKDW 7UDGLWLRQDO KRVWLOLW\ WRZDUG WKH SUHVHQFH RI

PAGE 77

WKH LQFRXUW QHZV FDPHUD ZLOO GLPLQLVK DV WKH QDWLRQnV VWDWH FRXUWV EHFRPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH QHZ YLGHR WHFKQRORJ\ f 7RQJXH DQG /LQWRWWH PDNH 7KH &DVH $JDLQVW 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP E\ DUJXLQJ WKDW WKH QHZV PHGLDn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f DUJXLQJ WKHLU SUHVHQFH LV UHTXLUHG E\ WKH WUDGLWLRQ RI RSHQ FRXUWV 1HYDV HPSKDVL]HV WKH QHHG IRU UHVHDUFK SULPDULO\ WR VHH ZKHWKHU WKH HIIHFWV RI SULQW FRYHUDJH DUH DQ\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH RI PRGHUQ HOHFWURQLF PHGLD UHVHDUFK ZKLFK KH VD\V VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH QRYHOW\ RI FXUUHQW FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH 7RZQHQG VLPLODUO\ VXJJHVWV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP /HWnV *LYH 7KHP $QRWKHU 7U\ DUJXLQJ WKDW FDPHUDV ZRXOG KHOS WKH HOHFWRUDWH DFFHVV MXGLFLDO FDQGLGDWHV WKH YHU\ QRWLRQ RI ZKLFK PLJKW FRQWULEXWH WR MXGLFLDO UHOXFWDQFH WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDVf

PAGE 78

=LPPHUPDQ SUHVHQWV ZKDW VKH FDOOV D PRGHVW SURSRVDO IRU WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DV GLG .XUL\DPD =LPPHUPDQ FLWHV 6WHZDUWn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f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

PAGE 79

KDYH WKH VDPH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO ULJKW RI DFFHVV WR WKH FRXUWV DV GR RWKHU QHZV SHRSOH %HLVPDQ GLVFXVVHV WKH LPSDFW RI WKH &KDQGOHU GHFLVLRQ DQG VXJJHVWV WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQV ZLVKLQJ WR FRYHU WULDOV VKRXOG SHWLWLRQ D SDQHOf§PDGH XS RI WKH WULDO MXGJH ERWK DWWRUQH\V DQG WKH PHGLD UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRXWOLQLQJ SURFHGXUHV WR EH IROORZHG %HLVPDQ DOVR VXJJHVWV WKH EURDGFDVWHU VLJQ D VWDWHPHQW SURPLVLQJ WR PDLQWDLQ GHFRUXPf§DQG LI FRYHULQJ D VHQVDWLRQDO FULPLQDO WULDO D SURPLVH WR FRYHU D FLYLO WULDO 7KH ODVW ZRXOG VXUHO\ EH WKH LPPHGLDWH VXEMHFW RI D )LUVW $PHQGPHQW FKDOOHQJH VKRXOG DQ\ FRXUW HPSOR\ VXFK D UHVWULFWLRQf 3HTXLJQRW VD\V WKH &KDQGOHU GHFLVLRQ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH %XUJHU &RXUWnV SDWWHUQ RI VXERUGLQDWLQJ DOO ULJKWV RI FULPLQDO GHIHQGDQWV DQG ZKHQ WKH\ FRLQFLGH WKH ULJKWV RI WKH SUHVVf WR WKH ULJKWV RI WKH VWDWH 5DWKHU WKDQ WKH 3RVW1HZVZHHN TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQFH WHVW WR GHWHUPLQH ZRUWKLQHVV RI FRYHUDJH 3HTXLQRW SURSRVHV D FKHFNOLVW RI TXHVWLRQV WKH FRXUW PLJKW DVN WR GHWHUPLQH PHULWV RI H[FOXVLRQ LQFOXGLQJ KRZ FUXFLDO WKH PRYDQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ LV WR WKH FDVH ZKHWKHU WKH ZLWQHVV LV IHDUIXO RI UHSULVDOV IRU VSHFLILF WHVWLPRQ\ DQG ZKHWKHU WKH SUHVV FDQ SUHVHQW D YLDEOH DOWHUQDWLYH WR H[FOXGLQJ FDPHUDV ZKLFK ZRXOG SURWHFW WKH ZLWQHVV IURP UHSULVDOV 7DMJLPDQ VXJJHVWV DQ DQDO\WLFDO DSSURDFK DQDORJL]LQJ WKH FRXUW DUJXPHQWV LQ (VWHV DQG &KDQGOHU WR WKH SDUDGLJP RI

PAGE 80

+HUEHUW 3DFNHU ZKR FRQWUDVWHG D GXH SURFHVV PRGHO DQG D FULPH FRQWURO PRGHO RI ODZ HQIRUFHPHQW 7DMJLPDQ LQVLVWV f>7@KH WHOHYLVLRQ UHSRUWHU ZLWKRXW KLV FDPHUD FDQQRW FRYHU WKH WULDO SURFHHGLQJV ZLWK DQDORJRXV FRPSUHKHQVLYHQHVV $ \HDU DIWHU &KDQGOHU ZULWLQJ DERXW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH FDVH LQ UHPRYLQJ WKH FORXG RI (VWHV 5REHUW +XJKHV SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH &RXUW LQ &KDQGOHU HPSKDVL]HG D ODFN RI UHOLDEOH GDWD +XJKHV XUJHG UHVHDUFKHUV WR KHHG WKH FDOO RI WKH &RXUW IRU PRUH UHVHDUFK 6LPLODUO\ -HUHP\ &RKHQ DQDO\]HG &KDQGOHU DQG VXJJHVWHG WKH &RXUWn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f $OFHH +DVWLQJV WR DOORZ EURDGFDVW RI KLV WULDO RQ EULEHU\ FKDUJHV 86 Y +DVWLQJV )G f -XOLQ ZDV DPRQJ WKH FRXQVHO IRU WKH PHGLD

PAGE 81

RUJDQL]DWLRQV ZKR VXEVHTXHQWO\ SHWLWLRQHG WKH FRXUW WR H[WHQG EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH WR WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV -XOLQ VD\V DEVROXWH OHJLVODWLYH EDQV DUH LQDSSURSULDWH IRU DFFHVV TXHVWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH MXGLFLDO V\VWHP DQG FRQFOXGHV WKH LVVXH LV QRW ORQJHU ZKHWKHU HOHFWURQLF PHGLD ZLOO EH JUDQWHG DFFHVV WR IHGHUDO FRXUWV EXW ZKHQ 7KH SHWLWLRQ LWVHOI LV D ZRQGHUIXO FRPSHQGLXP RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDVf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

PAGE 82

0F&DOO DOVR SRVLWV D SURFHGXUH IRU GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKHQ LW LV DSSURSULDWH WR VXVWDLQ REMHFWLRQV WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI FDPHUDV 0F&DOOnV DSSURDFK GUDZV RQ WKH UHFHQW OLQH RI FDVHV HVWDEOLVKLQJ WKH GHIHQGDQWnV ULJKW WR HYLGHQFH XQGHU WKH 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW FRPSXOVRU\ SURFHVV FODXVH 0F&DOO VXJJHVWV WKDW ZKHQ H[FOXVLRQ RI FDPHUDV LV UHTXHVWHG WKH FRXUW VKRXOG GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH SUHVHQFH RI FDPHUDV ZRXOG FDXVH D GHIHQGDQW WR ORVH HYLGHQFH WKDW PLJKW EH UHOHYDQW PDWHULDO DQG YLWDO WR WKH GHIHQVH ,Q D IRRWQRWHKHDY\ SLHFH 5LHPHU FDOOV IRU FRQVWLWXWLRQDO SURWHFWLRQ DJDLQVW DEVROXWH EDQV RQ FDPHUDV DEVHQW D FRPSHOOLQJ JRYHUQPHQW LQWHUHVW 5LHPHU VD\V .HUOH\ DQG +DVWLQJV QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJf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f

PAGE 83

*DUGQHU GHVFULEHV WKH QHHG IRU XQLIRUP VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH DQG SUHVHQWV D PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHV DXWRPDWLF H[HPSWLRQV RI FDPHUD FRYHUDJH RI YLFWLPV RI VH[ FULPHV MXYHQLOHV DQG XQGHUFRYHU DJHQWVZKLFK LV DOUHDG\ WKH FDVH LQ PDQ\ VWDWHVDV ZHOO DV DXWRPDWLF H[HPSWLRQV IRU DQ\ ZLWQHVV ZKR REMHFWV WR FRYHUDJHf§ZKLFK ZRXOG EH SUREOHPDWLF LQ PDQ\ VWDWHV VXFK DV )ORULGD 6KH DOVR VXJJHVWV DOO EURDGFDVWHUV ZRXOG KDYH WR NHHS DOO HTXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WKURXJKRXW WKH HQWLUH WULDO ZKLFK PLJKW PDNH LW LPSRVVLEOH IRU DOO EXW SULYDWH SURGXFWLRQ FRPSDQLHV WR FRYHU PRVW WULDOV +HU VXJJHVWHG UHTXLUHPHQW WKDW DOO EURDGFDVWHUV PXVW SUHVHQW EDODQFHG FRYHUDJH RI WKH SURVHFXWLRQ DQG GHIHQVH PLJKW EH IRXQG XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ OLJKW RI WKH UHFHQW )&& DEDQGRQPHQW RI WKH )DLUQHVV 'RFWULQHf§DVVXPLQJ &RQJUHVV GRHV QRW UHLQVWDWH LWf 'RXJODV 3 .LOOLDQ DOVR GLVFXVVHV 7KH 3URSULHW\ RI 5HVWULFWLYH *XLGHOLQHV IRU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUW .LOOLDQ VXSSRUWV WKH EURDGFDVWHUVn SRVLWLRQ WKDW SDUW\ FRQVHQW VKRXOG QRW EH D SUHFRQGLWLRQ WR FRYHUDJH -RLQLQJ WKH EDQGZDJRQ GHFU\LQJ WKH SDXFLW\ RI UHOLDEOH HPSLULFDO GDWD .LOOLDQ VD\V IODZHG PHWKRGRORJ\ QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ WKH IHZ VWXGLHV DYDLODEOH KDYH IDLOHG WR FRQILUP IHDUHG QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RI FRYHUDJH RQ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG KH FRQFOXGHV WKH WLPH LV ULSH IRU IXOO FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH

PAGE 84

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f LQ JHQHUDO WKRVH ZKR JDWKHU SUHSDUH DQG SUHVHQW WKH QHZV VKDUH WKH VDPH EDVLF YDOXHV DQG DWWLWXGHV :HDYHU DQG :LOKRLW XSGDWHG WKH FODVVLF -RKQVWRQH VWXG\ WR SUHVHQW D SLFWXUH RI WKH W\SLFDO MRXUQDOLVW %HFNHU UHDQDO\]HG -RKQVWRQHnV GDWD DQG IRXQG VLPLODU UHVXOWV ZLWK WKH PDMRU GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ SULQW DQG EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV LQFOXGLQJ WKH LQFUHDVHG OLNHOLKRRG WKH

PAGE 85

EURDGFDVWHUV ZRXOG GHDO ZLWK FRQIOLFW VLQFH WKH\ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR VHHN FRQWUDVWLQJ YLHZSRLQWV LQ SUHSDULQJ FRYHUDJH 7KLV ZRXOG KDYH SRWHQWLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU WKH ZD\ D WULDO LV SUHVHQWHG E\ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV FRPSDUHG WR SULQW MRXUQDOLVWVf 3DXO :HDYHU VWXGLHG GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ SULQW DQG EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV DQG FRQFOXGHG EURDGFDVWHUV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR RUJDQL]H VWRULHV ZLWK D EHJLQQLQJ D PLGGOH DQG DQ HQG OHDGLQJ WR FKDUJHV EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH LV VLPSOLVWLF :HDYHU DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKH EURDGFDVWHUnV SHUVRQDOLW\ LQWUXGHV LQWR WKH VWRU\ VLQFH KH FDQQRW PDLQWDLQ D SULQW MRXUQDOLVWnV LPSHUVRQDO QDUUDWLYH YRLFH 0RUHRYHU WHOHYLVLRQn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

PAGE 86

WR WKH JXLGHOLQHV DOWKRXJK PRUH WKDQ KDOI RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IHOW WKH\ FRQVLVWHQWO\ IROORZHG WKH JXLGHOLQHV RQO\ D WKLUG RI WKH RWKHU UHVSRQGHQWV DJUHHG SULQW UHSRUWHUV IHOW WKH\ IROORZHG WKH JXLGHOLQHV b RI WKH WLPH RQO\ b RI WKH RWKHUV DJUHHG ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV DOO WKH UHVSRQGHQWV JDYH SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV KLJKHU PDUNV IRU FRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK WKH JXLGHOLQHV WKDQ WKH\ JDYH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWVf§DQG QRQH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZDV QHDUO\ VR FRQILGHQW LQ DQ\ RI WKH MRXUQDOLVWV DV WKH MRXUQDOLVWV ZHUH LQ WKHPVHOYHV ,Q WKH DUHD RI WULDO FRYHUDJH DFFXUDF\ DQG ELDV PRUH WKDQ WZR WKLUGV RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IHOW WKHLU FRYHUDJH ZDV DFFXUDWH DQG XQELDVHG RQO\ RQHWKLUG RI WKH RWKHUV DJUHHG SULQW UHSRUWHUV JDYH WKHLU RZQ ZRUN KLJK PDUNV b RI WKH WLPH ZKLOH RQO\ b RI WKH RWKHUV DJUHHG ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV RQFH DJDLQ DOO WKH UHVSRQGHQWV JDYH SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV KLJKHU PDUNV IRU DFFXUDF\ DQG ODFN RI ELDV WKDQ WKH\ JDYH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWVDQG DJDLQ QRQH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZDV QHDUO\ VR SRVLWLYH DERXW WKH MRXUQDOLVWV DV WKH MRXUQDOLVWV ZHUH DERXW WKHPVHOYHV :HLQWKDO DQG 2n.HHIH VXUYH\HG EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV LQ 'HQYHU 7KHLU ILQGLQJV VXSSRUWHG D SURILOH RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV VLPLODU WR WKDW RI SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV ZLWK WKH RQO\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQFOXGLQJ EURDGFDVWHUVn KLJKHU GHVLUH IRU IUHHGRP IURP FORVH VXSHUYLVLRQ DQG IRU H[FLWHPHQW DQG YDULHW\ DV ZHOO DV IRU ZRUNLQJ ZLWK FRQJHQLDO FROOHDJXHV

PAGE 87

$ ILHOG RI VWXG\ RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV DW DOO WKUHH QHWZRUN DIILOLDWHV LQ HDFK RI VL[ WHOHYLVLRQ PDUNHWV LQ :LVFRQVLQ OHG ,GVYRRJ t +R\W WR FRQFOXGH PDUNHW VL]H GLG QRW DIIHFW OHYHO RI SURIHVVLRQDOLVP PHDVXUHG RQ WKH 0F/HRG t +DZOH\ VFDOHf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nV IDLUQHVV UXOHV DQG RWKHU JRYHUQPHQWDO UHTXLUHPHQWV $OWKHLGH VSHQW IRXU PRQWKV LQ D QHWZRUN DIILOLDWHnV QHZVURRP DORQJ ZLWK QHDUO\ D \HDU RII DQG RQ DW D VHFRQG DQG WKUHH GD\V DW D QHWZRUN RZQHGDQGRSHUDWHG VWDWLRQ LQ D WKLUG PDUNHW EDFNHG XS ZLWK D FROOHDJXHnV UHVHDUFK +H IRXQG WKDW WKH QHZV SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH MRXUQDOLVW FUHDWHV D ELDV )DFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ WKLV SHUVSHFWLYH LQFOXGH FRPPHUFLDOLVP DQG

PAGE 88

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nV MRE H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG MRE UHDOLW\ %UHHG KDG LQWHUYLHZHG PRUH WKDQ QHZVSDSHUPHQ LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR GLVFRYHU ZK\ WKH\ IROORZHG WKH SXEOLVKHUVn SROLFLHV UHJDUGLQJ RULHQWDWLRQ RI HGLWRULDOV DQG QHZV +H KDG GHVFULEHG VL[ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI ZKDW KH FDOOHG D V\VWHP RI VRFLDO FRQWURO LQVWLWXWLRQDO DXWKRULW\ DQG VDQFWLRQV IHHOLQJV RI REOLJDWLRQ DQG HVWHHP IRU VXSHULRUV PRELOLW\ DVSLUDWLRQV DEVHQFH RI FRQIOLFWLQJ JURXS DOOHJLDQFH WKH SOHDVDQW QDWXUH RI WKH DFWLYLW\ DQG QHZV DV D YDOXH

PAGE 89

*DUYH\ ODWHU UHSOLFDWHG %UHHGnV ZRUN LQ EURDGFDVW QHZVURRPV ZLWK VLPLODU UHVXOWV 3KLOOLSVn VWXG\ RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ MRXUQDOLVWLF YHUVXV VRFLDO VFLHQFH SHUVSHFWLYHV LQFOXGHG XQREWUXVLYH PHDVXUHV DQG VXUYH\V DV ZHOO DV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ DW D QHZVSDSHU WZR FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQV DQG D FRPPHUFLDO 79 VWDWLRQ 3KLOOLSV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH MRXUQDOLVWn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nV WKHRU\ VXJJHVWLQJ MRXUQDOLVWV VHHN YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKHLU FKRLFHV WKXV OHDGLQJ WR FKDUJHV RI SDFN MRXUQDOLVP %XFNDOHZ DSSOLHG JDWHNHHSLQJ WKHRU\ WR EURDGFDVWLQJ +H ILUVW VDW WKURXJK WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI QHZVFDVWV ZLWK

PAGE 90

WHOHYLVLRQ QHZV HGLWRUV DQG IRXQG RQO\ VOLJKW YDULHW\ LQ VHOHFWLRQ RI VWRULHV YDULHW\ ZKLFK KH VDLG ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH VL]H RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ VPDOOHU PDUNHWV ZHUH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK SUR[LPLW\ RI VWRULHV ODUJHU ZLWK WLPHOLQHVV %XFNDOHZ DOVR VWXGLHG JDWHNHHSLQJ PHWKRGV DW UDGLR VWDWLRQV +H IRXQG VHYHQ RI WKH VWDWLRQV WRRN PRVW RI WKHLU QHZV GLUHFWO\ IURP WKH ZLUH VHUYLFHV ULS nQn UHDGf WZR UHZURWH ZLUH FRS\ DQG WKH UHVW XVHG WKH ZLUH FRS\ DV LPSHWXV IRU IROORZLQJ XS VWRULHV +DUOHVV SUHVHQWHG ZKDW KH FDOOHG D TXDVLn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fV QHZVFDVWV DW WKH WKUHH QHWZRUN

PAGE 91

DIILOLDWHV LQ 0HPSKLV 6KH VXJJHVWHG WKH UROH RI WKH WHOHYLVLRQ UHSRUWHU LQ WKH RYHUDOO JDWHNHHSLQJ SURFHVV LV QRW DV LVRODWHG DV WKDW RI WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHU DQG WKH WHOHYLVLRQ UHSRUWHU LV DOVR PRUH DIIHFWHG E\ WHFKQLFDO OLPLWDWLRQV WKDQ KLV FRXQWHUSDUW 7KXV WKH W\SLFDO MRXUQDOLVW KROGV FHUWDLQ YDOXHV DQG IROORZV FHUWDLQ QRUPV VRPH RI ZKLFK VXFK DV WKH LQWUXVLRQ RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWnV SHUVRQDOLW\ LQWR KLV FRYHUDJH RI D SURFHVV ZKLFK KROGV WR DQ LGHDO RI REMHFWLYLW\ DQG QHXWUDOLW\ EOLQG MXVWLFHf KDYH WKH SRWHQWLDO WR FRQWULEXWH WR MXGLFLDO UHOXFWDQFH UHJDUGLQJ FDPHUDV LQ FRXUW 7KHVH WKHRUHWLFDO VXJJHVWLRQV KDYH EHHQ ERUQH RXW E\ MXGLFLDO UHVSRQVH WR DFWXDO EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI FRXUWV DV HYLGHQFHG E\ VXUYH\V RI MXGJHV DQG MXGJHVn UHSRUWV RQ FDVHV ZKLFK ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG VKRUWO\ )LUVW KRZHYHU EULHI PHQWLRQ RI VHYHUDO RWKHU JHQHUDO LVVXHV VWXGLHG E\ WKH VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV LV DOVR DSSURSULDWH WR WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV )RU LQVWDQFH WKH PHGLDWHG UHDOLW\ RI SROLWLFDO QHZV LQ WKH 86IURP WKH SRVVLEOH XQZLWWLQJ ELDV SURGXFHG E\ QHZV FRYHUDJH RI SROLWLFDO HYHQWV WR WKH XQGHUO\LQJ DGYHUVDU\ PRGHO WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI YDU\LQJ GHJUHHV RI FRQIOLFW RI LQWHUHVW EHWZHHQ MRXUQDOLVWV DQG JRYHUQPHQW DQG SROLWLFDO ILJXUHVf§KDV EHHQ GHVFULEHG E\ UHVHDUFKHUV VXFK DV /DQJ DQG /DQJ KL %OXPOHU DQG *XUHYLWFK 2VWURII 3DOHW] DQG (QWPDQ 5DQQH\ DQG 5LYHUV 0HPEHUV RI WKH MXGLFLDU\ PLJKW DVVXPH DQ DQDORJRXV

PAGE 92

SRVVLEOH ELDV DQG DGYHUVDULDO UHODWLRQVKLS XQGHUOLH SUHVV FRYHUDJH LQ WKH FRXUWV 7KH FDWDORJXH RI REMHFWLRQV WR WKH WHOHYLVLQJ RI &RQJUHVV UDQJLQJ IURP SUHGLFWLRQV RI XQGLJQLILHG EHKDYLRU WR SRWHQWLDO SROLWLFDO DEXVH PLJKW DOVR DIIHFW WKH MXGLFLDU\A $OWKRXJK FDQRQV RI MXGLFLDO GHFRUXP SUHFOXGH SXEOLF GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH SROLWLFDO DVSHFWV RI D MXGJHnV FDUHHU WULDO MXGJHV LQ PRVW MXULVGLFWLRQV WRGD\ DUH VXEMHFW WR WKH HOHFWRUDWH DQG WKH SROLWLFDO QDWXUH RI WKH DSSHOODWH MXGLFLDU\ SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH +LJK &RXUW KDV DOUHDG\ EHHQ PHQWLRQHGf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

PAGE 93

VXJJHVWHG UHVWULFWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH *HUEQHU VDLG WKH SXUSRVH RI WULDOV LV WR SURWHFW WKH GHIHQGDQW QRW WR HQWHUWDLQ RU WR HGXFDWH DQG KH FDOOHG IRU PRUH UHVHDUFK EDVHG RQ DFWXDO FRXUW VWXGLHV 'XULQJ WKH H[SHULPHQW ZLWK FDPHUDV LQ )ORULGD LQ VHYHUDO VWXGLHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG VRPH RI ZKLFK EHFDPH SDUW RI WKH FRXUW UHFRUG LQ 3RVW1HZVZHHN 5HSRUWV RI ILYH MXGJHV DV ZHOO DV UHVXOWV RI IRXU VXUYH\V ZLOO EH EULHIO\ GLVFXVVHG -XGJH 3DXO %DNHU SUHVLGHG RYHU WKH PRVW VSHFWDFXODU RI WKH FDVHV =DPRUD Y )ORULGD 6R G $ f FRYHUHG JDYHOWRJDYHO E\ 0LDPLnV :3%7 3%6f 'HVSLWH WKH PDVVLYH SXEOLFLW\ DQG FRPSOH[ ORJLVWLFV QHFHVVLWDWHG E\ WKH WULDO -XGJH %DNHU FDPH RXW LQ IDYRU RI FDPHUDV +H PDGH VHYHUDO UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH FDVHV LQFOXGLQJ VHTXHVWHULQJ RI MXURUV LQ VRPH FDVH DGPRQLVKLQJ RI ZLWQHVVHV DQG SURYLGLQJ D VHSDUDWH URRP IRU WKH PHGLD LQ PDMRU FDVHV -XGJH (GZDUG 3 &RZDUW &KLHI -XVWLFH RI )ORULGDnV WK &LUFXLW DQG ODWHU SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH LQ WKH WULDO RI VHULDO PXUGHUHU 7HG %XQG\f MRLQHG WZR RWKHU MXGJHV LQ D UHSRUW VXSSRUWLQJ WKH SLORW SURJUDP :H WKLQN LW LV MXVW DQRWKHU H[WHQVLRQ RI WKH ILUVW DPHQGPHQW WKURXJK D GLIIHUHQW PHGLXP 7KH GLVRUGHU GLVDUUD\ DQG FDUQLYDO DWPRVSKHUH RI WKH SDVW WULDOV DUH QRW KHUH WRGD\

PAGE 94

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b UHVSRQVH UDWH $OWKRXJK PHWKRGRORJLFDO IODZV OHG WR FRQFOXVLRQV FRQVLGHUHG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQVLJQLILFDQW WKH FRXUW DGPLQLVWUDWRU IRXQG WKH VXUYH\ LQ JHQHUDO LQGLFDWHG OLWWOH RU QR HIIHFW RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV

PAGE 95

$ VHFRQG VXUYH\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ -XGJH $UWKXU )UDQ]D WKHQ&KDLUPDQ RI WKH 3XEOLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ 3UHVV 5HODWLRQV &RPPLWWHH RI WKH )ORULGD &LUFXLW -XGJHV -XGJH )UDQ]D SROOHG WKH FLUFXLW MXGJHV ZLWK D b UHVSRQVH UDWHf 0RVW RI WKH MXGJHV HLWKHU IDYRUHG FDPHUDV RU ZHUH QHXWUDO WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV $ WKLUG VXUYH\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ -XGJH 'DYLG 6WUDZQ DQG WKUHH UHVHDUFKHUV IURP )ORULGD 7HFKQRORJLFDO 8QLYHUVLW\ 3DUWLFLSDQWV LQ ILYH RI WKH WULDOV ZKLFK WRRN SODFH GXULQJ WKH H[SHULPHQW ZHUH VXUYH\HG LQFOXGLQJ WZR RI WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJHV 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH WKHQ VHQW WR WKH VWDWH FLUFXLW MXGJHV ZLWK D b UHWXUQ UDWHf DQG FRXQW\ MXGJHV ZLWK D b UHWXUQ UDWHf 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VXUYH\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK MXGJHV ZHUH SUHMXGLFHG DJDLQVW FDPHUDV LQ JHQHUDO RQFH WKH\ KDG VRPH DFWXDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWK FDPHUDV LQ WKHLU RZQ FRXUWURRPV WKH\ WHQGHG WR EHFRPH PRUH LQFOLQHG WR IDYRU FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV $ IRXUWK EULHI VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ -HDQ &KDQFH DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD +HU TXHVWLRQV ZHQW WR QHZV GLUHFWRUV PDQDJLQJ HGLWRUV DQG SUHVLGLQJ FLUFXLW MXGJHV ZLWK D b UHWXUQ UDWH IRU WKH MXGJHV EHIRUH WKH H[SHULPHQW b UHWXUQ UDWH D \HDU ODWHUf $OWKRXJK WKH UHVSRQVH UDWH ZDV WRR ORZ IRU VLJQLILFDQW FRQFOXVLRQV WKH MXGJHV ZKR UHWXUQHG WKH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQQDLUH WHQGHG WR EH WKRVH ZKR KDG QHJDWLYH IHHOLQJV WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV

PAGE 96

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f VWXG\LQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 7KH VL[WHHQWK VWXG\ LV WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG FDVH VWXG\ E\ *ROGPDQ DQG /DUVRQf 2QO\ WKUHH HPSLULFDO VWXGLHV ZHUH GLVFXVVHG 7KH ILUVW +R\WnV H[SHULPHQW LQYROYHG YROXQWHHUV LQ D PHGLD FODVV LQ 0DGLVRQ :LVFRQVLQ 7KH VWXGHQWV ZHUH VKRZQ D ILOP DQG TXHVWLRQHG DIWHUZDUG KDOI ZHUH LQ D URRP LQ ZKLFK D YLGHR FDPHUDPDQ YHU\ REYLRXVO\ ZDV WDSLQJ WKHLU DQVZHUV KDOI ZHUH LQ D URRP LQ ZKLFK WKH FDPHUD ZDV QRW DFWXDOO\ LQ VLJKW DOWKRXJK WKH\ ZHUH WROG LW ZDV WKHUH +R\W UHSRUWHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ UHVSRQGHQWVn YHUEDO EHKDYLRU DQG FRQFOXGHG FDPHUDV PLJKW DFWXDOO\ OHDG WR IDLUHU WULDOV ZLWK ZLWQHVVHV JLYLQJ PRUH FRPSOHWH DQVZHUV 7KH VHFRQG VWXG\ 1HWWHEXUJnV VXUYH\ LQYROYHG SHRSOH VHOHFWHG DW UDQGRP IURP WHOHSKRQH GLUHFWRULHV LQ WZR :LVFRQVLQ FLWLHV 1HWWHEXUJ DVNHG UHVSRQGHQWV DERXW D

PAGE 97

UHFHQWO\WHOHYLVHG WULDO LQ ZKLFK WKH GHIHQGDQW KDG EHHQ WULHG IRU PXUGHU DQG DUVRQ DQG KDG EHHQ IRXQG JXLOW\ RI WKH IRUPHU LQQRFHQW RI WKH ODWWHU $FFRUGLQJ WR 1HWWHEXUJ DOWKRXJK PDQ\ VXEMHFWV UHFRJQL]HG WKH GHIHQGDQWnV QDPHDQG PLVWDNHQO\ WKRXJKW VKH KDG EHHQ FRQYLFWHG RI ERWK FULPHVf§ PRVW ZHUH QRW DZDUH RI HLWKHU KHU QDPH RU RI WKH RXWFRPH RI WKH FDVH 1HWWHEXUJ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH GDWD FRQWUDGLFW WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW WHOHYLVLRQ FDQ GHVWUR\ DQ DFFXVHGnV FDVH 7KH ILQDO VWXG\ FLWHG E\ %DUEHU LV 6KRUWnV VXUYH\ DQG H[SHULPHQW 3DUW RI WKLV VWXG\ LQYROYHG REVHUYHU HYDOXDWLRQV RI SDUWLFLSDQW EHKDYLRU LQ H[SHULPHQW YHUVXV FRQWURO FRQGLWLRQV DQRWKHU SDUW RI WKH VWXG\ JDWKHUHG GDWD YLD VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 6KRUW IRXQG OLWWOH QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZLWK OLWWOH QHJDWLYH GLVSRVLWLRQ WRZDUG WKH FDPHUDV DQG ZKDW WKHUH ZDV SULPDULO\ DPRQJ GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V 7KH VWXG\ DOVR VXJJHVWHG RWKHU SRWHQWLDO VRXUFHV RI GLVWUDFWLRQf§LQFOXGLQJ FRQYHQWLRQDO PHGLD FRXUW SHUVRQQHO WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG DXGLHQFHf§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

PAGE 98

DQG SHUFHLYHG SUHMXGLFLDO EHKDYLRU RQ WKH SDUW RI MXURUV ZLWQHVVHV MXGJHV RU DWWRUQH\V 6HYHUDO RWKHU VWXGLHV DOWKRXJK QRW LQFOXGHG LQ %DUEHUn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nV ULJKW WR D IDLU WULDO /DQFDVWHU IRXQG LW ZDV WKH FHOHEULW\ IDFWRU RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI WHOHYLVLRQ UHSRUWHUV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH FDPHUDV ZKLFK VLJQDOOHG SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW WKH WULDO UDWHG WKH DWWHQWLRQ RI WKH PHGLD 7KUHH UHFHQW VWXGLHV DOVR LQYROYHG H[SHULPHQWDO QRQn FRXUWURRPf VWXGLHV RI WKH LPSDFW RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 3DVWHUQDFN DVNHG ZKHWKHU LI MXURUnV LGHQWLWLHV EHFDPH NQRZQ WKURXJK WHOHYLVLQJ RI WULDOV WKH\ ZRXOG EHFRPH PRUH VXVFHSWLEOH WR FRPPXQLW\ SUHVVXUH WR FRQYLFW ,Q D

PAGE 99

ODERUDWRU\ VHWWLQJ KH KDQGHG VXEMHFWV QHZV VWRULHV VRPH RI ZKLFK LQFOXGHG DQ H[WUD SDUDJUDSK H[SUHVVLQJ FRPPXQLW\ LQWHUHVW LQ FRQYLFWLQJ FULPLQDOVf VKRZHG WKHP D YLGHRWDSH DQG KDG WKHP ILOO RXW D TXHVWLRQQDLUH +H IRXQG VXEMHFWV H[SRVHG WR PRUH SUHVVXUH LH UHDGLQJ WKH GRFWRUHG VWRU\f ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR GHOLYHU D JXLOW\ YHUGLFW DQG KH UHFRPPHQGHG VWDWHV PLJKW SURKLELW WHOHYLVLQJ RI WKH MXU\ +RZHYHU 3DVWHUQDFN KLPVHOI SRLQWV RXW VRPH RI WKH REYLRXV OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH VWXG\f§WKH DUWLILFLDOLW\ RI WKH H[SHULPHQW WKH VXEMHFW DZDUHQHVV RI WKH SURMHFW WKH H[SHFWDWLRQ RI WKH WHVWnV SRVVLEO\ OHDGLQJ WR PRUH GLOLJHQW YLHZLQJ RI WKH WDSH WKH ODFN RI H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ (YHQ PRUH VLJQLILFDQW KRZHYHU LV DQ DGGLWLRQDO OLPLWDWLRQ WKDW PLJKW EH QRWHG E\ D FULWLF WKH OHDS 3DVWHUQDFN PDNHV LQ DVVXPLQJ ILUVW WKDW MXURUV DUH XQNQRZQ LI XQWHOHYLVHG DQ DFWXDO WULDO WDNHV SODFH LQ DQ RSHQ FRXUWURRP LI D 79 FDPHUD LV SUHVHQW LW LV OLNHO\ SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV ZLOO DOVR EH FRYHULQJ WKH WULDO DQG ZLWK DOO H\HV RQ WKH MXURUV SDUWLFXODUO\ GXULQJ YRLU GLUH WKH\ DUH KDUGO\ XQNQRZQf $QG WKHUH LV D VHFRQG OHDS LQ ORJLF LQ DVVXPLQJ WKDW H[SRVXUH RI MXURUVn LGHQWLWLHV LV WKH PRVW UHOHYDQW IDFWRU LQ PDNLQJ D MXURU IHHO PRUH VXEMHFW WR FRPPXQLW\ SUHVVXUH WR FRQYLFW )LQDOO\ WKH UHVSRQVHV RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV PDQ\ RI ZKRP GR QRW UHJLVWHU WR YRWH DQG ZRXOG QRW EH FDOOHG WR MXU\ GXW\ LQ PDQ\ VWDWHV PD\ QRW EH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI DQ DFWXDO MXU\ SRRO

PAGE 100

$ VHFRQG VWXG\ E\ 3DGGRQ GHVFULEHG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WULDO FRYHUDJH XVLQJ YLGHR YHUVXV WKRVH XVLQJ VNHWFKHV IURP WKH FRXUWURRP %XLOGLQJ RQ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ WKHRU\ WKLV VWXG\ LQYROYHG H[SRVLQJ VXEMHFWV WR RQH RI IRXU WUHDWPHQWV LQ D KDOIKRXU QHZVFDVW IROORZHG E\ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH 3DGGRQ IRXQG FDPHUDV DSSHDUHG WR HQKDQFH D YLHZHUn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

PAGE 101

EDQ RQ HOHFWURQLF PHGLD DFFHVV DQG IURP D VRFLDO VFLHQFH SHUVSHFWLYH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV DFFHVV GRHV QRW DSSHDU WR SURGXFH WKH HIIHFWV LWV FULWLFV DVVHUW +RZHYHU KH QRWHV WKDW PXFK RI WKH HYLGHQFH DYDLODEOH KDV QRW UHDOO\ IRFXVHG RQ ZKHWKHU DFFHVV DFWXDOO\ FDXVHV WKH HIIHFWV FODLPHG IRU LW 5LPPHU FLWHV %RJJVn UHYLHZA RI HPSLULFDOO\ EDVHG VWXGLHV RI VWDWH FRXUW H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WHOHYLVLRQ FRYHUDJH ZKLFK IRXQG LQ RI WKH VWXGLHV EDVLF PHWKRGRORJLFDO IODZV ZKLFK PDU WKH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ RI WKH ILQGLQJV ,Q VKRUW 5LPPHU FRQFOXGHV VWXGLHV RI HIIHFWV DWWULEXWHG WR HOHFWURQLF PHGLD DFFHVV WR WKH FRXUW ZHUH RIWHQ JHQHUDOL]HG EH\RQG WKHLU GDWD 7KXV LW LV DSSDUHQW WKDW DV 5LPPHU VD\V f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

PAGE 102

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f§ VXJJHVWV LW LV QR ORQJHU DSSURSULDWH WR UHJXODWH HOHFWURQLF PHGLD GLIIHUHQWO\ IURP SULQW PHGLD LQ WKH PDWWHU RI FRXUWURRP DFFHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ LI WKLV GLIIHUHQWLDO LV EDVHG PHUHO\ RQ VSHFXODWHG LPSDFW RI FRYHUDJH 7KXV WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ IROORZLQJ WKH WDFN VXJJHVWHG E\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH H[DPLQHG WKH EHKDYLRU RI ERWK SULQW DQG HOHFWURQLF MRXUQDOLVWV LQ DQ DFWXDO FRXUWURRP 7KH QH[W FKDSWHU GHVFULEHV KRZ WKH VWXG\ ZDV FDUULHG RXW 1RWHV 1RUZRRG 1$EOH[ 3XEOLVKLQJf &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 6RFLDO 6FLHQWLILF (YDOXDWLRQ %RZOLQJ *UHHQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 2+f 6HH HJ 7KH %LJ 'DQnV 5DSH 7ULDO $Q (PEDUUDVVPHQW IRU )LUVW $PHQGPHQW $GYRFDWHV DQG WKH &RXUWV &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG WKH /DZ $SULO f &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUWnV 5HOXFWDQFH WR (QGRUVH 7HOHYLVHG 7ULDOV 6RXWKHUQ 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ -RXUQDO 6XPPHU f

PAGE 103

&RYHUDJH )DUHV 3RRUO\ $IWHU &KDQGOHU 1HZV 3KRWRJUDSKHU 0DUFK f 7KH 3UREOHP RI 3UHMXGLFH $ 1HZ $SSURDFK WR $VVHVVLQJ WKH ,PSDFW RI &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV -XGLFDWXUH 'HFHPEHU-DQXDU\ f :LOOLDPV 7ULDO -XGJH 2IIHUV 1HZ 5HDVRQV IRU &DPHUD %DQ -RXUQDLVP 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f 6HH -DPHV +R\W 5HYLHZf LQ -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ :LQWHU f 'DQ 6ODWHU 5HYLHZf LQ -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ DQG (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD )DOO f (OLVKD +DQVRQ $%$ 5HSRUWV $OEHUW %ODVKILHOG 7KH &DVH RI WKH &RQWURYHUVLDO &DQRQ $%$ -RXUQDO 0D\ f 2VFDU +DOODP 0LQQHVRWD /DZ 5HYLHZ 0DUFK f -RVHSK &RVWD &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRPV $ 3RVLWLRQ 3DSHU 0XQFLH ,1 %DOO 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ -RXUQDOLVP3XEOLF 5HODWLRQV 5HVHDUFK &HQWHU 5LFKDUG .LHOERZLF] 7KH 6WRU\ %HKLQG WKH $GRSWLRQ RI WKH %DQ RQ &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV -XGLFDWXUH -XQH-XO\ f 6HH DOVR 7KH 0DNLQJ RI &DQRQ $ %ORZ WR 3UHVV%DU &RRSHUDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP +RXVWRQ 5 6WHSKHQ &UDLJ -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ :LQWHU f Q0DUWLQ %DVV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULHQFH 7HOHYLVLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f 'RQ :KLWH )ORULGDnV %ROG ([SHULPHQW )RO &HQWHU 5HSRUW 1R &ROXPELD 02 -XQH 7HUU\ .QRSI 1RYHPEHU 1RUPDQ 'DYLV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 3XW 2XW WKH :HOFRPH 0DW7KDQNV %XW 1R 7KDQNV 0D\ f 6HH DOVR &XUUHQW -XO\$XJXVW f &RXUWURRP 7HOHYLVLRQ RQ 7ULDO ,WnV +HUH ,W ZRUNV 7HOHYLV LRQ 4XDUWHUO\ f 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ 2XU &RXUWV 7KH 3URYHQ $GYDQWDJHV WKH 8QSURYHQ 'DQJHUV -XGLFDWXUH $XJXVW f 6HH HJ -3 0RUJDQ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD LQ WKH &RXUWURRP )RO &HQWHU 5HSRUW 1R &ROXPELD 02 )HEUXDU\

PAGE 104

L(GZDUG 3ULQJOH 7KH &DVH IRU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 79 *XLGH 0DUFK 6HH DOVR 7KH -XGLFLDU\ t WKH 0HGLD 1HZ -HUVH\ 3XEOLF 7HOHYLVLRQ 0D\ YLGHRf ( :LWW 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUWV -DQXDU\ f )UDQN :KLWH &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 86 6XUYH\ -RXUQDOLVP 0RQRJUDSKV $SULO 6XPPDU\ RI 79 &DPHUDV LQ WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV :LOOLDPVEXUJ 9$ 1RYHPEHU r:DVKLQJWRQ '& 6HH DOVR 1HZV 0HGLD &RYHUDJH RI -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV ZLWK &DPHUDV DQG 0LFURSKRQHV $ 6XUYH\ RI WKH 6WDWHV :DVKLQJWRQ '& (J )LYH 6WDWHV '& %DQ &DPHUDV )URP &RXUWURRPV 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6LJPD 'HOWD &KL )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 5HSRUW :DVKLQJWRQ '& -DPHV +R\W &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP )URP +DXSWPDQQ WR :LVFRQVLQ 7KH $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP 6HDWWOH $XJXVW 'DYLG *UDYHV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWV 7KH 6LWXDWLRQ 7RGD\ -XGLFDWXUH -XQH-XO\ f /\OH 'HQQLVWRQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH 4XLOO 0DUFK f 6HH HJ /\OH 'HQQLVWRQ 3KRWR )LQLVK 7KH /DWHVW :RUG RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH 4XLOO 0DUFK f 6HH HJ 0DUWLQ %DVV 7HOHYLVLRQnV 'D\ LQ &RXUW 1HZ
PAGE 105

)UHG *UDKDP t 'RQDOG )UHW] &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 'LDORJXH
PAGE 106

LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI PDQ\ RI WKH GHUHJXODWRU\ VXJJHVWLRQV GLVFXVVHG KHUHf LWKLHO GH 6ROD 3RRO 7HFKQRORJLHV RI )UHHGRP &DPEULGJH 0$ %HONQDS 3UHVV f 9LQFHQW %ODVL 7KH &KHFNLQJ 9DOXH LQ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW 7KHRU\ $PHULFDQ %DU )RXQGDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO f $OH[DQGHU 0HLNOHMRKQ 7KH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW LV DQ $EVROXWH 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 5HYLHZ HG 3KLOLS .XUODQG &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV f A7KRPDV (PHUVRQ /HJDO )RXQGDWLRQV RI WKH 5LJKW WR .QRZ :DVKLQJWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ /DZ 4XDUWHUO\ fO r'DYLG .XUL\DPD 7KH n5LJKW RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 7ULDQJOHn $ )LUVW $PHQGPHQW %DVLV IRU 7HOHYLVLQJ -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI +DZDLL /DZ 5HYLHZ f +RZHYHU IRU D FRPSOHWHO\ GLIIHUHQW LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO WUHDWPHQW RI WKH SULQW DQG HOHFWURQLF PHGLD VHH /HH %ROOLQJHU )UHHGRP RI WKH 3UHVV DQG 3XEOLF $FFHVV 7RZDUG D 7KHRU\ RI 3DUWLDO 5HJXODWLRQ RI WKH 0DVV 0HGLD 0LFKLJDQ /DZ 5HYLHZ fO $PHULFDQ /DZ 5HSRUWV WK 0LWFKHOO 'DZVRQ t 5REHUW %HUQD\V %URDGFDVW 7ULDOV" 7KH /DZ\HU ,ELG ,ELG 7HOHYLVLRQ DQG 1HZVUHHO &RYHUDJH RI D 7ULDO ,RZD /DZ 5HYLHZ f :LOOLDP +RGJHV t & /DZUHQFH 6WDJJV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD/DZ 5HYLHZ OO f 0LFKDHO 5REHUWV t :LOOLDP *RRGPDQ 7KH 7HOHYLVHG 7ULDO $ 3HUVSHFWLYH &XPEHUODQG /DZ 5HYLHZ )DOO f 6WHSKHQ :ROI 7KH 5ROH RI WKH (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD LQ WKH &ULPLQDO -XVWLFH 6\VWHP &LQFLQQDWL /DZ 5HYLHZ f 'RQDOG )UHW] &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7ULDO 6HSWHPEHU f

PAGE 107

-XGLWK .UHHJHU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH )ORULGD %DU -RXUQDO -XQH f :DUG 6WRQH t 6KLHO (GOLQ 79 RU 1RW 79 7HOHYLVHG DQG 3KRWRJUDSKLF &RYHUDJH RI 7ULDOV 0HUFHU /DZ 5HYLHZ f 5RQDOG /RHZHQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ :DVKEXUQ /DZ -RXUQDO 6SULQJ f 3DXO *ROGPDQ t 5LFKDUG /DUVRQ 6RXWKZHVWHUQ1HYDGD /DZ 5HYLHZ f ,ELG 7KRPDV 7RQJXH t 5REHUW /LQWRWW :LOOLDPHWWH /DZ 5HYLHZ f ,ELG 6WHSKHQ 1HYDV -XGJHV -RXUQDO :LQWHU 'DYLG 7RZQHQG 7H[DV %DU -RXUQDO $SULO f 'LDQH =LPPHUPDQ 2YHUFRPLQJ )XWXUH 6KRFN (VWHV 5HYLVLWHG RU D 0RGHVW 3URSRVDO IRU WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDO 3URWHFWLRQ RI WKH 1HZVJDWKHULQJ 3URFHVV 'XNH /DZ -RXUQDO 6HSWHPEHU f .XUL\DPD /HUR\ 7RUQTXLVW t .DUHQ *ULIDOO 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 'HYLO RU 6DLQW" :LOOLDPHWWH /DZ 5HYLHZ f &KDUOHV $UHV &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 7HOHYLVLRQ &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV DQG 'XH 3URFHVV 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 5HYLHZ HGV 3KLOLS .XUODQG HW DO &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV f ,ELG 0LFNH\ %HLVPDQ ,Q WKH :DNH RI &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD $ &RPSUHKHQVLYH $SSURDFK WR WKH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP )HGHUDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQV &RPPLVVLRQ /DZ -RXUQDO :LQWHU f

PAGE 108

0DUJRW 3HTXLQRW )URP (VWHV WR &KDQGOHU 6KLIWLQJ WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDO %XUGHQ RI &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV WR WKH 6WDWHV )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ /DZ 5HYLHZ f 'DYLG 7DMJLPDQ )URP (VWHV WR &KDQGOHU 7KH 'LVWLQFWLRQ %HWZHHQ 7HOHYLVLRQ DQG 1HZVSDSHU 7ULDO &RYHUDJH &RPP(QW /DZ -RXUQDO 6SULQJ f ,ELG 5REHUW +XJKHV &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD &DPHUDV *HW 3UREDWLRQ LQ &RXUWURRP -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f -HUHP\ &RKHQ &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 8QILQLVKHG 6FULSW IRU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP (DVW /DQVLQJ 0, $XJXVW -HUHP\ &RKHQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP DQG 'XH 3URFHVV $ 3URSRVDO IRU D 4XDOLWDWLYH 'LIIHUHQFH 7HVW :DVKLQJWRQ/DZ 5HYLHZ f 7KRPDV -XOLQ 'HWURLW &ROOHJH RI /DZ 5HYLHZ f 3HWLWLRQ WR WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &RQFHUQLQJ 9LVXDO DQG $XUDO &RYHUDJH RI )HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV E\ WKH (OHFWURQLF DQG 3ULQW 3UHVV 0DUFK 5LFKDUG /LQGVH\ *HRUJLD /DZ 5HYLHZ 6SULQJ f *UHJRU\ 0F&DOO &DPHUDV LQ WKH &ULPLQDO &RXUWURRP $ 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW $QDO\VLV &ROXPELD /DZ 5HYLHZ f &DURO\Q 5LHPHU 7HOHYLVLRQ &RYHUDJH RI 7ULDOV &RQVWLWXWLRQDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JDLQVW $EVROXWH 'HQLDO RI $FFHVV LQ WKH $EVHQFH RI D &RPSHOOLQJ ,QWHUHVW 9LOODQRYD /DZ 5HYLHZ f &DURO\Q '\HU t 1DQF\ +DXVHUPDQ (OHFWURQLF &RYHUDJH RI WKH &RXUWV ([FHSWLRQV WR ([SRVXUH 7KH *HRUJHWRZQ /DZ -RXUQDO f 1DQF\ *DUGQHU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP *XLGHOLQHV IRU 6WDWH &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV 0LFKLJDQ /DZ 5HYLHZ 'HFHPEHU f

PAGE 109

'RXJODV .LOOLDQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG WKH /DZ $SULO f )RU PHGLD GHSHQGHQF\ VWXGLHV VHH HJ /HH %HFNHU t &KDUOHV :KLWQH\ (IIHFWV RI 0HGLD 'HSHQGHQFLHV $XGLHQFH $VVHVVPHQW RI *RYHUQPHQW &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK -DQXDU\ f 0LFKDHO 5RELQVRQ $PHULFDQ 3ROLWLFDO /HJLWLPDF\ LQ DQ (UD RI (OHFWURQLF -RXUQDOLVP 5HIOHFWLRQV RQ WKH (YHQLQJ 1HZV LQ 7HOHYLVLRQ DV D 6RFLDO )RUFH 1HZ $SSURDFKHV WR 79 &ULWLFLVP HGV 'RXJODVV &DWHU t 5LFKDUG $GOHU 1HZ
PAGE 110

&KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ 1LFKRODV /RYULFK 9DO /LPEXUJ t (ULN :DVPDQQ 7KH (IIHFW RI 9ROXQWDU\ %HQFK%DU3UHVV *XLGHOLQHV RQ 3URIHVVLRQDO $WWLWXGHV 7RZDUGV )UHH 3UHVV 3ULYDF\ DQG )DLU 7ULDO 9DOXHV -XGLFDWXUH $XJXVW 6HSWHPEHU 6HH DOVR /LPEXUJ HW DO +RZ 3ULQW t %URDGFDVW -RXUQDOLVWV 3HUFHLYH 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 5HSRUWHUV LQ &RXUWURRP -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ )DOO f 'RQDOG :HLQWKDO t *DUUHWW 2n.HHIH 3URIHVVLRQDOLVP $PRQJ %URDGFDVW 1HZVPHQ LQ DQ 8UEDQ $UHD -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQD 6SULQJ f .DUO ,GVYRRJ t -DPHV +R\W 3URIHVVLRQDOLVP t 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 7HOHYLVLRQ -RXUQDOLVWV -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQD :LQWHU f 6HH DOVR -DFN 0F/HRG t 6HDUOH +DZOH\ 3URIHVVLRQDOL]DWLRQ $PRQJ 1HZVPHQ -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ $XWXPQ f (GZDUG -D\ (SVWHLQ 1HZV )URP 1RZKHUH 7HOHYLVLRQ DQG WKH 1HZV 1HZ
PAGE 111

-RKQ 'LPPLFN 7KH *DWHNHHSHU $Q 8QFHUWDLQW\ 7KHRU\ -RXUQDOLVP 0RQRJUDSKV -DPHV %XFNDOHZ 1HZV (OHPHQWV t 6HOHFWLRQ E\ 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV (GLWRUV -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f LR}7KH 5DGLR 1HZV *DWHNHHSHU t +LV 6RXUFHV -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ :LQWHU f -DPHV +DUOHVV 0DLO &DOO $ &DVH 6WXG\ RI D %URDGFDVW 1HZV *DWHNHHSHU -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ 6SULQJ f LQ'DQ 'UHZ 5ROHV t 'HFLVLRQ 0DNLQJ RI 7KUHH 7HOHYLVLRQ %HDW 5HSRUWHUV -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ 6SULQJ f .DWKOHHQ :LFNKDP 7KH *HQHUDWLRQ RI 6WRU\ ,GHDV $Q ([SORUDWRU\ 6WXG\ RI *DWHNHHSLQJ LQ /RFDO 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP DQG 0DVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& $XJXVW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR VRXUFHV FLWHG KHUH VHH HJ ,WKLHO GH 6ROD 3RRO 1HZVPHQ t 6WDWHVPHQ $GYHUVDULHV RU &URQLHV" LQ $VSHQ 1RWHERRN RI *RYHUQPHQW DQG WKH 0HGLD HG :LOOLDP 5LYHUV t 0LFKDHO 1\KDQ 1HZ
PAGE 112

'R &KDQJHV LQ 7HOHYLVLRQ -RXUQDOLVP 0HDQ &KDQJHV LQ &DPSDLJQ &RYHUDJH" &ROXPEXV 2KLR 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ Q'DYLG 3DOHW] t 5REHUW (QWPDQ 0HGLD 3RZHU 3ROLWLFV 1HZ
PAGE 113

L}5HSF!UW ,Q 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV )ORULGD ,QF &DVH 1R L5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD 5H &RQGXFW RI $XGLR 9LVXDO 7ULDO &RYHUDJH L}5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD 5H $XGLR 9LVXDO 7ULDO &RYHUDJH 2IILFH RI WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ $ 6DPSOH 6XUYH\ RI WKH $WWLWXGHV RI ,QGLYLGXDOV $VVRFLDWHG :LWK 7ULDOV ,QYROYLQJ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD DQG 6WLOO 3KRWRJUDSK\ &RYHUDJH LQ 6HOHFWHG )ORULGD &RXUWV %HWZHHQ -XO\ DQG -XQH $)UDQ]D 5HSRUW RI WKH )ORULGD &RQIHUHQFH RI &LUFXLW -XGJHV ,Q 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV )ORULGD ,QF IRU &KDQJH LQ &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW $OVR $SSHQGL[ WR 3RVW1HZVZHHN 6R G f 6WUDZQ HW DO 5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD LQ 5H &DVH 1R 6HH DOVR 5D\ %XFKDQDQ HW DO 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULPHQW 7ULDO $SULO -HDQ &KDQFH &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRP *R 2Q 7ULDO )ORULGD )RO &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 2FWREHU f &DPHUDV LQ &RXUW ,V 3UHVHQFH 3UHMXGLFLDO" 6HSWHPEHU 2FWREHU f 9LHZV &KDQJH 7RZDUG &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV 6HSWHPEHU2FWREHU f 6HH DOVR &DPHUDV LQ &RXUW &DPHUDnV (\H DQG -XVWLFHnV %OLQGQHVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQV LQ %DODQFH :RUNVKRS )W 0\HUV )/ 0DUFK %DUEHU 1HZV &DPHUDV *ROGPDQ t /DUVRQ -DPHV +R\W &RXUWURRP &RYHUDJH 7KH (IIHFWV RI %HLQJ 7HOHYLVHG -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ )DOO f .HUPLW 1HWWHEXUJ 'RHV 5HVHDUFK 6XSSRUW WKH (VWHV %DQ RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP" -XGLFDWXUH f (UQHVW 6KRUW t $VVRFLDWHV (YDOXDWLRQ RI &DOLIRUQLDnV ([SHULPHQW :LWK ([WHQGHG 0HGLD &RYHUDJH RI &RXUWV 6HH DOVR HJ $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVVLRQ RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP )LQDO 6WDWLVWLFDO 5HSRUW &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP LQ 1HYDGD 0D\ 0LQQHVRWD $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVVLRQ RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 5HSRUW RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW -DQXDU\ 5RE 5DNHU &DPHUDV DQG 5HFRUGHUV LQ $UL]RQDnV 7ULDO &RXUWV $Q

PAGE 114

(YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH ([SHULPHQW :DVKLQJWRQ 6WDWH 6XSHULRU &RXUW -XGJHVn $VVRFLDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RQ &RXUWV DQG &RPPXQLW\ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP$ 7ZR
PAGE 115

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nV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ RI FDPHUD FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDOV UHPDLQV XQUHSRUWHG LH GR QRW DSSHDU GHVSLWH D GLOLJHQW OLWHUDWXUH VHDUFKf $ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO VWUHQJWKV DQG ZHDNQHVVHV RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ RI SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ ZLOO EH IROORZHG E\ D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH VSHFLILF SURMHFW XQGHUWDNHQLQFOXGLQJ SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH FKRLFH RI PHWKRGRORJ\ EDVHG RQ WKH VFRSH RI WKH UHVHDUFKf§DQG D EULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI UHILQHPHQW

PAGE 116

RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ 7KH FKDSWHU ZLOO FRQFOXGH ZLWK D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH JHQHUDO OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH VWXG\ 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ 7KH SULPH PHWKRGRORJ\ VHOHFWHG IRU WKH VWXG\ LV WKH VW\OH RI ILHOG UHVHDUFK UHIHUUHG WR DV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ )ULHGULFKV DQG /XGWNH GHILQH WKH PHWKRG DV WKH UHFRUGLQJ RI IDFWV SHUFHSWLEOH WR WKH VHQVHV RQ WKH EDVLV RI D VHW SODQ LQ ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFKHU PDLQWDLQV D UHFHSWLYH SRVLWLRQ LQ FRQIURQWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH UHVHDUFK REMHFW *ROGn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f HSLVRGHV DQG HQFRXQWHUV UROHV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG JURXSV RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG VHWWOHPHQWV /RIODQG VXJJHVWV WKH WHFKQLTXH LV SDUWLFXODUO\ XVHIXO LQ VWXG\LQJ D VRFLDO SURFHVV RYHU D SHULRG RI WLPH )ULHGULFKV DQG /XGWNH DORQJ ZLWK %DEELH 'RXJODV 6SUDGOH\ :HEE HW DO DQG
PAGE 117

LQVWDQFH WKH WHFKQLTXH DOORZV WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR JDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ DUHDV ZKHUH D VXUYH\ TXHVWLRQ LWVHOI PLJKW HYRNH DWWLWXGHV DIIHFWLQJ WKH DQVZHUV RU ZKHUH DFFHVV WR WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ GHVLUHG PLJKW UHTXLUH D VHULHV RI LQWHUYLHZV RU FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV 3DUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ DOVR DOORZV WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR DYRLG PDQ\ RI WKH SLWIDOOV RI VXUYH\ UHVHDUFK VXFK DV D SRVVLEOH GLVFUHSDQF\ EHWZHHQ D VXEMHFWnV YHUEDO EHKDYLRU ZKDW KH VD\V KH ZRXOG GRf DQG KLV DFWXDO EHKDYLRU 0RUHRYHU WKH WHFKQLTXH GRHV QRW GHSHQG XSRQ WKH YHUEDO FDSDELOLWLHV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHf§QRU XSRQ WKH LQVWUXPHQW GHVLJQ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDOHQWV RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU 7KHRULVWV DOVR SRLQW RXW WKDW IRU VRPH TXHVWLRQV WKH LQGXFWLYH PHWKRG OHDGV WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ GXH WR WKH REVHUYHUnV DELOLW\ WR SODFH EHKDYLRU LQ FRQWH[W 7KH UHVHDUFKHU PLJKW REVHUYH EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK HVFDSH WKH VXEMHFWnV QRWLFH HLWKHU GXH WR VHOHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQ E\ WKH VXEMHFW RU WR LQDELOLW\ RU XQZLOOLQJQHVV RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH VXEMHFW WR GLVFXVV FHUWDLQ LVVXHV )LQDOO\ SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ LV D IOH[LEOH PHWKRG RI UHVHDUFK ,W PD\ OHDG WR D VWURQJ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI D VSHFLILF VLWXDWLRQ DQG LQ IDFW DW WLPHV LW PD\ EH WKH RQO\ ZD\ WR VWXG\ D UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH VDPH UHVHDUFKHUV SRLQW RXW VHYHUDO GLVDGYDQWDJHV RI SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ )RU LQVWDQFH RQH GDQJHU LV WKH HIIHFW WKH REVHUYHUnV RZQ

PAGE 118

VHOHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQ PD\ KDYH RQ WKH VWXG\ 0RUHRYHU WKH VXEMHFWnV DZDUHQHVV RI EHLQJ REVHUYHG WKH +DZWKRUQH HIIHFWf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

PAGE 119

GHYLDQW FDVHV 7KH TXRWD VDPSOH LQYROYHV VHOHFWLRQ RI D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH XQLW RI VWXG\ )RU LQVWDQFH LQ D VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH WKH XQLW PLJKW LQFOXGH REVHUYDWLRQ RI D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VHOHFWLRQ RI WULDOV RU RI D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VHOHFWLRQ RI WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KH VQRZEDOO VDPSOH LV RQH LQ ZKLFK WKH XQLWV RI VWXG\ DUH GHULYHG GXULQJ WKH FRXUVH RI FRQGXFWLQJ WKH VWXG\ LWVHOI )RU LQVWDQFH LQ D VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH WKH LQLWLDO VWXG\ PLJKW LQYROYH D VSHFLILF WULDO DQG DV WKH FRXUVH RI MXGLFLDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SURFHHGV WKH UHVHDUFKHU PLJKW IROORZ WKH DSSHDOV SURFHVV RI WKH WULDO WR LWV XOWLPDWH FRQFOXVLRQ 7KH GHYLDQW FDVHV DSSURDFK LV RQH LQ ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFKHU GHOLEHUDWHO\ VHOHFWV FDVHV ZKLFK GR QRW ILW LQWR WKH QRUPDO SDWWHUQ )RU LQVWDQFH LQ D VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH WKH UHVHDUFKHU PLJKW VHOHFW D KLJKO\SXEOLFL]HG FDVH ZKLFK ZRXOG GUDZ DQ XQXVXDOO\ ODUJH QXPEHU RI MRXUQDOLVWV WR WKH FRXUWURRP *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV VXJJHVW WKH UHVHDUFKHU PLQLPL]H GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ FRPSDULVRQ JURXSV LQ RUGHU WR HQKDQFH GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ HPHUJLQJ WKHRU\ $FFRUGLQJ WR WKLV SKLORVRSK\ PLQLPL]LQJ GLIIHUHQFHV LQFUHDVHV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZLOO FROOHFW PXFK VLPLODU GDWD LQ D JLYHQ FDWHJRU\ DQG WKXV LPPHGLDWHO\ UHFRJQL]H DQ\ LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFHV 0LQLPL]LQJ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ XQLWV VWXGLHG DOVR KHOSV HVWDEOLVK D VHW RI FRQGLWLRQV XQGHU ZKLFK WKH

PAGE 120

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n VXEMHFWLYLW\ E\ ZRUNLQJ ZLWK DQRWKHU REVHUYHU ,Q D VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH WKH REVHUYHU PLJKW UHTXHVW D FROOHDJXH DWWHQG VRPH FRXUW VHVVLRQV DQG GHVFULEH KLV REVHUYDWLRQV RU UHO\ RQ REVHUYDWLRQV RI RWKHUV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP )LQDOO\ WKH REVHUYHU PLJKW FRQWLQXRXVO\ UHHYDOXDWH KLV SRVLWLRQ WR DWWHPSW WR DYRLG WKH SLWIDOOV UHVXOWLQJ IURP VHOHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQ DV ZHOO DV IURP ORJLFDO IDOODFLHV KDVW\ FRQFOXVLRQV FDXVH DQG HIIHFWf )RU D VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH WKH REVHUYHU ZRXOG QHHG WR UHPDLQ SDUWLFXODUO\ DZDUH WKDW WKH DSSDUHQW EHKDYLRU LQ WKH FRXUWURRP GXULQJ WKH

PAGE 121

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n WKH DQDO\VLV 7KH SULPH PHWKRGRORJ\ VHOHFWHG IRU WKH UHVHDUFK ZDV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ UROH RI FRPSOHWH REVHUYHUf 7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKLV FKRLFH FRQVWLWXWHV WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ )LUVW WKH FRXUWURRP LV DQ DSSURSULDWH ORFDOH IRU ILHOG UHVHDUFK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH /RIODQGV FULWHULD DQG LQ IDFW ZDV WKH ORFDOH RI REVHUYDWLRQ VXFK DV WKDW RI )HHOH\ $QG WKH EHKDYLRU RI HOHFWURQLF MRXUQDOLVWV FDQ EHVW EH XQGHUVWRRG LQ WKH VHWWLQJ LQ ZKLFK LW RFFXUV

PAGE 122

,OO 1H[W PRVW RI WKH EHQHILWV GLVFXVVHG DERYH ZRXOG DSSO\ WR SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRU RI MRXUQDOLVWV SURYLGLQJ WULDO FRYHUDJH )RU LQVWDQFH D VLJQLILFDQW GLVFUHSDQF\ EHWZHHQ ZKDW WKH MRXUQDOLVWV VD\ WKH\ GR ZKDW WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV VSHFXODWH WKHLU EHKDYLRU WR EHf§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nV SURIHVVLRQDO H[SHULHQFH PDNHV WKH WUHDWPHQW RI SHRSOH DV UHVHDUFK REMHFWV OHVV SUREOHPDWLF )RU SUDJPDWLF UHDVRQV IROORZLQJ D VLQJOH VHQVDWLRQDO WULDO WKURXJK H[KDXVWLRQ RI DSSHDOV PLJKW WDNH PDQ\ \HDUVf WKH DSSURDFK VHOHFWHG IRU WKH VDPSOH ZDV WKH TXRWD VDPSOH LQ SDUWLFXODU D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VHOHFWLRQ RI WULDOV KHOG LQ D

PAGE 123

VSHFLILF MXULVGLFWLRQ GXULQJ D VSHFLILHG SHULRG RI WLPH )ROORZLQJ *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV HYHU\ DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR PLQLPL]H GLIIHUHQFHV $ VHOHFWLRQ RI DOO WULDOV LQYROYLQJ FKDUJHV RI ILUVW GHJUHH PXUGHU GLVFXVVHG FKURQRORJLFDOO\ DV WKH\ DURVH RQ WKH FULPLQDO GRFNHW LQ )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW RYHU D RQH\HDU SHULRG ZDV GHHPHG DSSURSULDWH 7KH FKRLFH RI FULPHV ZDV PDGH GXH WR WKH LQWXLWLYH IHHOLQJ WKHUH ZRXOG EH WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI VXFK WULDOV PRUHRYHU D FRQFRPLWDQW GHYHORSPHQW RI KHDY\ SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI D FDVH PLJKW EHDU DQ LQYHUVH UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI D QHJRWLDWHG VHWWOHPHQW 7KH FKRLFH RI VWDWHV ZDV PDGH GXH WR )ORULGDnV OHDGLQJ UROH LQ WKH HYROXWLRQ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV RQH RI WKH UHDVRQV WKH UHVHDUFKHU HOHFWHG WR DWWHQG WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGDf ZKLOH WKDW RI WKH VSHFLILF FLUFXLW LQ )ORULGD ZDV PDGH GXH WR SUDJPDWLF FRQVLGHUDWLRQV VXFK DV SUR[LPLW\ 5HILQHPHQW RI 0HWKRGRORJ\ 3ULRU WR WKH DFWXDO REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG LQ RUGHU WR UHILQH WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ LQ WKH UHVHDUFKHU REVHUYHG WKUHH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW WULDOV LQ WKHLU HQWLUHW\ D FULPLQDO WULDO ZLWK D MXU\ D FLYLO WULDO ZLWKRXW D MXU\ DQG D FLYLO WULDO LQ WKH DSSURSULDWH IHGHUDO GLVWULFW FRXUW WKH ODVW LQ ZKLFK FDPHUDV DUH IRUELGGHQ IRU FRPSDULVRQ SXUSRVHVf $ EULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH

PAGE 124

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nV KRPHWRZQ DVNHG WKH MXGJH LI KH FRXOG XVH D VPDOO PP FDPHUD WR WDNH D SKRWRJUDSK RI WKH GHIHQGDQW WKH MXGJH SRLQWHG RXW WKH FDPHUD KDG D IODVK ZKLFK YLRODWHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV 7KH ORFDO GDLO\ SXEOLVKHG D GUDPDWLF SLFWXUH WDNHQ GXULQJ FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV LW VKRZHG WKH SURVHFXWLQJ DWWRUQH\ EUDQGLVKLQJ WKH PXUGHU ZHDSRQ 7KH ORFDO SXEOLF WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ DWWHPSWHG WR

PAGE 125

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f VDLG WKH LQFLGHQWV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZLWK WKH WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ ZHUH XQIRUWXQDWH KDWHG LW ZDQWHG WR WHOO WKHP n%ULQJ LW EDFN LWnV 2.n EXW FRXOGQnW :HOO PD\EH LW ZLOO KHOS WKHP OHDUQ D YDOXDEOH OHVVRQ PLJKW KDYH EHHQ RYHUO\ VHQVLWLYH 7KH FLYLO FDVH ZDV KHDUG 0D\ LQ WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ &RXUWKRXVH 7KLV FDVH LQYROYHG D VXLW EURXJKW E\ SURSHUW\ RZQHUV LQ WKH &URVV &UHHN DUHD DJDLQVW WKH FRXQW\nV /DQG 8VH 3ODQ ZKLFK WKH\ FODLPHG GHSULYHG WKHP RI HTXDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG GXH SURFHVV WKH\ ORVW WKHLU FDVH 7KH ORFDO GDLO\ QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU ZDV SUHVHQW IRU DQ KRXU HDFK GD\ DQG WKH VWRU\ ZDV IURQWSDJH QHZV DOO ZHHN ZLWK SKRWRJUDSKV HDFK GD\ 7KH ORFDO FRPPHUFLDO WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG OLYH FRYHUDJH IURP WKH FRXUWKRXVH RSHQLQJ GD\ DQG OLYH FRYHUDJH IURP &URVV &UHHN ZKHQ WKH YHUGLFW ZDV

PAGE 126

DQQRXQFHG 7KH ORFDO SXEOLF WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG FRYHUDJH LQFOXGLQJ FRXUWURRP IRRWDJH WDNHQ WKH RSHQLQJ GD\ RI WKH WULDO 7KH ORFDO SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ VHQW D UHSRUWHU WKH UHVHDUFKHUf WR FRYHU WKH HQWLUH WULDO DQG SUHVHQWHG GDLO\ OLYH DQG WDSHGnUHSRUWV LQFOXGLQJ LQWHUYLHZV WDSHG LQ WKH FRXUWKRXVH DV ZHOO DV D VDPHGD\ ZUDSXS VWRU\ VHQW YLD VDWHOOLWH WR RWKHU )ORULGD SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQV 7KH UHVHDUFKHU QRWHG D JUHDW GHDO RI IUHHGRP JUDQWHG WKH PHGLD LQ FRYHULQJ WKH WULDO 4XHVWLRQHG DIWHUZDUG WKH MXGJH WROG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WKDW VLQFH WKLV ZDV QRW D MXU\ WULDO DQG EHFDXVH KH KDG EHHQ WROG WKH FDVH PLJKW EH RI QDWLRQDO LQWHUHVW DXWKRU 0DUMRULH .LQQDQ 5DZOLQJV KDYLQJ ZULWWHQ H[WHQVLYHO\ DERXW &URVV &UHHNf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f 7KH GLIILFXOWLHV RI FRYHUDJH RI IHGHUDO FRXUWV ZKHUH FDPHUDV

PAGE 127

DUH QRW DOORZHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP EHFDPH LPPHGLDWHO\ FOHDU 7KH *XLGHOLQHV IRU WKH 86 0LGGOH 'LVWULFW &RXUW DOORZHG EURDGFDVW HTXLSPHQW RQO\ LQ WKH OREE\ DUHD RI WKH FRXUWKRXVH DQG QRW RQ WKH VLGHZDONV LPPHGLDWHO\ VXUURXQGLQJ WKH FRXUWKRXVHf +RZHYHU DV WKHUH ZDV QR VSDFH DOORWWHG WR VWRUH HTXLSPHQW ZKLOH WKH UHSRUWHU ZDV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WKH RQO\ VROXWLRQ VHHPHG WR EH IRU WKH UHSRUWHU WR DUUDQJH ZLWK WKH WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV IRU LQWHUYLHZV DW DSSRLQWHG WLPHV LQ WKH FRXUWKRXVH OREE\ DFURVV WKH VWUHHW RU DW WKH KRWHOV ZKHUH WKH RXWRIWRZQ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH VWD\LQJ $IWHU PLQRU UHILQHPHQWV WR WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ VXFK DV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D MXURU H[LW SROOf WKH UHVHDUFKHU WKHQ REVHUYHG DOO IRXU RI WKH ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU WULDOV ZKLFK DSSHDUHG RQ WKH FULPLQDO GRFNHW LQ WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW 7KHVH LQFOXGHG )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV )ORULGD Y & +DUULV DQG 3 +DUULV )ORULGD Y 6SLNHV DQG )ORULGD Y 6WDQOH\ 5HJDUGLQJ WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQKRZ FORVHO\ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU EHKDYLRU LQ FRXUWURRPV GXULQJ FULPLQDO WULDOVf§WKH UHVHDUFKHU REVHUYHG WKH PHGLD EHKDYLRU LQ WKH VHYHQ DUHDV RI WKH )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV ZKHWKHU FRYHUDJH ZDV OLPLWHG WR RQH VWLOO SKRWRJUDSKHU WZR WHOHYLVLRQ SKRWRJUDSKHUV DQG RQH DXGLR V\VWHP RSHUDWRU ZLWK SRROLQJ WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH PHGLD ZKHWKHU RQO\ QRQGLVWUDFWLQJ VRXQG DQG OLJKW HTXLSPHQW ZDV HPSOR\HG ZKHWKHU SODFHPHQW ZDV OLPLWHG SHU WKH FKLHI

PAGE 128

MXGJHnV GHVLJQDWLRQLV ZKHWKHU PRYHPHQW ZDV OLPLWHG WR UHFHVVHV ZKHWKHU DFFRUGLQJ WR FRXUW SHUVRQQHOf PRGLILFDWLRQV WR OLJKW VRXUFHV DFFHSWDEOH WR WKH FKLHI MXGJH KDG EHHQ LQVWDOOHG DW PHGLD H[SHQVH ZKHWKHU FRQIHUHQFHV ZLWK FOLHQWV RU MXGJH ZHUH H[FOXGHG IURP EURDGFDVW DQG ZKHWKHU DQ\ RI WKH PHGLD PDWHULDO ZDV PDGH DGPLVVLEOH LQ HYLGHQFH LQ DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ 6HH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU WKH IXOO WH[W RI WKH *XLGHOLQHVf 5HJDUGLQJ ERWK WKH VHFRQG DQG WKH WKLUG TXHVWLRQVZKDW LPSDFW WKH JXLGHOLQHV KDYH RQ FRYHUDJH DQG ZKHWKHU EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDO SURFHHGLQJVf§WKH UHVHDUFKHU ILUVW DQDO\]HG WKH SURFHVV RI FRYHUDJH E\ TXHVWLRQLQJ PHGLD SHUVRQQHO UHJDUGLQJ KRZ LW ZDV GHFLGHG WR FRYHU D VSHFLILF FDVH KRZ WKH PHGLD RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHWHUPLQHG DVVLJQPHQW RI SHUVRQQHO WKH JHQHUDO EDFNJURXQG RI SHUVRQQHO VHOHFWHG WR FRYHU WKH WULDOV LQFOXGLQJ IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZKLFK ZDV DOVR XVHIXO LQ GLVFXVVLQJ WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQf DQG IDFWRUV LQYROYHG ZKLFK DIIHFWHG WKH PDQQHU RI FRYHUDJH RI HDFK WULDO 6KH WKHQ FRPSDUHG WKH EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI HDFK WULDO ZLWK KHU RZQ REVHUYDWLRQV RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV )LQDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH IRXUWK TXHVWLRQZKHWKHU EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVVWKH UHVHDUFKHU DQDO\]HG WKH ILQGLQJV DERYH 6KH DOVR WRRN LQWR DFFRXQW VXFK VSHFLILF FRQVLGHUDWLRQV DV ZKHWKHU DQ\ LQFLGHQWV KDG RFFXUUHG GXULQJ WKH SURFHHGLQJV

PAGE 129

ZKLFK PLJKW EH FODVVLILHG DV GLVUXSWLRQV VXFK DV D MXGJHnV DVNLQJ D SKRWRJUDSKHU WR FHDVH D FRXUW SDUWLFLSDQWnV FRPPHQW RU REYLRXV UHDFWLRQ WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI FDPHUDV DQ\ PRWLRQV IRU DQGRU JUDQWLQJ RI PLVWULDO GXH LQ DQ\ SDUW WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH PHGLDf 7R IXUWKHU DWWHPSW WR PLWLJDWH WKH GDQJHU RI VRPH RI WKH ULVNV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ PHWKRGRORJ\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU DXJPHQWHG WKH TXDOLWDWLYH REVHUYDWLRQV ZLWK TXDQWLWDWLYH GDWD )RU LQVWDQFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH ILUVW WZR TXHVWLRQV VXUYH\LQWHUYLHZ GDWDGHVLJQHG WR HOLFLW D SHUVSHFWLYH RQ WKH JHQHUDO RXWORRN WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUD JXLGHOLQHV LQ WKH &LUFXLWZHUH FROOHFWHG SULRU WR WKH REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG 7KH UHVHDUFKHU LQWHUYLHZHG UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU H[SHULHQFH ZLWK FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV VLQFH WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH VWDWHnV QHZ &DQRQ $f LQ 7KH UHVXOWV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU VHH $SSHQGL[ % IRU WKH FRPSOHWH WH[W RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHf 5HJDUGLQJ WKH WKLUG TXHVWLRQ FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI WULDO FRYHUDJHGHVLJQHG WR SURYLGH D EDVLV IRU FRPSDULVRQ RI SULQW FRYHUDJH ZLWK FRYHUDJH E\ EURDGFDVWHUV LQ DQ HIIRUW WR GLVFHUQ GLVWRUWLRQV LQ FRYHUDJHf§ZDV FRQGXFWHG GXULQJ WKH REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG 7KH FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV LQFOXGHG TXDQWLILFDWLRQ RI DQG DQDO\VLV RI DOO SXEOLVKHG QHZVSDSHU DUWLFOHV UHJDUGLQJ FRYHUDJH RI HDFK WULDO DV ZHOO DV RI EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH EDVHG RQ VFULSWV DQG ZKHUH SRVVLEOHf

PAGE 130

WDSHV 7KH UHVXOWV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU VHH $SSHQGL[ & IRU FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV $SSHQGL[ IRU VHOHFWHG DUWLFOHV DQG VFULSWVf )LQDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH IRXUWK TXHVWLRQ VXUYH\ LQWHUYLHZ GDWDGHVLJQHG WR SURYLGH GDWD UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHVSRQVH RI WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV WR FRYHUDJH LQ DQ HIIRUW WR GLVFHUQ GLVUXSWLRQV WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVVf§ZHUH FROOHFWHG DIWHU WKH REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG 7KH UHVHDUFKHU LQWHUYLHZHG LQ VRPH FDVHV UHLQWHUYLHZHGf WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV LQFOXGLQJ PHGLD SHUVRQQHO MXGJHV SURVHFXWRUV DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V DQG DOVR FRQGXFWHG MXURU H[LW SROOV 7KH UHVXOWV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU VHH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU WKH FRPSOHWH WH[W RI WKH MXURU H[LW SROOf $OWKRXJK LW ZDV GLIILFXOW IRU WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR KDYH WKH EHQHILW RI D FROOHDJXHn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

PAGE 131

/LPLWDWLRQV 7KH OLPLWDWLRQV LQKHUHQW LQ SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ LQ JHQHUDO KDYH DOUHDG\ EHHQ GLVFXVVHG DV KDYH WKRVH PHWKRGRORJLFDO OLPLWDWLRQV RI D FDVH VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV HJ WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV VHOHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQ WKH +DZWKRUQH HIIHFWf $GGLWLRQDO OLPLWDWLRQV RI D VWXG\ RI WKLV W\SH PLJKW LQFOXGH REVWDFOHV ZKLFK PD\ KDYH OLPLWHG WKH HPSLULFDO VWXGLHV RI DFWXDO FRXUWURRPV WR GDWH SULPDULO\ WKH MXGLFLDU\nV SRVVLEOH UHOXFWDQFH WR DOORZ D UHVHDUFKHU IXOO DFFHVV WR REVHUYDWLRQ RI HQWLUH WULDOV SDUWLFXODUO\ LI SHUPLVVLRQ WR LQWHUYLHZ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV LV UHTXHVWHG ,Q WKLV DVSHFW WKH UHVHDUFKHU KDV EHHQ YHU\ IRUWXQDWH LQ WKDW WKH MXGLFLDU\ LQ WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW KDV EHHQ H[WUDRUGLQDULO\ FRRSHUDWLYH WKLV PD\ EH GXH LQ SDUW WR PDQ\ MXGLFLDO RIILFHUVn EHLQJ JUDGXDWHV RI WKH ORFDO XQLYHUVLW\ DQG WKXV DZDUH RI WKH QDWXUH RI TXDOLWDWLYH VRFLDO VFLHQFH UHVHDUFK 0RVW VLJQLILFDQWO\ WKH VWXG\ RI RQO\ D KDQGIXO RI WULDOV GHVSLWH DWWHPSWV WR PLQLPL]H GLIIHUHQFHVf LQ RQO\ D VLQJOH MXULVGLFWLRQ SDUWLFXODUO\ D XQLYHUVLW\ WRZQ D PHGLXPn VL]HG EURDGFDVW PDUNHW ZLWK RQO\ RQH FRPPHUFLDO WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ FRPSHWLQJ ZLWK WKH SXEOLF VWDWLRQf VXJJHVWV H[WUHPHO\ OLPLWHG JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ )XWXUH UHVHDUFKHUV ZRXOG QHHG WR UHSOLFDWH WKH VWXG\ ILUVW LQ RWKHU MXULVGLFWLRQV ILUVW LQ )ORULGD WKHQ LQ RWKHU VWDWHVf QH[W IRU RWKHU W\SHV RI FDVHV HJ OHVVHU FULPHV FLYLO FDVHVf ILQDOO\ DW RWKHU

PAGE 132

OHYHOV HJ VWDWH DSSHOODWH FRXUWV HYHQWXDOO\ IHGHUDO WULDO DQGf§XOWLPDWHO\IHGHUDO DSSHOODWH FRXUWVf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

PAGE 133

LQQRFHQW PDQ WKDQ WR OHW D JXLOW\ RQH JR IUHHf LW LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ HYHU WR KDYH DV PXFK SXEOLF H[SRVXUH DV SRVVLEOH RI WKH SURFHVV RI MXGLFLDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ )ORULGDnV *XLGHOLQHV IRU FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH DUH VHUYLQJ DV D PRGHO IRU JXLGHOLQHV GHYHORSHG UHFHQWO\ LQ RWKHU VWDWHV DQG DUH WKXV DQ DSSURSULDWH VXEMHFW RI VWXG\ ZKLFK WKH\ KDYH QRW EHHQ WR GDWHf $GGLWLRQDOO\ DOWKRXJK D VLQJOH FDVH VWXG\ PD\ QRW EH YHU\ JHQHUDOL]DEOH WKHUH LV QR HYLGHQFH WKDW HLWKHU WKH FKRLFH RI ORFDOHV RU WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI FULPLQDO WULDOV VWXGLHG LV LQ DQ\ZD\ DW\SLFDO 7KXV WKH VWXG\ VKRXOG OHDG WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UROH FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DFWXDOO\ SOD\ LQ WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DQG DV QHFHVVDU\ WR VXJJHVWHG UHILQHPHQWV LQ FXUUHQW SUDFWLFHV DQG SURFHGXUHV 1RWHV L-XUJHQ )ULHGULFKV t +DUWPXW /XGWNH 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ 7KHRU\ DQG 3UDFWLFH /H[LQJWRQ 0$ 6D[RQ +RXVH 5 *ROG 5ROHV LQ 6RFLRORJLFDO )LHOG 2EVHUYDWLRQ LQ ,VVXHV LQ 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ HGV *HRUJH 0F&DOO t 6LPPRQV 5HDGLQJ 0$ $GGLVRQ:HVOH\ f -RKQ /RIODQG t /\QQ /RIODQG $QDO\]LQJ 6RFLDO 6HWWLQJV $ *XLGH WR 4XDOLWDWLYH 2EVHUYDWLRQ DQG $QDO\VLV %HOPRQW &$ :DGVZRUWK f ff(DUO %DEELH )LHOG 5HVHDUFK LQ 7KH 3UDFWLFH RI 6RFLDO 5HVHDUFK WK HG %HOPRQW &$ :DGVZRUWK f n -DFN 'RXJODV ,QYHVWLJDWLYH 6RFLDO 5HVHDUFK ,QGLYLGXDO DQG 7HDP )LHOG 5HVHDUFK %HYHUO\ +LOOV 6DJH f

PAGE 134

-DPHV 6SUDGOH\ 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 135

)HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV E\ WKH (OHFWURQLF DQG 3ULQW 3UHVV 0DUFK f DV ZHOO DV VSHFLILFDOO\ IRU FRYHUDJH RI WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW &KDSWHU VXSUD 1RWH DQG GLVFXVVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ SURSRVDO E\ 'HDQ 7DOERW 6DQG\f 'n$OHPEHUWH LQ D OHWWHU WR -XVWLFH 5HKQTXLVWf 6HH DOVR :HVWPRUHODQG Y &%6 )HG G DW 1RWH )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV SURSRVHG IRU XVH LQ FRYHUDJH RI :HVWPRUHODQG WULDOf )RU WKH FULPLQDO FDVH )ORULGD Y -RKQVRQf WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZDV D IXOOWLPH REVHUYHU ,Q WKH VXSSOHPHQWDU\ FLYLO FDVHV *OLVVRQ Y $ODFKXD %UDGIRUG 1$$&3 Y 6WDUNHf WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZDV SULPDULO\ D FRUUHVSRQGHQW IRU :8)7)0 135f DQG WKH REVHUYDWLRQV ZHUH LQFLGHQWDO WR FRYHUDJH RI WKH FDVH 7KH &KLHI -XGJH RI )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW LVVXHG DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RUGHU JUDQWLQJ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU SODFHPHQW RI HTXLSPHQW LQ DOO MXGLFLDO SURFHHGLQJV WR WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH 7KH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW RI )ORULGD *HQHUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 2UGHU 3ODFHPHQW RI $XGLR t 9LVXDO (TXLSPHQW LQ &RXUWURRP $XJXVW *DLQHVYLOOH )/ 6DQG\ 'n$OHPEHUWH IRUPHU GHDQ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI /DZ DW WKH )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ EHJDQ YLGHRWDSLQJ DOO SURFHHGLQJV RI WKH )ORULGD 6XSUHPH &RXUW DV RI -DQXDU\ 7KH WDSHV ZRXOG VHUYH DV DQ H[FHOOHQW GDWD EDVH IRU UHVHDUFK RQ DSSHOODWH FRYHUDJH 6HH 1RWH

PAGE 136

&+$37(5 5(68/76 $1' ',6&866,21 7KH VWXG\ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW WRRN SODFH LQ +RZHYHU LQ DV GLVFXVVHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU KDG FRQGXFWHG D SUHOLPLQDU\ VXUYH\ RI FRXUW RIILFLDOV DQG RWKHUV DQG KDG DOVR VWXGLHG WKUHH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WULDOV LQ WKH FLUFXLW 6HH &KDSWHU VXSUDf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f DQG WKH WZR ORFDO UDGLR VWDWLRQV RQH FRPPHUFLDO RQH SXEOLFf LQYROYHG LQ FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV LQFOXGLQJ D FRS\ RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZHUH VHQW D ZHHN LQ DGYDQFH WR HDFK UHVSRQGHQW 7KH

PAGE 137

LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH DVNHG WR GHVFULEH WKHLU IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZKHWKHU WKH\ KDG D SUREOHP LQ WKHRU\ RU SUDFWLFH ZLWK DQ\ DVSHFW RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZKHWKHU FDVHV RU FRYHUDJH RI FDVHVf KDG EHHQ KDQGOHG GLIIHUHQWO\ VLQFH WKH DGYHQW RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KRZ RIWHQ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KDG EHHQ HQFRXQWHUHG KRZ RIWHQ WKH UHVSRQGHQW KDG HQFRXQWHUHG UHIXVDO RI SHUPLVVLRQ IRU FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH DQG ZKHWKHU WKH UHVSRQGHQW IRUHVDZ DQ\ FKDQJH LQ FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH 6HH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU FRPSOHWH WH[W RI *XLGHOLQHV $SSHQGL[ % IRU 4XHVWLRQQDLUHf 7KH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ GHDOW ZLWK IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK WKH JXLGHOLQHV $OO EXW RQH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV KDG VHHQ WKH *XLGHOLQHV 7KH RQH H[FHSWLRQ D UDGLR QHZV GLUHFWRU KDG DQ RSHUDWLQJ NQRZOHGJH RI WKHPf 2QH RI WKH WHOHYLVLRQ QHZV GLUHFWRUV KDG VHHQ WKH *XLGHOLQHV LQ WKH )ORULGD %DU $VVRFLDWLRQnV 5HSRUWHUnV +DQGERRN DQG WKH UHVW ZHUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKHP IURP FRXUW VRXUFHV :LWK YDU\LQJ GHJUHHV RI UHVHUYDWLRQV DOO RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV DSSURYHG LQ SULQFLSOH WKH QRWLRQ RI FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV WKH WRSLF RI WKH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ 7KH &KLHI -XGJH VDLG KH LV QRW JHQHUDOO\ SOHDVHG ZLWK WKH ZD\ WKH PHGLD FRYHUV WKH FRXUWV EXW KH VD\V WKH XVH RI FDPHUDV GRHV QRW PDNH D GLIIHUHQFH 7KH &RXQW\ -XGJH VDLG ,nP DOO IRU LW 7KH FRXUW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV H[SUHVVHG VRPH FRQFHUQ IRU LQVWDQFH WKH &OHUN VDLG KH IHHOV LQ VRPH FDVHV MXGJHV PLJKW JLYH PRUH OHQLHQW VHQWHQFHV ZHUH LW QRW IRU WKH FDPHUDV 7KH

PAGE 138

$VVLVWDQW &OHUN VDLG VKH KDG QR SUREOHPV ZLWK DXGLR RU VWLOO FDPHUDV EXW ZDV FRQFHUQHG LQ WKHRU\ WKDW WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUDV PLJKW KDYH VRPH HIIHFW SDUWLFXODUO\ RQ MXYHQLOH ZLWQHVVHV $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ FDPHUDV DUH QR SUREOHP /DZ\HUV DUH DFWRUV KDPV YHU\ OLWWOH ERWKHUV XV ,Q WHUPV RI SHUVRQDOLWLHV ZH KDYH DQ HJR RU ZH ZRXOGQnW EH LQ WKDW DUHQD +RZHYHU KH VDLG VRPHWLPHV ZLWQHVVHV KDYH D SUREOHP :LWQHVVHV KDYH D VWRU\ WR WHOO DQG LWnV QRW DOZD\V HDV\ 7KH\nUH VK\ RU WKH\ WKLQN WKH GHIHQGDQW ZLOO FRPH EDFN DQG NLOO WKHP 7KH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU VDLG 6RPH RI RXU GHIHQGDQWV H[SUHVV FRQFHUQ 0RVW RI RXU FOLHQWV ZRXOG SUHIHU QRW WR KDYH FRYHUDJH 7KHQ ZH WHOO WKHP WKDWnV WKH ZD\ LW LV ,nYH DOZD\V IHOW LW ZDV HQWLUHO\ DFFHSWDEOH LW KDV QHYHU ZRUULHG PH $ SULYDWH DWWRUQH\ ZKR VSHQW PRUH WKDQ \HDUV LQ WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHUnV RIILFH LQFOXGLQJ HLJKW \HDUV DV WKH &KLHI VD\V KLV PDLQ FRQFHUQ LV WKDW LI WKH EURDGFDVWHUV DUH QRW JRLQJ WR DLU WKH HQWLUH WULDO WKH\ QHHG WR EDODQFH WKH FRYHUDJH LQ WHUPV RI SURVHFXWLRQ DQG GHIHQVH SODLQWLII DQG UHVSRQGHQW ,nYH VHHQ DOO RI WKH ZRUVWFDVH VFHQDULRV RQ RFFDVLRQ ,nYH VHHQ JUDQGVWDQGLQJ DWWRUQH\V ,nYH VHHQ RQ WKH QHZV DW LI ZH GLGQnW ZDLW WLO ZHnG VHH RQO\ RQH SHUVSHFWLYH 7KH SULQW PHGLD SOD\V PRSXS DQG SURYLGHV GHSWK RI SHUVSHFWLYH QRW DYDLODEOH DW ZKHQ \RX KDYH WKUHH PLQXWHV WR GR D VWRU\

PAGE 139

7DNLQJ WKH DFWXDO *XLGHOLQHV RQH DW D WLPH QR RQH KDG DQ\ SUREOHP ZLWK HTXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO UHVWULFWLRQV 7KH FLYLO DWWRUQH\ VDLG :KHQ WKH FDPHUD LV ILUVW LQWHUMHFWHG WKHUH LV D JUHDW GHDO RI HQHUJ\ LQ D QRQSXQ ZD\f EHLQJ UHOHDVHG 7KH\nUH UHODWLYHO\ XQREWUXVLYH EXW ,nYH VHHQ WKHP DWWHPSW WR YLRODWH WKH *XLGHOLQHV VHHQ WZR DW RQFH RU OLJKWV 7KH MXGJH VD\V n1Rn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nV IDFH LW :KDW LV VDLG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP LV UHDOO\ LPSRUWDQW ,I ZHnUH QRW JHWWLQJ JRRG DXGLR IURP ZKDW

PAGE 140

WHVWLPRQ\ LV GHOLYHUHG RU DUJXPHQWV E\ ERWK DWWRUQH\V RU FRPPHQWV IURP WKH MXGJH WKHQ ZH DUH QRW FRPPXQLFDWLQJ WKH GHOLYHU\ RI MXVWLFH OLNH ZH VKRXOG RU FRXOG +H ZHQW RQ WR VXJJHVW UHZLULQJ RI FRXUWV WR LQFOXGH PLFURSKRQHV DW WKH ZLWQHVV VWDQG WKH MXGJHnV EHQFK DQG DW DWWRUQH\Vn SRGLXPV DOO ZLUHG LQWR DQ DXGLR PL[HU ZKLFK ZRXOG DOORZ IRU VLPXOWDQHRXV DXGLR WR EH IHG WR PXOWLSOH UHFRUGHUV WKLQN \RXnG VHH D FRQVLGHUDEOH LQFUHDVH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI FDVHV DQG WKH YDULHW\ RI FDVHV EHLQJ FRYHUHG 7KH QHZV GLUHFWRU RI WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ DJUHHG DQG VXJJHVWHG DW OHDVW RQH FRXUWURRP LQ HDFK FLUFXLW PLJKW EH ZLUHG IRU DXGLR $V IDU DV WKH WKLUG IDFWRU ORFDWLRQ RI HTXLSPHQW SHUVRQQHO WKH RQO\ RQH WR FRPPHQW ZDV WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR QHZV GLUHFWRU ZKR VDLG KH IHOW WKH MXGJH KDG WRR PXFK GLVFUHWLRQ LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKDW ZDV D UHDVRQDEOH ORFDWLRQ n5HDVRQDEOHn LV WRR VXEMHFW WR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DQG PD\ EH GLIILFXOW WR UHVROYH VRPHWLPHV 7KH IRXUWK FULWHULRQ OLPLWLQJ PRYHPHQW GXULQJ SURFHHGLQJV VHHPHG OLNH D JRRG LGHD WR PRVW RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV 7KH &OHUN VDLG WKLQN WKLV LV DQ H[FHOOHQW UXOH 6RPHWLPHV WKH\ GRQnW KDYH WKH UHVSHFW IRU WKH V\VWHP WKH\ VKRXOG )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ WKH MXGJH LV VSHDNLQJ WR WKH MXURUV IURP WKH EHQFK QR RQH VKRXOG PRYH DURXQG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP 7KH SXEOLF 79 QHZV GLUHFWRU VDLG KH WRWDOO\ DJUHHG H[FHSW WR DOORZ D SKRWRJUDSKHU D FKDQFH WR VLW GRZQ RFFDVLRQDOO\ 7KH SXEOLF UDGLR QHZV GLUHFWRU VDLG WKDW

PAGE 141

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nUH WKHUH WR FRYHU LW QRW EH SDUW RI LW 4XHVWLRQHG ZKHWKHU FDVHV DUH KDQGOHG DQ\ GLIIHUHQWO\ VLQFH WKH DGYHQW RI FDPHUDV WKHUH VHHPV WR EH DOPRVW XQLYHUVDO DJUHHPHQW WKDW FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV KDYH KDG RQO\

PAGE 142

D SRVLWLYH HIIHFW LI DQ\ 7KH &KLHI -XGJH GLG KRZHYHU H[SUHVV FRQFHUQ ZLWK WKH ODFN RI H[SHULHQFH RI VWXGHQW MRXUQDOLVWV LQ WKH FROOHJH WRZQ 2QH WLPH >WKH FDPSXV WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ@ FDOOHG PH D VWXGHQW WKH\ FRXOGQnW JHW KHUH nWLO 7KH\ ZDQWHG PH WR SRVWSRQH WKH WULDO XQWLO IRU WKHP 7KH $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ VDLG KH DQG KLV VWDII KDG H[SHFWHG WKH FDPHUDV ZRXOG FDXVH D ELJ FKDQJH KDG SDUDQRLG FRPSODLQWV ZH KDG FRQIHUHQFHV ZH KDG RXU FRQFHUQV >%XW@ MXVW GRQnW WKLQN WKH\ DIIHFW D WULDO XQOHVV LWnV WKH ZLWQHVVHV RU MXURUV 7KH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU KDG DOVR H[SHFWHG SUREOHPV EXW QRZ VD\V WKH FDPHUDV PLJKW DIIHFW WKH MXURUV LQ D SRVLWLYH ZD\ MXVW GRQnW WKLQN LW FKDQJHV WKH UHVXOWV 0D\EH LWnV JRRG PD\EH LW PDNHV WKHP SD\ FORVHU DWWHQWLRQ 7KH FLYLO DWWRUQH\ FLWHV D FDVH IURP KLV H[SHULHQFH DV D SXEOLF GHIHQGHU LQ ZKLFK WKH FDPHUDV DIIHFWHG WKH FOLHQWV WKLV ZDV D SROLWLFDO FDVH +LV FOLHQWV ZDQWHG WR PDNH D VWDWHPHQW D SROLWLFDO VWDWHPHQW EXW RXU MRE ZDV QRW SROLWLFDO ,I WKH PHGLD KDGQnW EHHQ WKHUH WKH FDVH ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ OLNH DQ\ RWKHU 7KH PHGLD FUHDWHG D IRUXP 7KH DWWRUQH\ VDLG KH SHUVXDGHG KLV FOLHQWV QRW WR PDNH WKH VWDWHPHQWV 7KH FULPLQDO DWWRUQH\ VDLG WKHUH LV VRPH SRVWXULQJ IRU WKH FDPHUDV EXW ,nP QRW VXUH SRVWXULQJ LV D EDG WKLQJ /DZ\HUV DQG MXGJHV GR MXVWLFH DQG DOVR KDYH WR JLYH WKH

PAGE 143

DSSHDUDQFH RI MXVWLFH $FWXDOLW\ LPSDFWV D IHZ DSSHDUDQFH LPSDFWV D ORW RI SHRSOH 7KH SUHVHQFH RI WKH PHGLD IRUFHV DQ DZDUHQHVV RI WKH DSSHDUDQFH $V GLG WKH FLYLO DWWRUQH\ WKH FULPLQDO DWWRUQH\ FLWHV D GLIIHUHQWf SROLWLFDO FDVH WKLV RQH DWWUDFWLQJ WKH QDWLRQDO PHGLD LQ ZKLFK WKH FDPHUDV KDG DQ HIIHFW RQ KLV FOLHQWV 7KH >ORFDO@ MXGJH FRXOGQn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nUH KHUH IRU WKH PDMRU KRPLFLGHV 7KH WKUXVW ZDV JHWWLQJ LQ 2QFH WKH\ JRW WKH ULJKW WKH\ GRQnW ERWKHU WR VKRZ XS +LV &KLHI $VVLVWDQW VD\V KHnV VHHQ WKH FDPHUDV DW HYHU\ ILUVWGHJUHH

PAGE 144

PXUGHU FDVH KH KDV KDQGOHG VLQFH DERXW WZR GR]HQ FDVHV +H VD\V KH ZDV LPSUHVVHG UHFHQWO\ ZLWK WKH FRQFHUQ RI WKH PHGLD ZKHQ WKH FDPHUDV IROORZHG WKH MXU\ RXW WR WKH SDUNLQJ ORW ZKHUH KH ZDV VKRZLQJ D SLHFH RI HYLGHQFH D VKLUW ZRUQ E\ D PXUGHU YLFWLP WKH FORWKHV KDG D WHUULEOH RGRU VR KH GLG QRW EULQJ WKHP LQWR WKH FRXUWURRPf 7KH\ URGH GRZQ ZLWK XV LQ WKH HOHYDWRU HYHQ WRRN WKHP WR DQ DSDUWPHQW 7KH FLYLO DWWRUQH\ HVWLPDWHV VLQFH KH EHJDQ KLV SULYDWH SUDFWLFH IRXU \HDUV DJR KH KDV VHHQ WHOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH FRXUW DERXW KDOI D GR]HQ WLPHV 7KH FULPLQDO DWWRUQH\ ZKRVH FOLHQWV LQFOXGH WKH PRUH LQWHUHVWLQJ RQHV HJ D SURIHVVRU DFFXVHG RI VH[XDO PROHVWDWLRQ D PDOH VFKRRO SULQFLSDO DFFXVHG RI JUDEELQJ D IHPDOH MRJJHUf VD\V XQGHUVWDQGDEO\f KH VHHV WKH FDPHUDV TXLWH IUHTXHQWO\ 7KH FRPPHUFLDO 79 QHZV GLUHFWRU HVWLPDWHV KH DVVLJQV RQ WKH DYHUDJH RQH FRXUW VWRU\ D GD\ LQFOXGLQJ DOPRVW DOO ILUVW DSSHDUDQFHV 7KH SXEOLF 79 QHZV GLUHFWRU HVWLPDWHV KH DVVLJQV DERXW RQH HDFK WKUHH ZHHNV DQG FLWHV DV H[DPSOHV D PXUGHU WULDO PXUGHUHU 7HG %XQG\nV DSSHDO D VWDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLYHnV EULEHU\ WULDO DQ DSSHDUDQFH RI D FKLOG PROHVWHU DQG D WULDO RI D PRWKHU DFFXVHG RI FDXVLQJ KHU GDXJKWHUnV VXLFLGH 7KH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ QHZV GLUHFWRU HVWLPDWHV FRYHUDJH RI ILYH WR WHQ FDVHV LQ WKH SDVW \HDU PRVWO\ PXUGHU WULDOV WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ QHZV GLUHFWRU FRYHUV PDMRU WULDOV DQG SURYLGHV EODQNHW FRYHUDJH RI FDVHV HYHU\ FRXSOH RI PRQWKV 7KH QHZVSDSHU PDQDJLQJ

PAGE 145

HGLWRU VD\V KH UDUHO\ WDNHV DGYDQWDJH RI WKH UXOHV DOORZLQJ FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWJHQHUDOO\ SKRWRJUDSKHUV GR QRW DFFRPSDQ\ UHSRUWHUV 2FFDVLRQDOO\ ZH GR VRPHWKLQJ HOVH EXW RXU WUDGLWLRQ KDV QRW EHHQ WR EORZ DQ RUGLQDU\ FDVH RXW RI WKH ZDWHU HYHQ LQ VWRULHV 7KHUH DUH RQO\ D IHZ FDVHV DQ\RQH FRXOG UHFDOO LQ ZKLFK WKH PHGLD ZHUH WXUQHG GRZQ LQ D UHTXHVW IRU FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 2QH FDVH LQYROYHG D SULVRQHU ZKR WHVWLILHG LQ D SULVRQ PXUGHU FDVH 7KH &KLHI -XGJH UHFDOOV WKH QHWZRUN PHGLD FRYHUHG WKH VWRU\ DQG RQH QHWZRUN GLG QRW ZDQW WR FRPSO\ ZLWK KLV GHFLVLRQ WKDW WKH IDFH RI WKH ZLWQHVV QRW EH WHOHYLVHG 7KH\ VDLG n1Rn WR RXU SODQ VR VDLG n:HOO JHW WR FKRRVH WKH SRROn DQG FKRVH >D ORFDO WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ@ 7KH PDQDJLQJ HGLWRU UHFDOOV WKH VDPH FDVH DQG UHPHPEHUV FRRSHUDWLQJ ZLWK WKH UHTXHVW QRW WR SKRWRJUDSK WKH SULVRQHUf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

PAGE 146

ZHUHQnW WKHUH EXW WR FKRRVHf§QHYHU WR KDYH WKHP RU WR SXW XS ZLWK WKHP ZKHQ GRQnW ZDQW WKHPf§,nOO WDNH WKH ODWWHU 7KH RQO\ UHVSRQGHQW ZKR UHSRUWHG D PDMRU SUREOHP LQ WKLV DUHD ZDV WKH QHZV GLUHFWRU RI WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ D FDPSXV VWDWLRQf KH VD\V VWXGHQW UHSRUWHUV DUH WXUQHG GRZQ DV PXFK DV b RI WKH WLPH WKH\ DSSHDU LQ FRXUW ZLWK UHFRUGHUVEXW DGPLWV WKH VWXGHQWV RIWHQ IDLO WR IROORZ SURFHGXUH LQ FDOOLQJ DKHDG RI WLPH IRU SHUPLVVLRQ DOVR IHDU WKH XVH RI XQVXSHUYLVHG VWXGHQW UHSRUWHUV LQ DQ\ OHQJWK\ SURFHHGLQJ :H KRSH WR VROYH WKLV SUREOHP LQ WKH QHDU IXWXUH E\ DVVLJQLQJ D SHUPDQHQW VWDIIHU WR VXSHUYLVH ILHOG FRYHUDJH RI DQ\ FRXUW FDVH DQG PRUH SURIHVVLRQDOO\ QHJRWLDWH ZLWK WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH RU WKH EDLOLII 5HJDUGLQJ WKH IXWXUH QR RQH IRUHVHHV DQ\ GUDPDWLF FKDQJH LQ GHJUHH RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH 7KH &KLHI -XGJH H[SHFWV WR VHH SHUKDSV VRPHZKDW OHVV FRYHUDJH 7KH QRYHOW\ LV ZHDULQJ RIIf DQG H[FHSW IRU VRPH RI WKH VWXGHQW UHSRUWHUV JHQHUDOO\ KDV QR SUREOHP ZLWK FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV 7KH &RXQW\ -XGJH VD\V KH H[SHFWV VOLJKWO\ PRUH FRYHUDJH LQ WKH IXWXUH DQG KH WKLQNV WKDW ZRXOG EH D JRRG LGHD ,WnV D VFDU\ WKLQJ WR KDYH D FRPSOLFDWHG SURFHVV RSHQ WR SXEOLF VFUXWLQ\ WKHUH LV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKH SXEOLF ZRQnW XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW \RXnUH GRLQJ DQG ZK\ \RXnUH GRLQJ LW %XW LWnV D ULVN ZH RXJKW WR EH WDNLQJ LQ RUGHU IRU WKH SXEOLF WR UHWDLQ IDLWK LQ LQVWLWXWLRQV

PAGE 147

7KLV SRVLWLRQ LV VLPLODU WR WKDW RI WKH 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ ZKR DGGV WKDW KH ZRXOG OLNH WR VHH SURFHHGLQJV FRYHUHG LQ WKHLU HQWLUHW\ UDWKHU WKDQ LQ IUDJPHQWV 7KH $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ VD\V ,WnV D ELW RI D VXUSULVH WR PH LWnV ZRUNHG DV ZHOO DV LW KDV 7KH &RXUW &OHUN VD\V ,nP VXUSULVHG 79 GRHVQnW VKRZ PRUH DFWXDO WULDOV IURP WKH EHJLQQLQJ HVSHFLDOO\ 3XEOLF 79 7KH &RXUW ([HFXWLYH $VVLVWDQW OLNHZLVH VD\V GRQnW VHH DV PXFK LQWHUHVW DV WKRXJKW ZRXOG GHYHORS (LWKHU WKHUHnV ODFN RI LQWHUHVW RU WKH FRXUW KDV ILJXUHG RXW VRPHKRZ WR JHW ULG RI WKHP 7KH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU FRQFOXGHV :H KDYH D XQLIRUPO\ JRRG H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WKHP 7KH FLYLO DWWRUQH\ VD\V KH IRUHVHHV IHZ RI KLV FDVHV FRYHUHG XQOHVV WKH FOLHQW LV FDWDVWURSKLFDOO\ LQMXUHG $V IRU WKH DPRXQW RI FRYHUDJH KH VDZ GXULQJ KLV \HDUV LQ WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHUnV RIILFH LW ZDV PRUH QHJOLJLEOH WKDQ ZRXOG KDYH DQWLFLSDWHG $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRPPHUFLDO WHOHYLVLRQ QHZV GLUHFWRU SHRSOH RIWHQ FDOO DQG DVN WKDW FRYHUDJH QRW EH EURDGFDVW :H JHW UHODWLYHV ZKR VD\ n,I \RX VKRZ WKDW *UDQGPD ZLOO MXVW KDYH D KHDUW DWWDFN DQG GLH ZHnOO VXH \RXn EXW WKH\ QHYHU GR +H VXJJHVWV LQ WKH IXWXUH KLV VWDWLRQ PLJKW FRYHU IHZHU ILUVW DSSHDUDQFHV 7KH SXEOLF 79 QHZV GLUHFWRU KRZHYHU VD\V KH ZRXOG OLNH WR FRYHU PRUH FDVHV SDUWLFXODUO\ FLYLO FDVHV

PAGE 148

)LQDOO\ WKH FULPLQDO DWWRUQH\ SUHGLFWV FRYHUDJH RI WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV +H VD\V ,WnV MXVW D PDWWHU RI WLPH 7KXV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH DWWLWXGHV RI FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW RI )ORULGD UHYHDOV QR PDMRU SUREOHPV 7KH IHZ PLQRU FRQFHUQV ZLWK WKH *XLGHOLQHV IRU LQVWDQFH WKH QHHG IRU KDUGn ZLUHG DXGLR V\VWHPV LQ FRXUWURRPVf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f WKH FRPPHUFLDO 79 VWDWLRQ :&-%$%&f WKH SXEOLF 79

PAGE 149

VWDWLRQ :8)73%6f WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ :8)7135f DQG D FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ :58)&%6f FRYHUHG WKH WULDO 7KH SXEOLF VWDWLRQV DQG WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ DUH DOO OLFHQVHG WR WKH %RDUG RI 5HJHQWV RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 7KH QHZV GLUHFWRUV DUH SURIHVVLRQDOV WKH UHSRUWHUV DQG WHFKQLFDO FUHZV DUH VWXGHQWV ZRUNLQJ VKRUW VKLIWV EHWZHHQ FODVVHV RIWHQ IRU JUDGHV 1DWXUDOO\ WKLV KDG VRPH HIIHFW RQ TXDOLW\ RI FRYHUDJH SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH OHQJWK RI WLPH VSHQW E\ UHSRUWHUV LQ WKH FRXUWURRPf 7KH UHVHDUFKHU FRQWDFWHG WKH MXGJH DV ZHOO DV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKH PHGLD SULRU WR WKH WULDO REVHUYHG WKH SURFHHGLQJV LQ WKHLU HQWLUHW\ DQG LQWHUYLHZHG WKH MXGJH DQG WKH DWWRUQH\V DIWHU WKH WULDO 6KH DOVR FRQGXFWHG D MXURU H[LW SROO DQG D FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI DOO SUHVV FRYHUDJH $OO ILYH QHZV RUJDQL]DWLRQV KDG UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV SUHVHQW IRU RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV RQ WKH ILUVW GD\ D 7KXUVGD\ 7KH 79 VWDWLRQV SRROHG FRYHUDJH ZLWK WKH SXEOLF VWDWLRQ SDWFKHG LQWR WKH FRPPHUFLDO VWDWLRQnV HTXLSPHQW ZKLFK ZDV ORFDWHG DW WKH UHDU RI WKH FRXUWURRP :&-% VHQW RQO\ D FDPHUD RSHUDWRU WKH ILUVW GD\ RI WKH WULDO VKH OHIW DIWHU WKH QRRQ UHFHVV 2Q )ULGD\ :&-% VHQW RQO\ D VWXGHQW LQWHUQUHSRUWHU ZLWK QR FDPHUD KH OHIW DIWHU WKH MXU\ EURNH IRU GHOLEHUDWLRQV DQG ZDV QRW SUHVHQW IRU WKH GHFLVLRQ ZKLFK WKH MXU\ DQQRXQFHG DW SP ZKLOH :&-%nV HYHQLQJ QHZV SURJUDP ZDV DOUHDG\ RQ WKH DLU WKH GHFLVLRQ DQG VHQWHQFH ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH SP VWRU\f

PAGE 150

:8)779nV UHSRUWHU DQG FDPHUD RSHUDWRU DUULYHG DERXW RQH KRXU DIWHU WKH WULDO EHJDQ ERWK OHIW DIWHU WKH QRRQ UHFHVV RQ 7KXUVGD\ 2Q )ULGD\ WKH VWDWLRQ VHQW D VHFRQG UHSRUWHU ZLWK WKH FDPHUD RSHUDWRU DQG ERWK OHIW ZKHQ WKH MXU\ EURNH 7KH :8)7 HYHQLQJ QHZV SURJUDP DLUV IURP SP DQG HQGHG EHIRUH WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV DQQRXQFHGf :8)7)0nV UHSRUWHU UHPDLQHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP ZLWK D WDSH PDFKLQH XQWLO DIWHU WKH QRRQ UHFHVV RQ 7KXUVGD\ $ VHFRQG UHSRUWHU FRYHUHG WKH WULDO RQ )ULGD\ KH UHPDLQHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP ZLWK D WDSH PDFKLQH XQWLO DIWHU WKH GHFLVLRQ DQG VHQWHQFLQJ +RZHYHU :8)7)0nV ODVW ORFDO QHZVFDVW HQGV DW SP ZHHNGD\V WKXV WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG XQWLO QHZVFDVWV UHVXPHG 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ DW DPf :58)$0nV UHSRUWHU DUULYHG ODWH 7KXUVGD\ PRUQLQJ DQG VWD\HG WKH UHVW RI WKH GD\ $ VHFRQG UHSRUWHU FRYHUHG WKH WULDO RQ )ULGD\ VKH VWD\HG RQO\ D IHZ KRXUV DQG OHIW EHIRUH WKH MXU\ EURNH )LQDOO\ WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHU ZDV WKH RQO\ MRXUQDOLVW ZKR FRYHUHG ERWK GD\V RI WKH WULDO IRU KHU QHZV RUJDQL]DWLRQ ([FHSW IRU PLVVLQJ DOPRVW WKH HQWLUH KRXU RI WKH GHIHQGDQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ DIWHU OXQFK RQ 7KXUVGD\f WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ UHSRUWHU ZDV SUHVHQW IRU WKH HQWLUH WULDO WKURXJK WKH GHFLVLRQ DQG VHQWHQFLQJ $ 6XQ SKRWRJUDSKHU DOVR DUULYHG DIWHU RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV 7KXUVGD\ PRUQLQJ DQG WRRN SKRWRJUDSKV IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH KRXU

PAGE 151

7KH FRXUWURRP ZDV D ELW QRLVLHU WKDQ VRPH GXH SHUKDSV WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH GR]HQ WHHQDJHUV SUHVXPDEO\ IULHQGV RI WKH GHIHQGDQW RU RI WKH RWKHU WHHQDJHUV LQYROYHG LQ WKH FDVH $OVR DERXW RQH GR]HQ PHPEHUV RI D FROOHJH MRXUQDOLVP FODVV DQG GXULQJ RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV WKHLU SURIHVVRUf REVHUYHG WKH WULDO 7KH RQO\ QRWDEOH LQVWDQFH RI DZDUHQHVV RI SUHVV FRYHUDJH RFFXUUHG 7KXUVGD\ PRUQLQJ GXULQJ WKH WHVWLPRQ\ RI WKH \HDUROG ZLWQHVV FKDUJHG ZLWK EXUJODU\ LQ WKH FDVH 'XULQJ WKH \RXQJ PDQnV WHVWLPRQ\ WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU EHJDQ WDNLQJ SLFWXUHV RI WKH ZLWQHVV $W RQH SRLQW WKH SURVHFXWRU ZDV VKRZLQJ WKH ZLWQHVV VRPH SKRWRJUDSKV WDNHQ DW WKH FULPH VFHQH WHDUV VKRZHG LQ WKH H[WUHPHO\ VRIWVSRNHQf ZLWQHVVn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

PAGE 152

EULHI VWRU\ RQ % UHJDUGLQJ WKH VHQWHQFLQJ RI WKH RWKHU WZR ZLWQHVVHV FKDUJHG LQ WKH FDVH 7KH QHZVSDSHU DOVR UDQ D OHWWHU WKH VDPH ZHHN WKH YLFWLPnV IDPLO\ ZURWH H[SUHVVLQJ DSSUHFLDWLRQ IRU WKH ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH FDVH KDG EHHQ KDQGOHG 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD DQG $SSHQGL[ & IRU FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV $SSHQGL[ IRU VHOHFWHG DUWLFOHV DQG VFULSWVf :&-%79 UDQ IRXU VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH 7KXUVGD\ HYHQLQJ RQH )ULGD\ DW QRRQ RQH )ULGD\ DW DQG RQH )ULGD\ QLJKW DW 1RQH RI WKH VWRULHV LQFOXGHG DQ\ VLOHQW YLGHR RU VRXQG UHFRUGHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP DFWXDOLW\f RU LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV VRXQG ELWHVf 7KH SURGXFHU ODWHU H[SODLQHG WKDW WKH VWDWLRQ KDG SUREOHPV ZLWK WKH YLGHR LH GXH WR WKH OLJKWLQJ UHVWULFWLRQ RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV WKH VWDWLRQ FRXOG QRW XVH DUWLILFLDO OLJKW DQG WKH OLJKW OHYHO ZDV WRR ORZ LQ WKH FRXUWURRP IRU WKH VWDWLRQnV FDPHUD WR SLFN XS D VXLWDEOH SLFWXUHf 7KH ILUVW VWRU\ GHVFULEHG WKH RSHQLQJ RI WKH WULDO DQG PHQWLRQHG WKH WHVWLPRQ\ RI WKH WZR RWKHU WHHQDJHUV LQYROYHG LQ WKH PXUGHU 7KH VHFRQG VWRU\ GHVFULEHG WKH WHVWLPRQ\ RI WKH GHIHQGDQWnV FHOOPDWH DQG RI WKH PHGLFDO H[DPLQHU 7KH WKLUG VWRU\ VXPPHG XS WKH SURVHFXWLRQ DQG WKH GHIHQVH DQG UHSRUWHG WKH MXU\ ZDV GHOLEHUDWLQJ DW WKH WLPH RI WKH QHZVFDVW 7KH ODVW VWRU\ GHVFULEHG WKH MXU\ YHUGLFW DQG VHQWHQFLQJ :8)779 DOVR UDQ IRXU VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH :HGQHVGD\ HYHQLQJ SUHFHGLQJ WKH WULDO RQH 7KXUVGD\ HYHQLQJ

PAGE 153

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f :8)7)0 UDQ VL[ VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH SKRQHLQ RQ WKH 7KXUVGD\ QRRQ QHZV RQH VWRU\ RQ WKH 7KXUVGD\ HYHQLQJ QHZV RQH SKRQHLQ RQ WKH )ULGD\ QRRQ QHZV RQH VWRU\ RQ WKH )ULGD\ HYHQLQJ QHZV DQG WZR UHJDUGLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ DQG VHQWHQFLQJf RQ 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJnV QHZV 6RXQG ELWHV LQFOXGHG LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK ERWK WKH SURVHFXWRU DQG WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ WDNHQ LQ WKH KDOOZD\ WKH ILUVW GD\ RI WKH WULDO DQG WKH FRPPHQWV RI WKH SURVHFXWRU UHJDUGLQJ WKH FKDUJHV DJDLQVW WKH RWKHU ZLWQHVVHV WKH ODVW WDNHQ LQ WKH KDOOZD\ IROORZLQJ WKH YHUGLFW DQG DLUHG RQ WKH 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ QHZVFDVWVf :58)$0 UDQ EULHI VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH SUHFHGLQJ WKH WULDO 7KXUVGD\ PRUQLQJ WKUHH SKRQHLQV 7KXUVGD\ GXULQJ WKH WULDO DORQJ ZLWK WKUHH RWKHU VWRULHV RQ 7KXUVGD\ HLJKW VWRULHV )ULGD\ DQG ILYH VWRULHV RQ 6DWXUGD\ PRUQLQJ 7KH SUHYLHZ VWRU\ DQG KDOI WKH UHSRUWV DLUHG )ULGD\

PAGE 154

DQG 6DWXUGD\ LQFOXGHG VRXQG ELWHV RI LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ WKH ODWWHU RQHV WDNHQ DIWHU WKH GHFLVLRQ ZDV DQQRXQFHG 7$%/( &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV :&-%79 :8)779 :8)7)0 :58)$0)0 *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ VWRULHV VWRULHV DFWXDOLW\ ZLWK FRXUWURRP SKRWRV VRXQG ELWH Gf Gf Gf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
PAGE 155

GLVWUDFWLQJ RU DQQR\LQJ 7KH MXGJH VD\V LQ JHQHUDO WKH SUHVV IROORZV WKH *XLGHOLQHV +H GLG QRW FRQVLGHU WKH LQFLGHQW LQ WKLV WULDO D VLJQLILFDQW GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV $V IDU DV WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WKH FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO WKHnMXGJH VDLG KH KDG QR WLPH WR IROORZ WKH FRYHUDJH GXULQJ WKH WULDO &RQWDFWHG DIWHU WKH WULDO KH VDLG KH KDG VHHQ :&-%79n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

PAGE 156

VD\V VKH GHOLEHUDWHO\ GRHV QRW IROORZ FRYHUDJH GXULQJ WKH WULDO 7KDW ZD\ WKH MXU\nV KHDUG ZKDW ,nYH KHDUGf &RQWDFWHG DIWHU WKH WULDO VKH VDLG VKH GLG QRW QRWLFH DQ\ LQDFFXUDFLHV LQ FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO ,Q JHQHUDO VKH DJDLQ VDLG VWLOO SKRWRJUDSKHUV DQG DXGLR HTXLSPHQW DUH QRW GLVWUDFWLQJ EXW VKH IHHOV WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUDV PD\ DIIHFW WKH MXU\ 7KH\n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nV UHSRUWLQJ WKH YLFWLP ZDV EHDWHQ WR GHDWK ZLWK DQ D[ KDQGOH ZLHOGHG E\ 6LPPRQV ZKHQ 'H 7KRPDVLV IHOW WKH PHGLFDO H[DPLQHUnV WHVWLPRQ\ VKRZHG LW ZDV QRW WKH D[ KDQGOH EXW D VHFRQG ZHDSRQf§D PHWDO ZLQGRZ ZHLJKW ZLHOGHG E\ WKH WHHQDJHU ZKR SOHDGHG JXLOW\ WR VHFRQG GHJUHH PXUGHUZKLFK ZDV WKH DFWXDO GHDWK ZHDSRQ 'H 7KRPDVLV WKHQ GHVFULEHG VRPH ODZ\HUV 7KH ILUVW WKLQJ WKH\ GR LV ORRN IRU LQDFFXUDFLHV 7KH\ FDQ EH PLQRU EXW WKH ODZ\HUV ZLOO PDNH D ELJ GHDO RI LW &RQWDFWHG DIWHU WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO UHJDUGLQJ FRYHUDJH 'H 7KRPDVLV VDLG KH GLVOLNHG WKH KHDGOLQH RQ WKH VHFRQG QHZVSDSHU VWRU\ ZKLFK

PAGE 157

LPSOLHG WKH MXU\ YHU\ VZLIWO\ UHDFKHG D YHUGLFW GRQnW WKLQN WZR KRXUV LV nVZLIWn ,W LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\nV FRQFHUQ ZLWK D WHOHYLVLRQ UHSRUWHUnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ ZKLFK ZHDSRQ ZDV WKH FDXVH RI GHDWK LQ WKDW DOWKRXJK :&-%79 DV ZHOO DV :58)$0f JHQHUDOO\ GHVFULEHG WKH GHDWK ZHDSRQ DV D ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH ZLHOGHG E\ 6LPPRQV ERWK :8)7)0 DQG WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ ZKLOH GHVFULELQJ WKH PHWDO ZHLJKW DV WKH GHDWK ZHDSRQ DOVR UHSRUWHG LW ZDV 'H 7KRPDVLVn FOLHQW 6LPPRQVZKR ZLHOGHG WKH PHWDO ZHLJKW :8)7)0 UHSRUWHG WKDW 6LPPRQV EHDW WKH YLFWLP WR GHDWK ZLWK D WZRIRRW PHWDO REMHFW /LNHZLVH WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHG LQ WKH ILUVW VWRU\ WKDW 6LPPRQV DWWDFNHG WKH YLFWLP ZLWK D ILYHSRXQG ZLQGRZ VDVK ZHLJKW ,Q WKH VHFRQG VWRU\ WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHG 'H 7KRPDVLV DUJXHG WKDW >WKH VHFRQG WHHQDJHU@ KLW >WKH YLFWLP@ ZLWK D ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH DQG ODWHU UHSHDWHG WKDW LW ZDV 6LPPRQV ZKR KDG EHDWHQ WKH YLFWLP WR GHDWK ZLWK D PHWDO ZHLJKWf 7KH UHVHDUFKHUnV QRWHV FRUUHVSRQG WR WKH YHUVLRQ UHSRUWHG E\ :8)7)0 DQG WKH QHZVSDSHU 7KH QRWHV GHVFULEH WKH VHFRQG WHHQDJHUnV WHVWLPRQ\ WKDW KH QRW 6LPPRQVf KDG ZLHOGHG WKH D[ KDQGOH /DWHU QRWHV WDNHQ GXULQJ 6LPPRQVn WHVWLPRQ\ GHVFULEH 6LPPRQV DV WHVWLI\LQJ WKDW WKH RWKHU WHHQDJHU KDG KLW WKH YLFWLP ZLWK DQ D[ KDQGOH ZKLOH >6LPPRQV@ GURSSHG WKH ZHLJKW

PAGE 158

5HJDUGOHVV RI ZKR ZLHOGHG ZKLFK ZHDSRQ RU ZKHWKHU WKH ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH RU WKH PHWDO ZHLJKW VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG WKH GHDWK ZHDSRQ FUXFLDO WR WKH WULDO EXW LUUHOHYDQW WR WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\f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f 7UXH WR WKH SUHGLFWLRQV WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ LQ 6LPPRQV SHUFHLYHG D PLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LQ WKH WHOHYLVLRQ FRYHUDJH KH ZDWFKHG ZKLOH KH DSSDUHQWO\ GLG QRW QRWLFH WKDW WKH QHZVSDSHU YHUVLRQ ZKLOH DJUHHLQJ ZLWK KLV YLHZSRLQW WKDW WKH PHWDO ZHLJKW ZDV WKH DFWXDO GHDWK ZHDSRQ KDG DOVR UHSRUWHG LW ZDV KLV RZQ FOLHQW ZKR ZLHOGHG WKH GHDWK ZHDSRQ 8SRQ GLVPLVVLQJ WKH MXU\ WKH MXGJH KDQGHG RXW WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV VWXG\ DQG VXJJHVWHG WKH MXURUV PLJKW ZDQW WR DQVZHU WKH DQRQ\PRXV H[LW SROO DQG VHQW LQ WKH VHOIDGGUHVVHG HQYHORSHVf§RU LI WKH\ VKRXOG SUHIHU WKH MXURUV ZHUH IUHH WR WRVV RXW WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 6HH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU MXURU H[LW SROO 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVHf

PAGE 159

6L[ RI WKH WZHOYH MXURUV UHWXUQHG WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH WKUHH PXOWLSOHFKRLFH TXHVWLRQV IRXU MXURUV VHOHFWHG WKH DQVZHU PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV RQ WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQFRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DUH D JRRG LGHD ZKLFK KHOSV WKH SXEOLF XQGHUVWDQG WKH MXGLFLDO V\VWHP EHWWHU 2QH VHOHFWHG WKH QHXWUDO DQVZHU FDPHUDV KDYH VRPH DGYDQWDJHV VRPH GLVDGYDQWDJHV 7KH RQO\ RQH ZKR WKRXJKW LW ZDV D EDG LGHD FRPPHQWHG ,Wn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f )RXU MXURUV DOVR VHOHFWHG WKH PLGGOH DQVZHU RQ WKH ODVW TXHVWLRQ FRYHUDJH ZDV IDLUO\ DFFXUDWH ZLWK RQO\ PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV 1HLWKHU RI WKH RWKHU WZR UHVSRQGHQWV KDG VHHQ DQ\ RI WKH EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH 7KH RQH ZKR WKRXJKW SULQW FRYHUDJH ZDV SRRUKH VD\V KH UHDGV WKH :DOO 6WUHHW -RXUQDO DQG WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ HDFK WZLFH D ZHHNf§FRPPHQWHG &RYHUDJH ZDV UHGXQGDQW DQG YHU\ VHULRXV GLIIHUHQFHV ,W ZDV PRUH OLNH UHDGLQJ JRVVLS t RSLQLRQV WKDQ UHSRUWLQJ WKH IDFWV 7KH UHVSRQGHQW ZKR WKRXJKW WKH SULQW FRYHUDJH ZDV

PAGE 160

JRRGKH VD\V KH UHDGV WKH 6XQ HYHU\ GD\f§ZURWH *HQHUDOO\ YHU\ DFFXUDWH UHSRUWLQJ 5HJDUGLQJ WKH GHPRJUDSKLFV RI WKH VL[ MXURUV ZKR UHWXUQHG WKH VXUYH\ IRXU ZHUH IHPDOHV WKH DYHUDJH DJH ZDV WKUHH ZHUH SDUWWLPH RU IXOOWLPH VWXGHQWV RQH D FRPSXWHU SURJUDPPHU RQH D FRDFK DQG RQH D WHDFKHU DVVLVWDQW 2QO\ RQH KDG VHUYHG RQ D MXU\ SUHYLRXVO\ $OO VDLG WKH\ UHDG WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ LQFOXGLQJ DIWHU WKH WULDOf FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO )RXU VDLG WKH\ ZDWFK ORFDO QHZV RQ RQH RI WKH 79 VWDWLRQV ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO :&-%$%&f DQG WZR VDLG WKH\ OLVWHQ WR WKH QHZV RQ RQH RI WKH UDGLR VWDWLRQV ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO :8)7)0f +RZHYHU RQO\ RQH MXURU UHSRUWHG KH KDG KHDUG DIWHU WKH WULDOf DERXW EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI 6LPPRQV 7KXV UHJDUGLQJ WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH LQFLGHQW ZLWK WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU WKH MXGJH DQG WKH DWWRUQH\V LQYROYHG DJUHHG WKH PHGLD IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV ,Q JHQHUDO FRYHUDJH ZDV VHHQ DV DFFXUDWH ZLWK RQO\ PLQRU LI DQ\f LQDFFXUDFLHV 7KH UHVHDUFKHU GLG QRWH VRPH YHU\ PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV QRW FRPPHQWHG XSRQ E\ DQ\RQH HOVH SUHVXPDEO\ EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH VR XQQRWLFHDEOH IRU LQVWDQFH WKH :8)779 JUDSKLF RQ WKH VHQWHQFLQJ VWRU\ KDG WKH GHIHQGDQWnV QDPH DV 6LPPRQ DQG WKH VWDWLRQ DW RQH SRLQW LGHQWLILHG &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV DV D SXEOLF GHIHQGHU 'XH WR D FRQIOLFW WKH 2IILFH RI WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU ZDV XQDEOH WR UHSUHVHQW 6LPPRQV DQG 'H 7KRPDVLV D SULYDWH DWWRUQH\ ZDV

PAGE 161

KLUHG E\ WKH JRYHUQPHQW WR UHSUHVHQW KLP 7HFKQLFDOO\ KH ZDV D SXEOLF GHIHQGHU EXW QRW RIILFLDOO\ D PHPEHU RI WKH 2IILFH RI WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHUf 7KH RQO\ UHDO FRQFHUQ UHJDUGLQJ DFFXUDF\ VSHFLILFDOO\ FLWHG E\ WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ ZDV XSRQ FORVHU H[DPLQDWLRQ D PDWWHU RI JHQHUDO FRQIXVLRQ WR DOO LQYROYHGLQFOXGLQJ WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ KLPVHOI $JDLQ H[FHSW IRU WKH LQFLGHQW LQYROYLQJ WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU ZKLFK QR RQH GHVFULEHG DV D VLJQLILFDQW GLVUXSWLRQ RI SURFHHGLQJV QR RQH GHVFULEHG DQ\ GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV FDXVHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH SUHVV LQ JHQHUDO RU E\ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ SDUWLFXODU 7KH MXURU UHVSRQVHV b UHVSRQVH UDWHf ZHUH DOVR JHQHUDOO\ QHXWUDO RU IDYRUDEOH WRZDUG WKH XVH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV b RI WKH DQVZHUV ZHUH WKRVH PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b ZHUH QHXWUDO DQG b ZHUH WKRVH OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WRZDUG WKH XVH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV LQ WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVH SHUFHQWDJHVf )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t 3 +DUULV 7KH VHFRQG PXUGHU WULDO WR DSSHDU RQ WKH FULPLQDO GRFNHW RI WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW ZDV WKH WULDO RI EURWKHUV &DUOWRQ /RUHQ]R +DUULV DQG 3LHUUH &XOOHQ +DUULV ZKLFK WRRN SODFH 6HSWHPEHU LQ WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FRXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD EHIRUH -XGJH 5REHUW &DWHV 7KH WZR EURWKHUV ZHUH FKDUJHG ZLWK ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU LQ WKH

PAGE 162

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f WKH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ :8)73%6f WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ :8)7135f DQG WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ :58) &%6f FRYHUHG WKH WULDO :&-%$%& FRQWDFWHG WKH GD\ EHIRUH WKH WULDO KDG FKDQJHG LWV SODQ WR FRYHU WKH WULDO GXH WR WRR PDQ\ RWKHU VWRULHVf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

PAGE 163

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH XVXDO VSHFWDWRUV DERXW WZR GR]HQ PHPEHUV RI D FROOHJH MRXUQDOLVP FODVV DQG RQH DIWHUQRRQ LQ WKH PLGGOH RI WKH WULDO WKHLU SURIHVVRUf REVHUYHG WKH WULDO $IWHU WKH MXGJH DGPRQLVKHG VRPH QRLV\ VSHFWDWRUV DQ LQFLGHQW ZKLFK ZDV QRWLFHG E\ DW OHDVW RQH MXURU VHH LQIUDf WKH UHVHDUFKHU UDQGRPO\ SLFNHG RQH KRXU WR FRQGXFW D FDVXDO VWXG\ RI ZKR ZHQW LQ DQG RXW RI WKH FRXUWURRP LQ WKDW KRXU WKH FRXUWURRP GRRU RSHQHG WLPHV SHRSOH FDPH LQ LQFOXGLQJ WZR PHGLD SHRSOHf DQG HLJKW SHRSOH OHIW QRQH ZHUH PHGLD SHRSOHf 2QO\ WZR QRWDEOH LQVWDQFHV RI DZDUHQHVV RI SUHVV FRYHUDJH RFFXUUHG ERWK GXULQJ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ SULRU WR RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV 2Q WKH ILUVW GD\ D VWXGHQW UHSRUWHU IRU :8)779 ZDONHG RYHU WR WKH UHVHDUFKHU DQG EHJDQ ZKLVSHULQJ WKH MXGJH DGPRQLVKHG WKH UHSRUWHU $QG WKURXJKRXW WKH HQWLUH YRLU GLUH LW ZDV REYLRXV SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ ZDV DQ LVVXH WKH QHZVSDSHU KDG ZULWWHQ DQ DGYDQFH VWRU\ RQ WKH FDVH ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH IHORQ\ UHFRUG RI &DUO +DUULV LQDGPLVVLEOH HYLGHQFHf DQG HDFK MXURU ZKR VDLG KH KDG UHDG WKH DUWLFOH ZDV TXHVWLRQHG LQ FKDPEHUV E\ WKH MXGJH DQG WKH DWWRUQH\V $OO EXW RQH MXURU ZKR VDLG KH KDG UHDG\ WKH VWRU\ ZHUH GLVPLVVHG $IWHU ODWHU TXHVWLRQLQJ WKH UHVHDUFKHU QRWHG WKH MXGJH KDG GLVPLVVHG WKHP IRU FDXVH DQG WKH RQH MXURU ZKR ZDV DOORZHG WR UHPDLQ KDG VDLG VKH FRXOG QRW UHPHPEHU DQ\WKLQJ VKH KDG UHDG LQ WKH DUWLFOHf

PAGE 164

0HGLD &RYHUDJH 7KH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ UDQ ILYH VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO WKH DGYDQFH DUWLFOH RQ 0RQGD\ DQG RQH HDFK GD\ RQ 7KXUVGD\ )ULGD\ 6DWXUGD\ DQG 6XQGD\ 7KH DGYDQFH VWRU\ KDG UXQ RQ SDJH % DV GLG WKH 7KXUVGD\ VWRU\ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG D IRXU FROXPQ SKRWR RI WKH GHIHQGDQWV DQG WKHLU DWWRUQH\V 7KH )ULGD\ VWRU\ UDQ RQ % WKH 6DWXUGD\ DQG 6XQGD\ VWRULHV RQ ,% $ EULHI PHQWLRQ RI -XGJH &DWHVn VZHDULQJLQ RI QHZ %DU PHPEHUV GXULQJ D +DUULV WULDO UHFHVV UDQ 2FWREHU 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD DQG $SSHQGL[ & IRU FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV $SSHQGL[ IRU VHOHFWHG DUWLFOHV DQG VFULSWVf :8)779 EURDGFDVW ILYH VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH HDFK HYHQLQJ RI MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ DQG WULDO 7XHVGD\)ULGD\ 6HSWHPEHU f DQG RQH RQ WKH 6DWXUGD\ YHUGLFW RQ WKH QH[W DYDLODEOH QHZVFDVW 0RQGD\ 2FWREHU f 7KH 7XHVGD\ QLJKW VWRU\ RQ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ LQFOXGHG IRRWDJH RI WKH HPSW\ ORW ZKHUH WKH VWDEELQJ WRRN SODFH DV ZHOO DV D VRXQG ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV KLV FOLHQWV FODLP VHOI GHIHQVHf :HGQHVGD\ QLJKWnV FRYHUDJH LQFOXGHG D VRXQG ELWH ZLWK 'H 7KRPDVLV 6WDWH KDV QR HYLGHQFHf DV GLG 7KXUVGD\ QLJKWnV VWLOO FODLPLQJ 6WDWH KDV QR HYLGHQFHf ERWK QLJKWV WKH UHSRUWHU VDLG WKH SURVHFXWRU UHIXVHG WR DSSHDU RQ FDPHUD )ULGD\ WKH UHSRUWHU SKRQHGLQ OLYH FRYHUDJH IURP WKH FRXUWKRXVH RYHU VLOHQW YLGHR RI FRXUWKRXVH VFHQHV LQFOXGHG

PAGE 165

ZDV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH GLUHFWHG YHUGLFW RI DFTXLWWDO RI &DUO +DUULV :8)7)0 EURDGFDVW VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO PRUQLQJ QRRQ DQG HYHQLQJ RQ 7XHVGD\ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQf DQG WZR HDFK PRUQLQJ RQH DW QRRQ DQG RQH HDFK HYHQLQJ GXULQJ WKH WULDO :HGQHVGD\ WKURXJK )ULGD\f 7KH PRUQLQJ VWRULHV :HGQHVGD\ LQFOXGHG VRXQG ELWHV ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV RSLQLQJ WKDW SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ ZDV QRW DQ RYHUULGLQJ LVVXHf DV GLG RQH RI WKH PRUQLQJ VWRULHV RQ 7KXUVGD\ UHVSRQVH WR WKH WHVWLPRQ\ RI WKH ILUVW 6WDWH ZLWQHVV 7RQ\ 5DPVH\f :8)7)0 GLG QRW EURDGFDVW D VWRU\ RQ WKH YHUGLFW DV LW ZDV UHDFKHG RQ D 6DWXUGD\ DQG WKH QH[W DYDLODEOH QHZVFDVW ZDV QRW XQWLO WKH IROORZLQJ 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ :58)$0 EURDGFDVW VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO WZR 7XHVGD\ WZR :HGQHVGD\ WKUHH 7KXUVGD\ VL[ )ULGD\ ILYH 6DWXUGD\ DQG RQH 6XQGD\ 7KURXJKRXW WKH ZHHN RI WKH ILUVW VWRULHV LQFOXGHG VRXQG ELWHV ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV HLJKW GLIIHUHQW FXWVf 7KH ODVW WKUHH VWRULHV LQFOXGHG VRXQG ELWHV ZLWK WKH MXGJH D ELW XQXVXDOf RQH WDNHQ ZKLOH WKH MXU\ ZDV RXW WKH ODVW UHSHDWHGf DIWHU WKH YHUGLFW

PAGE 166

7$%/( &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t 3 +DUULV :8)779 :8)7)0 :58)$0)0 *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ VWRULHV VWRULHV DFWXDOLW\ ZLWK FRXUWURRP SKRWR VRXQG ELWH Gf Gf Gf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

PAGE 167

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f EXW VKH VD\V VKH KDV QR VWURQJ RSLQLRQ RQ WKH LVVXH
PAGE 168

IDU DV +DUULV 6WDFN ZKR KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH QRWHG DQ HUURU LQ WKH WKLUG GD\nV QHZVSDSHU VWRU\ ZKHUH WKH RPLVVLRQ RI WKH ZRUG QRW OHG WKH UHDGHU WR EHOLHYH WKH WHVWLPRQ\ VKRZHG WKH YLFWLP FRQFOXVLYHO\ KDG UHFHQWO\ ILUHG D JXQ ZKHQ LQ IDFW WKH HYLGHQFH VKRZHG WKH H[DFW RSSRVLWHf§ WKH FRUUHFW YHUVLRQ DQG WKH RQH IDYRUDEOH WR 6WDFNnV SUHVHQWDWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFKHUnV QRWHV DJUHHG ZLWK 6WDFNf 6KH DOVR FRPPHQWHG WKDW WKH DGYDQFH VWRU\ KDG FDXVHG D JUHDW GHDO RI GHOD\ LQ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ ZKLFK KDG WDNHQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ KRXUVf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

PAGE 169

VWDWLRQnV YLGHRWDSHV LQ WKH WULDO RI VRPH SROLWLFDO SURWHVWRUV DOWKRXJK WKH\ ZHUH QRW XVHGf DQG VKH WKLQNV WULDO FRYHUDJH PLJKW VLPLODUO\ EHFRPH DQ LVVXH LQ VRPH IXWXUH FDVH 5HJDUGLQJ WKH +DUULV WULDO .RWH\ ZKR KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH DQG KHDUG WKH UDGLR FRYHUDJH RQ :8)7)0 VDLG VKH VDZ PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV LQ FRYHUDJH DOWKRXJK VKH GLG QRW FLWH DQ\ RIIKDQGf QRW EHFDXVH RI DQ\ ELDV WKH\ GLGQnW XQGHUVWDQG WKH SURFHGXUH 7KH\ FDOOHG LW nWKLVn DQG LW ZDV nWKDWn EXW QRWKLQJ EODWDQW 6KH VDLG VKH IHHOV WKH DGYDQFH VWRU\ LQ WKH SDSHU GLVUXSWHG WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV :K\ QRW UXQ WKH VWRU\ DIWHU MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ" 5REHUW 5XVK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ IRU &DUO +DUULV ZKRVH PRWLRQ IRU GLUHFWHG YHUGLFW RI DFTXLWWDO ZDV JUDQWHG LQ PLGn WULDOf VSHQW WZRDQGRQHKDOI \HDUV LQ WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHUnV RIILFH SULRU WR HQWHULQJ SULYDWH SUDFWLFH 6HYHUDO RI WKH ZLWQHVVHV LQ WKH +DUULV FDVH ZHUH FOLHQWV RI WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU DQG WKXV SULYDWH FRXQVHO ZDV DSSRLQWHG E\ WKH FRXUW IRU ERWK +DUULV EURWKHUVf 5XVK ZKR VD\V KH VHHV FDPHUDV LQ RQO\ DERXW b RI WKH FDVHV KH FRYHUV DOO FDSLWDO FDVHVf VD\V KH KDV PL[HG IHHOLQJV WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KH UHFRJQL]HV IUHHGRP RI WKH SUHVV EXW IHHOV VRPHKRZ FDPHUDV VRPHWLPHV WKUHDWHQ D GHIHQGDQWnV FDVH +H DSSURYHV RI PRVW RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV DQGnKH IRXQG WKH H[FHSWLRQ DOORZLQJ IRU OLJKWV LQ WKH +DUULV FDVH GLVWUDFWLQJ +H DOVR IHHOV WKH DVSHFW RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZKLFK IRUELGV XVH RI PHGLD PDWHULDO

PAGE 170

LQ VXEVHTXHQW SURFHHGLQJV WR EH XQQHFHVVDULO\ OLPLWLQJ ,I D PDQnV OLIH LV DW VWDNH \RX VKRXOG EH DEOH WR XVH ZKDWHYHU UHVRXUFHV DUH DYDLODEOH 5HJDUGLQJ FRYHUDJH RI WKH +DUULV WULDO DV KDG 6WDFN 5XVK QRWHG WKH GURSSHG ZRUG QRW LQ WKH QHZVSDSHUnV VWRU\ DQG LWV UHVXOWLQJ LQDFFXUDWH LPSOLFDWLRQ LQ KLV FDVH LQ KLV FOLHQWnV IDYRUf 5XVK DOVR FRPSODLQHG DERXW WKH DGYDQFH QHZVSDSHU VWRU\ DQG LWV FDXVLQJ GHOD\ LQ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ 7KHUH LV DEVROXWHO\ QR QHHG WR SXW EDFNJURXQG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ D GHIHQGDQW LQ WKH QHZVSDSHU MXVW WR VHOO QHZVSDSHUV 2U WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRXOG FRPH RXW DIWHU WKH MXU\ LV LPSDQHOHG &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ IRU 3LHUUH +DUULV ZKR ZDV DFTXLWWHG E\ WKH MXU\f ZDV LQWHUYLHZHG LQ WKH SUHFHGLQJ 6LPPRQV WULDO ZKHUH KLV JHQHUDOO\ IDYRUDEOH DWWLWXGH WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZDV QRWHG 5HJDUGLQJ WKH +DUULV WULDO 'H 7KRPDVLV VDLG KLV RQO\ FRQFHUQ ZDV WKH H[FHSWLRQ DOORZLQJ OLJKWV WR EH WXUQHG RQ DQG RII GXULQJ WKH WULDO ZKLFK KH IHOW GLVWUDFWHG WKH MXURUV DQG ZLWQHVVHV 'H 7KRPDVLV VDLG KH KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH RI WKH +DUULV FDVH KHDUG WKH PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHUV RQ :8)7)0 DQG ZDWFKHG RQH GD\ RI :8)779nV FRYHUDJH +H IRXQG WKH UDGLR FRYHUDJH DFFXUDWH EXW WRR EULHI WR EH RI PXFK EHQHILW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR FRPSODLQLQJ RI WKH GHOD\V FDXVHG E\ WKH DGYDQFH VWRU\ DQG QRWLQJ WKH GURSSHG QRW LQ WKH QHZVSDSHU VWRU\ KH VDLG WKDW LQ WKH IRXUWKGD\ VWRU\ WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHU WRRN VRPHWKLQJ 'H 7KRPDVLV KDG VDLG RXW RI FRQWH[W

PAGE 171

DQG LW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ PRUH DSSURSULDWH WR KDYH TXRWHG KLV FROOHDJXHn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nV VWXG\ DQG VXJJHVWHG MXURUV PLJKW ZDQW WR DQVZHU WKH DQRQ\PRXV H[LW SROO DQG WR VHQG LQ WKH VHOIDGGUHVVHG HQYHORSHVRU LI WKH\ VKRXOG SUHIHU WKH\ ZHUH IUHH WR WRVV RXW WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH 6HH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU MXURU H[LW SROO 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVHf 6HYHQ RI WKH WZHOYH MXURUV UHWXUQHG WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH WKUHH PXOWLSOHFKRLFH TXHVWLRQV ILYH RI WKH MXURUV VHOHFWHG WKH QHXWUDO DQVZHU RQ WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ WKHUH DUH VRPH DGYDQWDJHV WR DOORZLQJ FDPHUDV DQG VRPH GUDZEDFNV WRR 2QH MXURU QRWHG FDPHUDV FDQ LQWLPLGDWH WKH MXU\ DQG ZLWQHVVHV $ \HDUROG PDOH FLYLO VHUYDQW ZURWH D OHQJWK\ FRPPHQW RQ WKH TXHVWLRQ EHOLHYH LI \RX FRPH LQWR FRXUW \RX VWD\ LQ &RXUW 1R OHDYLQJ\RX OHDYH WKDWnV LW 1R PRUH HQWUDQFH IRU WKH SHULRG RI WKH &RXUW,Q DQG RXWLQ DQG RXW LV YHU\ GLVWUDFWLQJ:KHQ GLG ORRN,W VHHPHG D ORW ZHUH UHSRUWHUV,I WKH UHSRUWHUV ZLVK WR EH DFFXUDWH

PAGE 172

RQ WKH GUDPD XQIROGLQJ LQ WKH FRXUW URRP WKH\ VKRXOG EHKDYH DV LI WKH\ ZHUH WKH -XU\ WKHPVHOYHV QRW VLWWLQJ WKHUH WDONLQJf§WU\LQJ WR FDWFK XS RQ WKH SUHFHGLQJV >VLF@ -XGJH &DWHV ZDV TXLWH SURSHU LQ DGGUHVVLQJ WKLV SDUWLFXODU SUREOHP RI WKHVH LPPDWXUH 5HSRUWHUV ZKR QHYHU VHHP WR JUDVS WKH VHULRXVQHVV RI WKH &RXUW -DLO 7LPH IRU WKHVH SHRSOH ZRXOG EH ZHOFRPHG E\ WKH -XU\ DW WKLV WUDLOf§>VLF@ $JDLQ P\VHOI ZDV GLVWUDFWHG E\ WKH 79 FDPHUD OLJKWVRQ RII RQ RII DV LI VLJQDOLQJ ZKDW ZDV RU ZDV QRW LPSRUWDQWf§VRPHWKLQJ VKRXOG EH GRQH DERXW WKDW WKLQN LW GLVWUDFWHG WKH ZLWQHVVHV PRUH WKDQ PH 7KH 3UHVV VKRXOG XQGHUVWDQG WKDW D IDLU WUDLO >VLF@ LV ZD\ PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ WKH VR FDOOHG ULJKW RI WKH SXEOLF WR NQRZ %XW WR LQVXUH D IDLU WULDO WKH 3UHVV VKRXOG EH DOORZHG WR REVHUYH EXW QRW LQ WKH 3UHVHQW IRUP (LWKHU 1HZ 'RRUV RU FRXUW UHJXODWLRQV PXVW EH LPSRVHG RQ WKLV VKRZ 7KDQN \RX IRU WKLV IRUXP 7ZR MXURUV VHOHFWHG WKH DQVZHU PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV RQ WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQf§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

PAGE 173

PLQG ZDV RQ WKH WULDO WKLQN [I WKHUH KDG EHHQ IODVKHV LW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ GLVWUDFWLQJ )LYH MXURUV DOVR VHOHFWHG WKH PLGGOH DQVZHU RQ WKH ODVW TXHVWLRQ WKH FRYHUDJH ZDV IDLU ZLWK RQO\ PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV 2QH MXURU FRPPHQWHG ,I \RX KDG QRW EHHQ DW WKH WUDLO >VLF@ \RX PDGH >VLF@ KDYH WKRXJKW &DUO +DUULV DFWXDOO\ WHVWLILHG LQ FRXUW EXW ZKDW WKH MXU\ KHDUG ZDV D WDSH RI &DUO WDNHQ DW WKH SROLFH VWDWLRQ 7KH VFKRRO EXV GULYHU FRPPHQWHG GRQnW ZDWFK 79 DW DOO DQG WKH UDGLR VWDWLRQ OLVWHQ WR :<*&*& f KDV YHU\ VFDQW QHZV KHDUG QRWKLQJ DERXW LW 7KLV MXURU DOVR DGGHG D FRPPHQW DW WKH HQG RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH ,nP VRUU\ WKLV LV nODWHn MXVW JRW WKH FOLSSLQJV IURP WKH IULHQGV ZKR VDYHG WKHP IRU PH +DYH D JUHDW GD\f 7KH VL[WK MXURU ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR WKH VXUYH\ VHOHFWHG WKH DQVZHU PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV f§FRYHUDJH ZDV JRRG ZLWK QR LQDFFXUDFLHV $QG WKH ILQDO MXURU ZKR UHVSRQGHG VHOHFWHG WKH DQVZHU OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVVf§SRRU FRYHUDJHf§EXW FLWHG QR VSHFLILF H[DPSOHV RI LQDFFXUDFLHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH GHPRJUDSKLFV RI WKH VHYHQ MXURUV ZKR UHWXUQHG WKH VXUYH\ IRXU ZHUH IHPDOHV WKH DYHUDJH DJH ZDV RQH D FLYLO VHUYDQW RQH DQ LQVWUXFWRU RQH DQ HQJLQHHU RQH D VFKRRO EXV GULYHUFDVKLHU RQH D FDVH DGPLQLVWUDWRU DQG DVVLVWDQW WR P\ KXVEDQGf§DQ DWWRUQH\ RQH D WHFKQRORJLVW DQG RQH OHIW WKH RFFXSDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ EODQNf 7ZR KDG VHUYHG RQ MXULHV RQFH EHIRUH RQH KDG VHUYHG RQ WKUHH RWKHU MXULHV $OO VDLG WKH\ UHDG WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ DQG KDG

PAGE 174

UHDG WKH FRYHUDJH DIWHU WKH WULDO 7KUHH VDLG WKH\ ZDWFK WKH QHZV RQ WKH VWDWLRQ ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO :8)7 ILYH RI WKH VHYHQ DOVR VDLG WKH\ DOVR ZDWFK QHZV RQ WKH FRPPHUFLDO VWDWLRQ ZKLFK GLG QRW FRYHU WKH WULDO RQH GRHV QRW ZDWFK WKH FRPPHUFLDO VWDWLRQ QRW VLQFH WKH\ OHW D VSRUWV DQQRXQFHU JR IRU VD\LQJ -HVXVf 2QH GRHV QRW OLVWHQ WR DQ\ UDGLR QHZV WKUHH OLVWHQ WR D VWDWLRQ ZKLFK GLG QRW FRYHU WKH WULDO RQH OLVWHQV WR D VWDWLRQ ZKLFK GLG FRYHU WKH WULDO :8)7)0f RQH OLVWHQV WR DQ\ RI WKH ORFDO VWDWLRQV DQG RQH UHVSRQGHQW VSHFLILFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG WKUHH VWDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WKH WZR ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO +RZHYHU RQO\ RQH GLIIHUHQWf MXURU KDG VHHQ RU KHDUG DERXW EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI WKH WULDO 7KXV UHJDUGLQJ WKH +DUULV WULDO WKH MXGJH DQG WKH DWWRUQH\V H[SUHVVHG JHQHUDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH PHGLD DGKHUHQFH WR WKH *XLGHOLQHVZnLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH XVH RI 79 OLJKWV DQ H[FHSWLRQ ZKLFK WKH MXGJH KDG JUDQWHG DQG WKHQ SUHVXPDEO\ ZDV UHOXFWDQW WR UHVFLQG 7KH UHVHDUFKHU QRWHG WKLV LV WKH ILUVW WLPH VKH KDV VHHQ OLJKWV XVHG LQ D FRXUWURRP LQ WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW MXGJLQJ IURP WKH UHVSRQVH RI FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV LW ZLOO SUREDEO\ EH WKH ODVWf 7KH RQO\ LQDFFXUDF\ LQ FRYHUDJH QRWHG E\ WKUHH RI WKH IRXU DWWRUQH\V ZDV WKH QHZVSDSHUnV GURSSLQJ RI WKH ZRUG QRW ZKLFK FKDQJHG WKH PHDQLQJ RI D VHQWHQFH GHVFULELQJ FUXFLDO HYLGHQFH LQ WKH FDVH KRZHYHU DOO DJUHHG DQG WKH UHSRUWHU ODWHU TXHVWLRQHG VXSSRUWHG WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQf WKDW LW ZDV REYLRXV IURP WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH VHQWHQFH WKDW WKH

PAGE 175

GURSSHG ZRUG ZDV D W\SRJUDSKLFDO HUURU UDWKHU WKDQ DQ\ PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH WHVWLPRQ\ E\ WKH UHSRUWHU 1RQH RI WKH MXURUV QRWHG WKH HUURU QRU DQ\ RWKHU HUURUV LQ FRYHUDJH DOWKRXJK RQH MXURU WKRXJKW RQH VHQWHQFH LQ D QHZVSDSHU VWRU\ PLJKW EH PLVOHDGLQJ DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH MXU\ KHDUG DFWXDO WHVWLPRQ\ RU DXGLRWDSHG WHVWLPRQ\ +RZHYHU WKH UHVHDUFKHU QRWHG WKUHH DGGLWLRQDO PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV QRW QRWLFHG E\ DQ\RQH HOVH DVVXPHGO\ EHFDXVH VKH ZDV FRPELQJ WKH FRYHUDJHf )LUVW LQWKH :8)779 VWRU\ RI 6HSWHPEHU WKH UHSRUWHU ZKR ZDV FDOOLQJ LQ KLV UHSRUW IURP WKH FRXUWKRXVH GHVFULEHG 3LHUUH +DUULVn UHHQDFWLQJ WKH VWDEELQJ KRZHYHU ZKDW WKH YLHZHU VDZ ZDV DQRWKHU ZLWQHVV 7RPP\ 6PLWK ZKR ZDV UHHQDFWLQJ KLV YHUVLRQ RI WKH VWDEELQJf§DERXW D ILYHVHFRQG SRUWLRQ RI WKH VWRU\ $VVXPHGO\ WKLV HUURU UHVXOWHG VLQFH WKH UHSRUWHU ZDV VWLOO DW WKH FRXUWKRXVH DQG GLG QRW YLHZ WKH YLGHR ZKHQ LW ZDV HGLWHG WKH YLGHR RI 7RPP\ 6PLWK FDPH XS RXW RI V\QF ZLWK WKH DXGLR UHSRUW RQ KLV WHVWLPRQ\f 7KH VHFRQG HUURU ZDV LQ :58)$0nV VWRU\ RQ WKH HYHQLQJ RI )ULGD\ 6HSWHPEHU WKH MXU\ ZDV QRW GHOLEHUDWLQJ DW WKLV KRXU QRU ZDV WKH YHUGLFW H[SHFWHG 0RQGD\ WKH MXU\ KDG UHFHVVHG DQG ZDV H[SHFWHG WR UHVXPH GHOLEHUDWLRQV DQG SUHVXPDEO\f UHDFK D YHUGLFW WKH QH[W PRUQLQJ D 6DWXUGD\ )LQDOO\ LQ WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ 2FWREHU VWRU\ UHSRUWLQJ WKH MXU\nV YHUGLFW ERWK EURWKHUV ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV \HDUV ROG UDWKHU WKDQ DV DQG XQGHUVWDQGDEOH HYHQ

PAGE 176

WKHLU PRWKHU ZKHQ WHVWLI\LQJ KDG VKRZQ VRPH FRQIXVLRQ DV WR WKH H[DFW DJH GLIIHUHQFHf $V IRU WKH MXURU ZKR ZURWH WKH OHQJWK\ FRPPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ FULWLFLVP RI WKH UHSRUWHUVn FRQVWDQW HQWHULQJ DQG OHDYLQJ WKH FRXUWURRP DV GLVFXVVHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU DOVR KDG QRWHG WKH MXGJHnV DGPRQLVKPHQW WR QRLV\ VSHFWDWRUV DQG KDG WDNHQ DQ DUELWUDU\ KRXU LQ WKH PLGGOH RI WKH WULDO WR FRXQW RI WKH SHRSOH HQWHULQJ DQG OHDYLQJ WKH FRXUWURRP RQO\ WZR ZHUH PHGLD UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV DERXW KDOI ZHUH PHPEHUV RI WKH GHIHQGDQWVn RU YLFWLPnV IDPLOLHV LQFOXGLQJ D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH 9LFWLPnV $GYRFDWH 2IILFHf DQG WKH UHVW ZHUH HLWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHUnV RU 6WDWH $WWRUQH\nV RIILFH RU VWXGHQWV IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ PHPEHUV RI WKLV ODVW JURXS SUREDEO\ PLVWDNHQ E\ WKH MXURU IRU ZRUNLQJ UHSRUWHUVVLQFH DOO WKUHH RI WKH EURDGFDVW VWDWLRQV DUH VWDIIHG E\ VWXGHQWV WKH\ PLJKW EH LQGLVWLQJXLVKDEOH WR WKH OD\PDQf +RZHYHU WKLV SDUWLFXODU MXURU GLG QRW VHOHFW DQ\ RI WKH DQVZHUV XQIDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV RQ WKH PXOWLSOH FKRLFH TXHVWLRQV ,Q IDFW RQO\ RQH DQVZHU OHVV WKDQ bf ZDV OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b ZHUH QHXWUDO DQG b ZHUH PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b UHVSRQVH UDWHf 2QH MXURU SDUWLFXODUO\ QRWHG KHU DSSUHFLDWLRQ RI EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH LQ SDVW WULDOVn KDYLQJ HGXFDWHG KHU DV WR FRXUWURRP SURFHGXUHV 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVH SHUFHQWDJHVf 7KXV DV ZLWK FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO WKH FRYHUDJH RI WKH +DUULV WULDO ZRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG WR KDYH EHHQ

PAGE 177

KDQGOHG DSSURSULDWHO\ WKH PHGLD IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI XVH RI OLJKWV DOORZHG E\ WKH MXGJH WKH ILUVW WZR GD\V RI WKH WULDOf FRYHUDJH ZDV JHQHUDOO\ VHHQ DV DFFXUDWH ZLWK WKH PDLQ H[FHSWLRQ ZKDW DOO ZKR QRWHG LW UHJDUGHG DV D W\SRJUDSKLFDO HUURU LQ RQH RI WKH QHZVSDSHU VWRULHVf 7KH RQO\ UHDO SUREOHP UHJDUGLQJ MXGLFLDO GLVUXSWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV QRWHG E\ DOO WKH DWWRUQH\VWKH QHZVSDSHUnV DGYDQFH VWRU\n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nV IDWKHU WKH QLJKW EHIRUH WKH WULDO -XU\ VHOHFWLRQ

PAGE 178

WRRN RQH KRXU 2FWREHU DQG WKH 6WDWH SUHVHQWHG LWV FDVH 2FWREHU KRZHYHU EHIRUH WKH 6WDWH UHVWHG WKH 'HIHQVH PRYHG IRU D FRQWLQXDQFH LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ WKH WHVWLPRQ\ RI D ILUH RIILFLDO ZKR ZDV RULJLQDOO\ VFKHGXOHG DV D 6WDWH ZLWQHVV DQG XSRQ IDLOXUH WR EH FDOOHG ZDV VXESRHQDHG E\ WKH 'HIHQVHf 7KH WULDO UHVXPHG RQ 2FWREHU 6SLNHV ZDV FRQYLFWHG RQ ERWK FRXQWV DQG VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LPSULVRQPHQW RQ WKH PXUGHU DQG WKH PD[LPXP \HDUV RQ WKH DUVRQ ZLWK D PLQLPXP \HDUV LQ SULVRQ &RXUWURRP 3URFHHGLQJV 5HSRUWHUV IURP WKH GDLO\ QHZVSDSHU WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ WKH *DLQHVYLOOH EXUHDX RI WKH -DFNVRQYLOOH )ORULGD 7LPHV ,-QLRQ WKH UHSRUWHU VDLG LW ZDV D VORZ GD\ IRU -DFNVRQYLOOH QHZV LQ *DLQHVYLOOHf WKH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ :8)73%6f WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ :8)7135f DQG WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ :58)&%6f FRYHUHG WKH WULDO $V ZLWK WKH +DUULV WULDO :&-%79 FKDQJHG LWV DQQRXQFHG SODQV WR FRYHU WKH WULDO WKLV WLPH WKH DVVLJQPHQW HGLWRU UHSRUWHG WKDW ZKHQ WKH WULDO KDG EHHQ SRVWSRQHG LW FRQIOLFWHG ZLWK FRYHUDJH RI D WULDO RI D SROLFH FKLHI LQ WKH IHGHUDO FRXUW ZKLFK WKH VWDWLRQ FRQVLGHUHG D PDMRU VWRU\ KH VDLG WKHLU UHVRXUFHV ZHUH OLPLWHG WR FRYHUDJH RI RQO\ RQH WULDO DW D WLPHf 7KUHH RI WKH QHZV RUJDQL]DWLRQV ERWK QHZVSDSHUV DQG :8)7135f KDG UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV SUHVHQW IRU WKH RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQW RQ WKH ILUVW GD\ D :HGQHVGD\ WKH 'HIHQVH GHFOLQHG

PAGE 179

WR SUHVHQW DQ RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWf :8)779 DQG :58)$0 GLG QRW VKRZ XS XQWLO WKH DIWHUQRRQ VHVVLRQ QRU GLG WKH SKRWRJUDSKHU IRU WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ $ ZHHN ODWHU WKH VDPH WKUHH RUJDQL]DWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQW LQ WKH PRUQLQJ IRU WKH 'HIHQVH SUHVHQWDWLRQ DOWKRXJK WKH ORFDO QHZVSDSHU VHQW D GLIIHUHQW UHSRUWHU VLQFH WKH UHJXODU FRXUW UHSRUWHU ZDV FRYHULQJ D VSHFLDO VHVVLRQ LQ WKH VWDWH FDSLWDO KH KDG GHEULHIHG KLV VXEVWLWXWH EHIRUH KH OHIW WRZQf $OO ILYH RUJDQL]DWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQW IRU FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ D GLIIHUHQW *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ SKRWRJUDSKHU DQG D GLIIHUHQW UHSRUWHU IURP WKH RQH ZKR KDG EHHQ SUHVHQW D ZHHN HDUOLHU IRU :58)$0f DQG DOO EXW WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU ZHUH SUHVHQW IRU WKH YHUGLFW 7KH RQO\ QRWDEOH LQVWDQFH RI DZDUHQHVV RI SUHVV FRYHUDJH RFFXUUHG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW GD\ RI WKH WULDO ZKHQ WKH MXGJH KDG WKH EDLOLII UHPRYH WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU IURP WKH FRXUWURRP GXH WR D QRLV\ FDPHUD 7KH QH[W ZHHN D VHFRQG QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU H[SODLQHG WR WKH UHVHDUFKHU WKDW WKH ORFDO SDSHU KDG ERXJKW D QHZ FDPHUD 1LNNRQ )f ZKLFK WKH\ KDG EHHQ DVVXUHG ZDV FRXUWURRPDSSURYHG KRZHYHU WKH VHFRQG SKRWRJUDSKHU IROORZHG WKH MXGJHnV DGPRQLVKPHQW WR XVH D FDPHUD ZKLFK ZRXOG ILW LQ D EOLPS VLOHQFHUf 0HGLD &RYHUDJH 7KH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ UDQ ILYH VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH WKH GD\ EHIRUH WKH RULJLQDOO\VFKHGXOHG WULDO D VPDOO ER[ WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH WULDO ZDV FDQFHOOHG D VPDOO ER[ WKH GD\

PAGE 180

WKH WULDO DFWXDOO\ EHJDQ D VWRU\ LQFOXGLQJ D WKUHHFROXPQ SKRWRJUDSK RI WKH GHIHQGDQW WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH 6WDWHnV FDVH DQG D VWRU\ LQFOXGLQJ DQRWKHU WKUHHFROXPQ SKRWRJUDSK RI WKH GHIHQGDQW D ZHHN ODWHU WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH WULDO FRQFOXGHG $OO WKH VWRULHV DSSHDUHG RQ SDJH % RI WKH QHZVSDSHU 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD DQG $SSHQGL[ & IRU FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV $SSHQGL[ IRU VHOHFWHG DUWLFOHV DQG VFULSWVf 7KH )ORULGD 7LPHV8QLRQ UDQ WZR VWRULHV RQH WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH ILUVW SDUW RI WKH WULDO WKH VHFRQG D ZHHN ODWHU WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH WULDO FRQFOXGHG ERWK VWRULHV UDQ RQ SDJH % 7KH ILUVW 7LPHV8QLRQ VWRU\ ZDV WKH RQO\ RQH WR PHQWLRQ WKH KRVWLOH UHVSRQVH RI RQH ZLWQHVV DQG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKH ZLWQHVV PD\ KDYH NQRZQ WKH GHDWK RI WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\nV IDWKHU KDG FDXVHG WKH RULJLQDO GHOD\ LQ WKH SURFHHGLQJV 7KH VHFRQG 7LPHV,-QLRQ VWRU\ UHSHDWHG WKH 6WDWHnV FDVH PDGH QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH GHIHQVH DQG PDGH QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH UHFDOO RI WKH FRXUW UHSRUWHU WR UHDG WHVWLPRQ\ WR WKH MXU\ 4XHVWLRQHG ODWHU DERXW WKH RQHVLGHG SUHVHQWDWLRQ WKH UHSRUWHU WROG WKH UHVHDUFKHU DOZD\V MXVW FRYHU WKH RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV DQG WKH YHUGLFW +H DGGHG KLV HGLWRUV DJUHHG ZLWK KLV VHOIGHWHUPLQHG SROLF\f :8)779 UDQ WZR VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO RQH WKH HYHQLQJ RI WKH 6WDWHnV SUHVHQWDWLRQD VWRU\ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG DQ LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK D QHLJKERU ZKR KDSSHQHG E\ RXWVLGH WKH FULPH VFHQH DV ZHOO DV D VRXQG ELWH ZLWK WKH SURVHFXWRU 7KH VHFRQG VWRU\ ZKLFK UDQ WKH HYHQLQJ WKH WULDO FRQFOXGHG ZDV

PAGE 181

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f Gf 7RWDO 1XPEHU 7HOHYLVLRQ 6WRULHV 7RWDO 1XPEHU 5DGLR 6WRULHV $YHUDJH /HQJWK $YHUDJH /HQJWK

PAGE 182

3DUWLFLSDQW 5HVSRQVH ,QWHUYLHZHG DIWHU WKH WULDO -XGJH (O]LH 6DQGHUV ZKRVH JHQHUDOO\ IDYRUDEOH DWWLWXGH WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KDV EHHQ GHVFULEHG HDUOLHUf VDLG KH KDG DVNHG WKH EDLOLII WR UHPRYH WKH 6XQ SKRWRJUDSKHU WKH ILUVW DIWHUQRRQ RI WKH WULDO EHFDXVH WKH FDPHUD FOLFNLQJ ZDV GLVWUDFWLQJ DQG D YLRODWLRQ RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV 7KH MXGJH DOVR PHQWLRQHG WKDW WKLV ZDV WKH VHFRQG WLPH WKLV KDG KDSSHQHG LQ KLV FRXUW WKH ILUVW EHLQJ LQ WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO VXSUDf 7KH MXGJH ZKR KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH VDLG KH GLG QRW QRWLFH DQ\ LQDFFXUDFLHV LQ FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6SLNHV WULDO 5HJDUGLQJ SRVVLEOH GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV -XGJH 6DQGHUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH SKRWRJUDSKHUV JHQHUDOO\ DVN WKH EDLOLII DERXW VSHFLILFV IRU FRYHUDJH DQG KLV EDLOLIIV DOZD\V LQVLVW WKH\ WDON ZLWK WKH MXGJH GLUHFWO\ +H KDV QRWHG QR YLRODWLRQV RI KLV RUGHUV XVXDOO\ ILQG WKH SUHVV SHRSOH DUH UHDOO\ VLQFHUH DERXW WU\LQJ WR IROORZ WKH *XLGHOLQHV n UHVSHFW WKHP IRU LW 3URVHFXWRU +DUULV 7RELQnV JHQHUDOO\ SRVLWLYH FRPPHQWV WRZDUG FDPHUD FRYHUDJH KDYH DOVR EHHQ QRWHG 5HJDUGLQJ FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6SLNHV WULDO 7RELQ ZKR KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH VDLG KH GLG QRW QRWLFH DQ\ JODULQJ LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV RU GLVUXSWLRQV $VVLVWDQW 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU 6XVDQ :HKOEXUJ VDLG VKH KDV QR JHQHUDO REMHFWLRQ WR FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH EXW VKH VD\V VKH IHHOV WKH SUHVV VKRXOG QRW DWWHPSW WR LQWHUYLHZ KHU XQWLO

PAGE 183

DIWHU WKH FRQFOXVLRQ RI WKH WULDO DQG VKH UHIXVHV WR PDNH DQ\ VWDWHPHQWV WR WKH SUHVV XQWLO WKDW WLPH 6KH JHQHUDOO\ DSSURYHV RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV DQG VKH VD\V VKH KDV QRWLFHG PHGLD FRYHUDJH RI KHU FDVHV VKH KDV VSHQW VHYHQ \HDUV LQ KHU SUHVHQW SRVLWLRQf RQO\ LQ PXUGHU WULDOV 6@RPH \RXQJ ODG\ >WKH UHSRUWHU IURP :8)779@ LQIRUPHG PH WKDW LI ZRXOG QRW PDNH D VWDWHPHQW VKH ZRXOG GR WKH VWRU\ DQG SHUKDSV QHHGHG WR EDODQFH LW RXW 0\ UHVSRQVH ZDV WKDW P\ HWKLFV ZRXOG QRW DOORZ PH WR PDNH RQH 8SRQ GLVPLVVLQJ WKH MXU\ WKH MXGJH KDQGHG RXW WKH MXURU H[LW SROO DQG VXJJHVWHG WKH MXURUV PLJKW ZDQW WR KHOS WKH UHVHDUFKHUf§ZKRP KH PHQWLRQHG E\ QDPHf§ZLWK D GRFWRUDO VWXG\ 6HH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU MXURU H[LW SROO 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVHf 7ZR RI WKH VL[ MXURUV UHWXUQHG WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV )ORULGD ODZ DOORZV D GHIHQGDQW WKH RSWLRQ RI D VL[PHPEHU MXU\ LQ FDSLWDO FDVHV ZKHQ WKH GHDWK SHQDOW\ LV QRW VRXJKWf %RWK MXURUV SLFNHG WKH QHXWUDO DQVZHU WR WKH ILUVW PXOWLSOH FKRLFH TXHVWLRQ FDPHUD FRYHUDJH KDV VRPH DGYDQWDJHV VRPH GLVDGYDQWDJHV +RZHYHU RQH RI WKH MXURUV FRPPHQWHG GRQnW DJUHH ZF DOO SHUVRQDOO\ ZRXOG UDWKHU KDYH P\

PAGE 184

SULYDF\ &DPHUD HTXLSPHQW DQG JODULQJ MRXUQDOLVW >VLF@ PDNH PH IHHO XQHDV\ %RWK MXURUV DOVR SLFNHG WKH QHXWUDO DQVZHU WR WKH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ WKH MRXUQDOLVWV FDXVHG D OLWWOH GLVWUDFWLRQ 7KH VDPH MXURU ZKR FRPPHQWHG DERYH QRWHG ZDV DOVR GLVWUDFWHG E\ WKH GHIHQGDQWVn UHDFWLRQ WR D SKRWRJUDSKHU ZKR ZDV WU\LQJ WR JHW D SLFWXUH RI KLPKHU +H ZDV DQQR\HG E\ WKH SKRWRJUDSKHUV SHUVLVWDQFH +RZHYHU WKLV MXURU SLFNHG WKH PRVW IDYRUDEOH DQVZHU WR WKH SUHVV RQ WKH WKLUG TXHVWLRQ WKH FRYHUDJH ZDV JRRG ZLWK QR LQDFFXUDFLHV KH KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH RQO\f 7KH RWKHU MXURU ZKR UHDG WKH 6XQ DQG KHDUG DERXW EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI WKH WULDO SLFNHG WKH PLGGOH DQVZHU WR WKH WKLUG TXHVWLRQ WKH FRYHUDJH ZDV IDLU %RWK MXURUV ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR WKH SROO ZHUH PDOHV RQO\ RQH JDYH KLV DJH f DQG RFFXSDWLRQ ODE PDQDJHUf 2QH KDG VHUYHG WZLFH EHIRUH RQ MXULHV 1HLWKHU ZDWFKHV WKH 79 VWDWLRQ ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO RQH VDLG KH UHDGV WKH 6XQ DQG OLVWHQV WR RQH RI WKH UDGLR VWDWLRQV ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDO :58)$0f 7KXV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI WKH 6SLNHV WULDO ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH IDLOXUH RI D QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU WR XVH D EOLPS H[SODLQHG E\ WKH SKRWRJUDSKHU DV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ KLV QHZ FDPHUD GLG QRW UHTXLUH RQHf WKH MXGJH DQG ERWK DWWRUQH\V IHOW WKH MRXUQDOLVWV JHQHUDOO\ IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV $V IDU DV DFFXUDF\ RI FRYHUDJH QR RQH QRWHG

PAGE 185

DQ\ LQDFFXUDFLHV )LQDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DOWKRXJK RQH MXURU ZDV PRPHQWDULO\ GLVWUDFWHG E\ D SKRWRJUDSKHUnV SLFWXUHWDNLQJ QR RQH FLWHG DQ\ GLVUXSWLRQ RI WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH MXURUV ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR WKH SROO b UHVSRQVH UDWHf DQVZHUHG PRVW IDYRUDEO\ WR WKH SUHVV b RI WKH WLPH JDYH QHXWUDO DQVZHUV b RI WKH WLPH DQG JDYH QR DQVZHUV OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVH SHUFHQWDJHV f )ORULGD Y 6WDQOH\ 7KH IRXUWK DQG ODVWf PXUGHU WULDO WR DSSHDU RQ WKH FULPLQDO GRFNHW RI WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW ZDV WKH WULDO RI &KDUOLH 6WDQOH\ ZKLFK WRRN SODFH 'HFHPEHU LQ WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FRXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD EHIRUH -XGJH (O]LH 6DQGHUV )LIW\\HDUROG 6WDQOH\ ZDV FKDUJHG ZLWK ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU LQ WKH VKRRWLQJ GHDWK RI D FRZRUNHU LQ 6HSWHPEHU LQ +DZWKRUQH )ORULGD +H ZDV IRXQG JXLOW\ RI VHFRQGGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG VHQWHQFHG WR \HDUV LQ SULVRQ &RXUWURRP 3URFHHGLQJV 5HSRUWHUV IURP WKH GDLO\ QHZVSDSHU WKH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQf WKH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ :8)73%6f WKH SXEOLF UDGLR VWDWLRQ :8)7135f DQG WKH FRPPHUFLDO UDGLR VWDWLRQ :58) &%6f FRYHUHG WKH WULDO $ UHSRUWHU IURP :8)779 FRYHUHG MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ ZLWK D FDPHUD LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WKH ILUVW GD\ $

PAGE 186

GLIIHUHQW UHSRUWHU FRYHUHG RSHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV VKH KDG QR FDPHUD WKH RQH DVVLJQHG WR KHU E\ WKH VWDWLRQ ZDV LQRSHUDEOHf DQG VKH VDLG VKH KDG EURXJKW D WDSH GHFN ZLWK KHU KRSLQJ WR SDWFK LQ WR WKH FRPPHUFLDO VWDWLRQ :&-%$%&f HTXLSPHQW +RZHYHU DOWKRXJK :&-% KDG DFFRPSDQLHG WKH SROLFH WR WKH ZRRGHG DUHD ZKHUH WKH ERG\ KDG EHHQ IRXQG D \HDU HDUOLHU WKH 79 VWDWLRQ GLG QRW FRYHU WKH WULDO $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH $VVLJQPHQW (GLWRU FRQWDFWHG WKH GD\ EHIRUH WKH 6WDQOH\ WULDO EHJDQ :H MXVW FDQnW FRYHU HYHU\ PXUGHU WULDO WKH ZD\ ZH VKRXOG JDYHOWRJDYHOf $ WKLUG :8)779 UHSRUWHU FRYHUHG WKH WULDO WKH WKLUG DIWHUQRRQ DQG RQ )ULGD\ D IRXUWK FUHZ RQ ERWK WKHVH GD\V :8)779 KDG FDPHUDV LQ WKH FRXUWURRP :8)7)0 KDG WKH VDPH UHSRUWHU LQ WKH WULDO DOPRVW WKH HQWLUH WLPH 7KH DIWHUQRRQ RI WKH RSHQLQJ RI WKH WULDO DQG WKH QH[W PRUQLQJ KH ZDV DFFRPSDQLHG E\ RQH DVVLVWDQW ZKR GLG QRW SUHVHQW DQ\ UHSRUWVf $ GLIIHUHQW DVVLVWDQWZKR SUHVHQWHG WKH ILQDO UHSRUW ZKHQ VHQWHQFLQJ ZDV WDNLQJ SODFH DFFRPSDQLHG KLP WKH ILQDO DIWHUQRRQ RI WKH WULDO :58)$0 VHQW GLIIHUHQW UHSRUWHUV IRU SDUWV RI HDFK RI WKH WKUHH GD\V RI WKH DFWXDO WULDO D WRWDO RI ILYH GLIIHUHQW UHSRUWHUVf (DFK UHSRUWHU DSSHDUHG RQO\ IRU DQ KRXU RU WZR GXULQJ WKH DIWHUQRRQ VHVVLRQV LQFOXGLQJ WKH YHUGLFW DQG VHQWHQFLQJ 7KH *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ VHQW LWV XVXDO FRXUW UHSRUWHU ZKR FRYHUHG HYHU\WKLQJ H[FHSW MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ DQG DOO EXW D

PAGE 187

WZRKRXU SHULRG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW GD\ RI WKH WULDO 7KH UHSRUWHU H[SODLQHG KH KDG SUHYLRXVO\ DUUDQJHG DQ LQWHUYLHZ RQ DQRWKHU VWRU\ DQG DVNHG D FROOHDJXH WR VLW LQ RQ WKH WLPH KH ZDV DEVHQW WKH FROOHDJXH VKDUHG WKH E\OLQH RQ WKH QH[W GD\nV VWRU\ 7KH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHU DOVR PLVVHG WKH ILUVW PLQXWHV RI WKH GHIHQGDQWn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nV FRPPHQWV ZKHQ VHQGLQJ WKH MXU\ WR OXQFK DW WKH WD[SD\HUVn H[SHQVH 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD DQG $SSHQGL[ & IRU FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV $SSHQGL[ IRU VHOHFWHG DUWLFOHV DQG VFULSWVf

PAGE 188

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f WR UHSRUW WKH VHQWHQFLQJ 1RQH RI WKH VWRULHV LQFOXGHG DQ\ VRXQG ELWHV :58)$0 UDQ VKRUW VWRULHV RQ WKH WULDO WZR WKH ILUVW GD\ RI WKH WULDO VHYHQ WKH VHFRQG GD\ WKH ILQDO GD\ DQG IRXU WKH 6DWXUGD\ PRUQLQJ DIWHU WKH WULDO KDG HQGHG 6L[WHHQ RI WKH VWRULHV LQFOXGHG LQWHUYLHZV RI WKHP ZLWK WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ HLJKW GLIIHUHQW FXWVf DQG IRXU ZLWK WKH SURVHFXWRU WKUHH GLIIHUHQW FXWVf

PAGE 189

7$%/( &217(17 $1$/<6,6 )ORULGD Y 6WDQOH\ :8)779 :8)7)0 :58)$0)0 *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ VWRULHV VWRULHV DFWXDOLW\ ZLWK FRXUWURRP SKRWR VRXQG ELWH Gf Gf 7RWDO 1XPEHU 7HOHYLVLRQ $YHUDJH /HQJWK 6WRULHV 7RWDO 1XPEHU 5DGLR 6WRULHV $YHUDJH /HQJWK 3DUWLFLSDQW 5HVSRQVH ,QWHUYLHZHG DIWHU WKH WULDO -XGJH (O]LH 6DQGHUV ZKRVH JHQHUDOO\ IDYRUDEOH DWWLWXGH WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KDV EHHQ GHVFULEHG HDUOLHU VDLG KH KDG QRWKLQJ WR DGG WR HDUOLHU FRPPHQWV RQ FDPHUD FRYHUDJH +H VDLG KH QRWHG QR IDLOXUH WR IROORZ WKH *XLGHOLQHV QR GLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH KH KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJHf DQG QRWHG QR GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH WULDO 3URVHFXWRU -RKQ &DUOLQ &KLHI $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ KDG VSHQW ILYH \HDUV DV D 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU EHIRUH VSHQGLQJ WKH SDVW ILYH \HDUV ZLWK WKH 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ +H VDLG KH JHQHUDOO\ IDYRUV WKH *XLGHOLQHV DQG SRLQWHG RXW WKDW ZHUH WKH UXOH IRUELGGLQJ XVH RI PHGLD FRYHUDJH QRW DSSOLFDEOH WKH UHVXOW ZRXOG EH DQ LQHTXLW\ VLQFH RQO\ KLJKSURILOH WULDOV DUH FRYHUHG RQO\ FHUWDLQ GHIHQGDQWV ZRXOG KDYH DFFHVV WR

PAGE 190

SRVVLEOH DSSHDO PDWHULDO +H VDLG KH VHHV EURDGFDVWHUV DW DERXW b RI WKH WULDOV KH KDQGOHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH 6WDQOH\ WULDO &DUOLQ VDLG KH UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH DQG KHDUG WKH FRYHUDJH RQ :58)$0 +H VDLG KH IHHOV WKH PHGLD IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV +RZHYHU UHJDUGLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQ RI DFFXUDF\ &DUOLQ VDLG 7KLV LV QRW D YHU\ JRRG TXHVWLRQ ,WnV QRW VR PXFK WKH DFFXUDF\ DV WKH WKRURXJKQHVVLWnV MXVW D JOLPSVH RI ZKDW JRHV RQ LQ D GD\ VR LW KDV WR WR D GHJUHH JLYH D GLVWRUWHG YLHZ HYHQ WKRXJK WKH JOLPSVH PD\ EH DFFXUDWH &DUOLQ VDLG KH IHHOV WKH PHGLD LV LUUHVSRQVLEOH WR SULQW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ LQDGPLVVLEOH HYLGHQFH EHFDXVH KH IHHOV WKDW GHVSLWH D MXGJHn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f 0F0DKRQ JHQHUDOO\ DSSURYHV RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV HVSHFLDOO\ WKH

PAGE 191

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nW VHH KLP DIWHU WKDW +H VDLG KH IRXQG QR LQDFFXUDFLHV DQG QR GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV E\ WKH PHGLD 7KH\ ZHUH UHDO SROLWH DQG VWD\HG RXW RI WKH ZD\ 8SRQ GLVPLVVLQJ WKH MXU\ WKH MXGJH KDQGHG RXW WKH MXURU H[LW SROO 6HH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU MXURU H[LW SROO 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVHf 6L[ RI WKH MXURUV UHWXUQHG WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH ILUVW PXOWLSOHFKRLFH TXHVWLRQ KDOI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV SLFNHG WKH PRVW IDYRUDEOH DQVZHU WR WKH SUHVV FDPHUD FRYHUDJH LV D JRRG LGHD 7KH RWKHU KDOI SLFNHG WKH QHXWUDO DQVZHU FRYHUDJH KDV VRPH DGYDQWDJHV VRPH GLVDGYDQWDJHV 2QH RI WKHVH UHVSRQGHQWV FRPPHQWHG 7KH SXEOLF ZLOO RQO\ VHH WKH nVHQVDWLRQDOn SDUWV RI WKH WULDO WKDQNV WR RXU QHZV PHGLD GRQnW WKLQN LW ZLOO KHOS LQ WHDFKLQJ WKH SXEOLF XQOHVV SXEOLF WHOHYLVLRQ RU HGXFDWLRQDO SHRSOH GR WKH ILOPLQJ

PAGE 192

$OO VL[ RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV SLFNHG WKH PRVW IDYRUDEOH DQVZHU WR WKH SUHVV RQ WKH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ WKH\ KDUGO\ QRWLFHG WKH UHSRUWHUV RU HTXLSPHQW 5HJDUGLQJ WKH WKLUG TXHVWLRQ WKUHH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV SLFNHG WKH DQVZHU PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV WKH FRYHUDJH ZDV JRRG DQG QR LQDFFXUDFLHV ZHUH QRWHG 7ZR SLFNHG WKH PLGGOH DQVZHU FRYHUDJH ZDV IDLUO\ DFFXUDWH ZLWK RQO\ PLQRU LQDFFXUDFLHV QRQH RI ZKLFK ZDV VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVFULEHGf 7KH ODVW UHVSRQGHQW VSOLW KHU YRWH VKH VDLG WKH UDGLR FRYHUDJH ZDV DFFXUDWH DOWKRXJK VKH GLG QRW LQGLFDWH OLVWHQLQJ WR D VWDWLRQ ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKLV WULDO EXW RQH ZKLFK KDG QR FRYHUDJHf DQG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH ZDV QRW DFFXUDWH DOWKRXJK VKH JDYH QR H[DPSOHV RI LQDFFXUDFLHVf 7KXV WKH MXURUV ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR WKH SROO bf JDYH DQVZHUV PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b RI WKH WLPH QHXWUDO DQVZHUV b RI WKH WLPH DQG DQVZHUV OHDVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b RI WKH WLPH 6HH 7DEOH LQIUD IRU MXURU UHVSRQVH SHUFHQWDJHVf )LYH RI WKH VL[ UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH IHPDOHV WKH DYHUDJH DJH ZDV 7ZR ZHUH QXUVHV RQH ZDV D V\VWHPV SURMHFW DQDO\VW RQH D VHFUHWDU\ RQH D ILVFDO DVVLVWDQW DQG RQH UHWLUHG $OO VL[ KDG UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH DIWHU WKH WULDO DQG WZR VDLG WKH\ KDG KHDUG DERXW UDGLR DQG 79 FRYHUDJH EXW QHLWKHU OLVWHQV WR D VWDWLRQ ZKLFK FRYHUHG WKH WULDOf 2QH MXURU KDG VHUYHG RQ D MXU\ WZLFH EHIRUH DQRWKHU RQFH WKH UHVW ZHUH VHUYLQJ IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH $OO VDLG

PAGE 193

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n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

PAGE 194

7$%/( -8525 5(63216( 6LPPRQV +DUULV 6SLNHV 6WDQOH\ 727$/6 *HQHUDO IHHOLQJ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV $ %DG LGHD LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK MXGLFLDO SURFHVV % 6RPH DGYDQWDJHV VRPH GUDZEDFNV & *RRG LGHD KHOSV SXEOLF XQGHUVWDQG SURFHVV 'XULQJ WULDO +RZ DZDUH RI FDPHUDV" $ +DUGO\ QRWLFHG UHSRUWHUV RU HTXLSPHQW % 6RPHWLPHV GLVWUDFWHG E\ SUHVHQFH & 9HU\ DZDUH ZLVK WKH\ ZHUHQnW WKHUH $IWHU WULDO 5HDG QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH"
PAGE 195

7$%/( -8525 5(63216( 3(5&(17$*(6 0XOWLSOHFKRLFH DQVZHUV 6LPPRQV +DUULV 6SLNHV 6WDQOH\ $9(5$*( 3(5&(17$*(6 )DYRUDEOH WR SUHVV b b b b b 1HXWUDO WR SUHVV b b b b b 8QIDYRUDEOH WR SUHVV b b b b b 7KXV IURP REVHUYDWLRQ RI FRYHUDJH RI WULDOV IURP FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV RI FRYHUDJH DQG IURP WKH UHVSRQVHV RI FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV LW PD\ EH FRQFOXGHG WKDW FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH ZDV JHQHUDOO\ QRQGLVUXSWLYH LQ WKH PDMRU FULPLQDO WULDOV LQ )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW LQ $ GHWDLOHG DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD ZLWK FRQFOXVLRQV WR EH GUDZQ DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU WKH IXWXUH IROORZ LQ &KDSWHU 1RWHV LQWHUYLHZHHV &KLHI -XGJH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW +RQRUDEOH &KHVWHU % &KDQFH &RXQW\ -XGJH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW +RQRUDEOH )UHGHULFN 6PLWK &OHUN RI WKH &RXUW $ &XUWLV 3RZHUV $VVLVWDQW &LUFXLW &OHUN 0DU\ *UDFH 6WHSKHQV &RXUW ([HFXWLYH $VVLVWDQW %HQ ( 1RUWK 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ (XJHQH 7 :KLWZRUWK GHFHDVHG VXEVHTXHQWO\ UHSODFHG E\ /HQ 5HJLVWHUf )LUVW $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ .HQQHWK +HEHUW UHVLJQHG VXEVHTXHQWO\ UHSODFHG ILUVW E\ *HRUJH %ORZ WKHQ E\ -RKQ &DUOLQf 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU 5LFKDUG 3DUNHU $WWRUQH\ DW /DZ /DUU\ 7XUQHU $WWRUQH\ DW /DZ $ODQ 3DUODSLDQR 0DQDJLQJ (GLWRU *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ 5RE 2EOHVE\ 1HZV 'LUHFWRU :&-%79 $%&f 6WHYH +XQVLFNHU 1HZV 'LUHFWRU :8)779 3%6f 5LFKDUG +RIIPDQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRU :58)$0)0 &%6f 7KRPDV .U\QVNL 1HZV 'LUHFWRU :8)7)0 135f &HFLO +LFNPDQ -RXUQDOLVWV &RQQLH %RXFKDUG SKRWRJUDSKHU 0DUN 'RODQ *DLQHVYLH 6XQf FDPHUD RSHUDWRU %HOLQGD (VSLQRVD GD\ f

PAGE 196

VWXGHQW LQWHUQUHSRUWHU -RKQ $QWRQLR GD\ f :&-%79 UHSRUWHU *UDKDP %DUQDUG FDPHUD RSHUDWRU .\OH =LHJOHU GD\ f UHSRUWHU 5R\ %URZQ GD\ f :8)779 5R\ %URZQ GD\ f 6WHYH &DUPRG\ GD\ f :8)7)0 5RELQ 0LFKDHOVRQ GD\ f .LP $FNHU GD\ f :58)$0 6HH &KDSWHU 1RWH t GLVFXVVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ VXFK VWXGLHV DV WKDW E\ 3DXO :HDYHU 1HZVSDSHU t 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV LQ 'RXJODV &DWHU t 5LFKDUG $GOHU HGV 7HOHYLVLRQ DV D 6RFLDO )RUFH 1HZ $SSURDFKHV WR 79 &ULWLFLVP 1HZ
PAGE 197

&+$37(5 6800$5< $1' &21&/86,216 &DVH 6WXG\ 7KH SUREOHP WKLV VWXG\ H[SORUHG LV KRZ FORVHO\ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU EHKDYLRU LQ FRXUWURRPV GXULQJ FULPLQDO WULDOV DQG ZKHWKHU WKH XVH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV UHVXOWV LQ XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH ZLWKRXW REVHUYDEOH GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH SURFHVV RI EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH RI IRXU FULPLQDO WULDOV LQ )ORULGDnV (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW LQ )RXU K\SRWKHVHV LQ WKH IRUP RI UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG 4 +RZ FORVHO\ GR EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU EHKDYLRU LQ FRXUWURRPV GXULQJ FULPLQDO WULDOV" 4 :KDW LPSDFW GR WKH JXLGHOLQHV KDYH RQ FRYHUDJH" 4 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDO SURFHHGLQJV" 4 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DW WKH WULDO FRXUW OHYHO" 7KH SULPDU\ PHWKRG RI GDWD FROOHFWLRQ ZDV SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ &RQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI WULDO FRYHUDJH SUHVHQWHG E\ IRXU EURDGFDVW VWDWLRQV WKH $%& DQG 3%6 79 DIILOLDWHV D FRPPHUFLDO $0)0&%6 DQG DQ )0135f DV ZHOO DV RI WKH ORFDO GDLO\ QHZVSDSHU GXULQJ D SUHOLPLQDU\ SHULRG DQG GXULQJ D

PAGE 198

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

PAGE 199

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f D WRWDO RI IRXU ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU FDVHV DSSHDUHG RQ WKH FULPLQDO GRFNHW LQ WKH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW ,Q )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV WKH \RXWKIXO GHIHQGDQW ZDV

PAGE 200

FRQYLFWHG RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU LQ WKH EHDWLQJ GHDWK RI DQ DFTXDLQWDQFH LQ )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t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nV DGPRQLVKPHQW WR WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU WR KDOW SLFWXUHWDNLQJ XQWLO SURFXULQJ HTXLSPHQW GHVLJQHG WR PXIIOH FDPHUD VRXQGV RWKHUZLVH DOO FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV DJUHHG WKH SUHVV IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV 7KH RQO\ FRQFHUQ UHJDUGLQJ DFFXUDF\ FLWHG E\ WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ ZDV VRPH FRQIXVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHSRUWLQJ RI ZKLFK RI WZR ZHDSRQV ZDV WKH DFWXDO GHDWK ZHDSRQ XSRQ FORVH H[DPLQDWLRQ E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU LW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW WKH LVVXH ZDV D PDWWHU RI JHQHUDO FRQIXVLRQ WR DOO LQYROYHGf§LQFOXGLQJ WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ KLPVHOI 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLVUXSWLRQV WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV ZHUH FLWHG 7KH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ WZR UDGLR VWDWLRQV DQG WKH ORFDO QHZVSDSHU FRYHUHG WKH +DUULV WULDO 5HJDUGLQJ WKH

PAGE 201

*XLGHOLQHV WKH MXGJH DQG DWWRUQH\V H[SUHVVHG JHQHUDO VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK PHGLD EHKDYLRU ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH XVH RI 79 OLJKWV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW DQG VHFRQG GD\V RI WKH ILYH GD\ WULDO DQ H[FHSWLRQ ZKLFK WKH MXGJH KDG JUDQWHG DQG WKHQ SUHVXPDEO\ ZDV UHOXFWDQW WR UHVFLQGf 7KH RQO\ LQDFFXUDF\ LQ FRYHUDJH RWKHU WKDQ H[WUHPHO\ PLQRU HUURUV XQQRWLFHG E\ DOO EXW WKH UHVHDUFKHUf FLWHG E\ RQH RI WKH SURVHFXWRUV DQG ERWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V ZDV WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHUnV GURSSLQJ RI D FUXFLDO QRW LQ WKH WKLUG GD\nV VWRU\ DQ HUURU ZKLFK UHYHUVHG WKH PHDQLQJ RI D VHQWHQFH GHVFULELQJ FUXFLDO HYLGHQFH LQ WKH FDVH 5HJDUGLQJ GLVUXSWLRQV WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DOWKRXJK WKUHH RI WKH IRXU DWWRUQH\V LQYROYHG LQ WKH FDVH SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH QHZVSDSHUnV DGYDQFH VWRU\ FRQWULEXWHG WR D SURORQJHG YRLU GLUH GXH WR LWV LQFOXVLRQ RI LQDGPLVVLEOH HYLGHQFH WKLV VLWXDWLRQ PD\ EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV D XQLYHUVDO )LUVW $PHQGPHQW6L[WK $PHQGPHQW LVVXH XQUHODWHG WR WKH VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQ RI XVH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 7KH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ WZR UDGLR VWDWLRQV WKH ORFDO QHZVSDSHU DQG WKH ORFDO EXUHDX RI DQ RXWRIWRZQ QHZVSDSHU FRYHUHG WKH 6SLNHV WULDO $V LQ WKH 6LPPRQV FDVH WKH ORFDO QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHUnV IDLOXUH WR XVH D EOLPS WR PXIIOH KLV FDPHUD H[SODLQHG E\ WKH SKRWRJUDSKHU DV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ KLV QHZ FDPHUD GLG QRW UHTXLUH RQHf ZDV WKH RQO\ H[FHSWLRQ WR WKH *XLGHOLQHV 1R RQH FLWHG DQ\ LQDFFXUDFLHV LQ FRYHUDJH QRU DQ\ GLVWRUWLRQV WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV

PAGE 202

)LQDOO\ WKH SXEOLF 79 VWDWLRQ WZR UDGLR VWDWLRQV DQG WKH ORFDO QHZVSDSHU FRYHUHG WKH 6WDQOH\ WULDO $OO PHGLD SHUVRQQHO DSSHDUHG WR IROORZ WKH *XLGHOLQHV 7KH RQO\ LQDFFXUDF\ LQ UHSRUWLQJ XQREVHUYHG E\ DQ\RQH H[FHSW WKH QHZVSDSHU UHSRUWHU KLPVHOI ZKR LQVHUWHG D EULHI FRUUHFWLRQ LQWR WKH QHZVSDSHU IRXU GD\V DIWHU WKH WULDO HQGHGf ZDV WKH LQDGYHUWHQW RPLVVLRQ RI WKH ZRUG QRW LQ D VWDWHPHQW IURP WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ TXRWLQJ WKH ZRUGV RI WKH GHIHQGDQW DIWHU WKH YHUGLFW ([FHSW IRU RQH DWWRUQH\nV FRPSODLQW DERXW WKH EUHYLW\ RI FRYHUDJHnV SRVVLEO\ OHDGLQJ UHDGHUV WR PLVXQGHUVWDQG WKH GHWDLOV RI WKH WULDO QR RQH FLWHG DQ\ GLVWRUWLRQV LQ FRYHUDJH QRU DQ\ GLVUXSWLRQV WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH MXURU SROOV b UHVSRQVH UDWHf DSSHDU WR XSKROG WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VXUYH\ DQG WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV REVHUYDWLRQ DQG FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI QHZV VWRULHV )LUVW UHJDUGLQJ WKH 6LPPRQV WULDO WKH RQO\ QHJDWLYH FRPPHQWV PHQWLRQHG WKH QRLVLQHVV RI WKH QHZVSDSHU FDPHUD ZLWKRXW D EOLPSf DV ZHOO DV D QRQVSHFLILF VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH FRYHUDJH LQFOXGHG VHULRXV GLIIHUHQFHV IURP RQH MXURUnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV 3RVLWLYH FRPPHQWV LQFOXGHG WKH VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH FRYHUDJH ZDV YHU\ DFFXUDWH 1H[W UHJDUGLQJ WKH +DUULV WULDO D QHJDWLYH FRPPHQW ZDV WKH OHQJWK\ FULWLFLVP RI MRXUQDOLVWV PLVWDNHQO\f DVVXPHG WR EH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU FDXVLQJ D GLVWUDFWLRQ E\ IUHTXHQWO\

PAGE 203

HQWHULQJ DQG OHDYLQJ WKH FRXUWURRP DV ZHOO DV PHQWLRQ RI WKH GLVWUDFWLRQ FDXVHG E\ WKH MXGJHDSSURYHGf XVH RI DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJ E\ 79 UHSRUWHUV WKH ILUVW DQG VHFRQG GD\V RI WKH WULDO 3RVLWLYH FRPPHQWV LQFOXGHG WKH VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW D ILUVWWLPH MXURU ZDV KHOSHG E\ FRYHUDJH VKH KDG VHHQ LQ WKH SDVW 5HJDUGLQJ WKH 6SLNHV WULDO D QHJDWLYH FRPPHQW GHVFULEHG WKH FDPHUDVn FDXVLQJ XQHDVLQHVV RQ WKH SDUW RI RQH MXURU ZKR ZDV DOVR GLVWUDFWHG E\ WKH GHIHQGDQWnV DSSDUHQW DQQR\DQFH DW WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU 7KH RWKHU MXURU ZKR UHVSRQGHG WR WKH VXUYH\f§WKLV ZDV D VL[PDQ MXU\f§GLG QRW ZULWH DQ\ VHSDUDWH FRPPHQWVf 5HJDUGLQJ WKH 6WDQOH\ WULDO RQO\ RQH FRPPHQW ZDV RIIHUHG 7KH UHVSRQGHQW VXJJHVWHG WKDW SXEOLF RU HGXFDWLRQDO WHOHYLVLRQ FRYHU WULDOV LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG VHQVDWLRQDOLVP )LQDOO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH PXOWLSOHFKRLFH TXHVWLRQV GHVFULELQJ JHQHUDO IHHOLQJ WRZDUG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DZDUHQHVV RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV GXULQJ WKH WULDO SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ DQG DFFXUDF\ RI FRYHUDJH RI WKDW WULDO DQ DYHUDJH RI b RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV VHOHFWHG DQVZHUV PRVW IDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV b VHOHFWHG DQVZHUV QHXWUDO WRZDUG WKH SUHVV DQG b VHOHFWHG DQVZHUV XQIDYRUDEOH WR WKH SUHVV 6HH 7DEOH VXSUD f

PAGE 204

$QDO\VLV %DVHG RQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ JDWKHUHG IURP WKH VXUYH\ WKH LQWHUYLHZV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ DQG WKH FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV DOO IRXU TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DQDO\]HG 7KH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ DVNHG +RZ FORVHO\ GR EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU EHKDYLRU LQ FRXUWURRPV GXULQJ FULPLQDO WULDOV" 7KH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV IROORZ WKH *XLGHOLQHV YHU\ FORVHO\ ,Q IDFW WKH RQO\ H[FHSWLRQV WR IROORZLQJ WKH *XLGHOLQHV ZHUH ZKHQ WZLFHf WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU IDLOHG WR XVH HTXLSPHQW ZKLFK ZRXOG SUHYHQW GLVWUDFWLQJ VRXQG DQG ZKHQ RQFHf WKH WHOHYLVLRQ YLGHRJUDSKHUV XVHG DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJ IRU WZR GD\V $V SUHYLRXVO\ GLVFXVVHG RQ RQH RFFDVLRQ WKH QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHU KDG EHHQ WROG KLV QHZ FDPHUD ZRXOG QRW UHTXLUH XVH RI D VLOHQFHU DQG WKH VWXGHQWf YLGHRJUDSKHUV KDG EHHQ JLYHQ VSHFLDO SHUPLVVLRQ E\ WKH MXGJH IRU DQ H[FHSWLRQ RQ WKH OLJKWLQJD XQLTXH H[FHSWLRQ RQH ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFKHU KDG QHYHU VHHQ EHIRUH RU VLQFHf +RZHYHU LQ JHQHUDO DOO FRQFHUQHG DJUHHG WKH PHGLD ODUJHO\ IROORZHG WKH *XLGHOLQHV LQ WKHVHDV LQ PRVWf§FDVHV VHOHFWHG IRU FDPHUD FRYHUDJH 7KH VHFRQG TXHVWLRQ DVNHG :KDW LPSDFW GR WKH JXLGHOLQHV KDYH RQ FRYHUDJH" 7KH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKH *XLGHOLQHV GR KDYH D QRWLFHDEOH LPSDFW RQ FRYHUDJH )RU LQVWDQFH LQ RQH WULDO ZKHQ RQH RI WKH WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQnV FDPHUDV GLG QRW SURGXFH

PAGE 205

D EURDGFDVW TXDOLW\ SLFWXUH GXH WR WKH *XLGHOLQHVn UHVWULFWLRQ RQ DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJf WKH UHVXOW ZDV WKH VWDWLRQ KDG QR YLGHR WR VKRZ RQ WKH QHZV VWRU\ WKDW QLJKW EXW PHUHO\ SUHVHQWHG D EULHI WHOO VWRU\ YRLFH RI WKH QHZVFDVWHU ZLWK JUDSKLFV LQ EDFNJURXQGf ,Q DQRWKHU WULDO WKH EURDGFDVWHUV UHFHLYHG SHUPLVVLRQ IURP WKH MXGJH WR XVH DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJ WR HQDEOH WKHP WR SURGXFH D EURDGFDVW TXDOLW\ SLFWXUH KRZHYHU WKH WKUHDW RI SRVVLEOH QHJDWLYH UHVSRQVH IURP WKH WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZDV VXFK WKDW WKH VWDWLRQ SHUVRQQHO GHFLGHG QRW WR XVH WKH OLJKWV IRU WKH ODVW KDOI RI WKH WULDO DQG DV D UHVXOW KDG OLPLWHG YLGHR $QG WKH UHVWULFWLRQ RQ PLFURSKRQH SODFHPHQW WKH *XLGHOLQHV OLPLW EURDGFDVWHUV WR RQH PLFURSKRQH SODFHG EHKLQG WKH EDUf FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH IDLOXUH RI DQ\ RI WKH EURDGFDVW VWDWLRQV GXULQJ WKH REVHUYDWLRQ SHULRG WR XVH DQ\ DFWXDOLW\ VRXQG WDSHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRPf 7KH WKLUG TXHVWLRQ DVNHG 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH RI FULPLQDO WULDO SURFHHGLQJV" 7KH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKH EURDGFDVWHUV JHQHUDOO\ GLG SUHVHQW XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH >GHILQLQJ XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH DV D KLJK GHJUHH RI FRUUHVSRQGHQFH EHWZHHQ HYHQWV DV SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU GHVFULEHG E\ SULQW MRXUQDOLVWV DQG HYDOXDWHG E\ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWVf ZLWK WKH ZRUN SURGXFW RI WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV FRYHULQJ WKH VDPH FULPLQDO WULDO WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW DVVXPHG VW\OLVWLF GLIIHUHQFHVf@

PAGE 206

7KHUH ZHUH D IHZ H[FHSWLRQV )RU LQVWDQFH LQ RQH WULDO DQ DWWRUQH\ TXHVWLRQHG D WHOHYLVLRQ EURDGFDVWHUnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WHVWLPRQ\ UHJDUGLQJ DQ DGPLWWHGO\ DPELJXRXV IDFWRU ZKLFK ZHDSRQ KDG EHHQ WKH DFWXDO GHDWK ZHDSRQf 0RUHRYHU D FRPSODLQW ZDV YRLFHG E\ VHYHUDO DWWRUQH\V DQG RQH MXGJH WKDW WKH EUHYLW\ RI FRYHUDJH VHHQ DV PRUH D SUREOHP RI EURDGFDVWHUV WKDQ RI SULQW MRXUQDOLVWVf PD\ OHDG WR D GLVWRUWLRQ LQ WKH PLQG RI WKH DXGLHQFH PHPEHU ZKR PD\ QRW IXOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKH UDPLILFDWLRQV RI VSHFLILF HYHQWV +RZHYHU QRQH RI WKH FULWLFLVP ZDV GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH LVVXH RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV )LQDOO\ WKH ODVW TXHVWLRQ DVNHG 'R EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DW WKH WULDO FRXUW OHYHO" 7KH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKH EURDGFDVWHUV GLG QRW REVHUYDEO\ GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH DWWRUQH\V FRPSODLQHG GXULQJ RQH WULDO WKDW WKH QHZVSDSHUnV DGYDQFH VWRU\ FRQWULEXWHG WR D SURORQJHG YRLU GLUH LH SUHWULDO TXHVWLRQLQJ RI SRWHQWLDO MXURUVf GXH WR LWV LQFOXVLRQ RI LQDGPLVVLEOH HYLGHQFH +RZHYHU GHVSLWH VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQLQJ RQ WKLV FUXFLDO LVVXHGXH WR WKH WUDGLWLRQDO REMHFWLRQV WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DV ZHOO DV WR DSSUHKHQVLRQV H[SUHVVHG E\ VRPH RI WKH FRXUW SHUVRQQHO LQ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ VXUYH\f§QRQH RI WKH WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV PHQWLRQHG DQ\ VSHFLILF LQVWDQFH RI GLVUXSWLRQ FDXVHG E\ FDPHUDV QRU GLG WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV

PAGE 207

REVHUYDWLRQV RU WKH FRQWHQW DQDO\VHV VXJJHVW DQ\ VXFK GLVUXSWLRQ &RQFOXVLRQV DQG 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR WDNH D ILUVW VWHS LQ DFWXDO REVHUYDWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRU RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV LQ D FRXUWURRP %DVHG RQ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHSRUWHG HDUOLHU WKH GLVFXVVLRQ WR IROORZ ZLOO IRFXV RQ DQ HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH MRXUQDOLVWVn DGKHUHQFH WR WKH VWDWH JXLGHOLQHV IRU FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH DQG WKH LPSDFW RI WKH JXLGHOLQHV RQ WKH FRYHUDJH WKH HIIHFW RI WKLV EHKDYLRU RQ SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH ZLWKRXW REVHUYDEOH GLVUXSWLRQ RI WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DQG VXJJHVWLRQV WR SROLF\ PDNHUV LQWHUHVWHG LQ LPSURYLQJ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVP DV D PHGLXP IRU LQIRUPLQJ DQG HQOLJKWHQLQJ WKH SXEOLF ZKLOH PLQLPL]LQJ WKH SRWHQWLDO GDQJHU RI )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO FRQIOLFW )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV )LUVW EDVHG RQ WKH GDWD WKH )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV ZKLFK DV GLVFXVVHG VHUYH DV D PRGHO IRU RWKHU VWDWHV DV ZHOO DV IRU SRVVLEOH FRYHUDJH RI IHGHUDO FRXUWVf VHHP WR EH DSSURSULDWH DQG VKRXOG FRQWLQXH WR EH VWULFWO\ DGKHUHG WR IROORZLQJ WKH *XLGHOLQHV DSSHDUV YLUWXDOO\ WR HOLPLQDWH SUREOHPV ,Q WKH RQO\ LQVWDQFHV ZKHUH WKH MRXUQDOLVWV YDULHG IURP WKH *XLGHOLQHV LH IDLOLQJ WR XVH D EOLPS RQ D VWLOO FDPHUD DQG WKH WHOHYLVLRQ YLGHRJUDSKHUVn VHHNLQJ DQ H[FHSWLRQ WR WKH SURKLELWLRQ DJDLQVW DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJf

PAGE 208

WKH FRQVHQVXV LV WKDW WKH IDLOXUH WR DGKHUH WR WKH *XLGHOLQHV FDXVHV D GLVWUDFWLRQ 7KH RQO\ PDMRU DUHD RI FRQFHUQ ZLWK WKH *XLGHOLQHV QRWHG E\ VHYHUDO RI WKH PHGLDO SHUVRQQHO LQ WKH VXUYH\ DQG D MXVWLILDEOH FRQFHUQ EDVHG RQ WKH REVHUYDWLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUf GHDOV ZLWK WKH SRRU DXGLR TXDOLW\ DYDLODEOH WR WKH EURDGFDVWHU OLPLWHG E\ WKH *XLGHOLQHV WR D VLQJOH PLFURSKRQH LQ D WUDGLWLRQDO FRXUWURRP ,Q IDFW WKH FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI DOO IRXU WULDOV UHYHDOHG WKDW QRQH RI WKH VWRULHV LQFOXGHG DQ\ DFWXDOLW\ LH VRXQG DFWXDOO\ UHFRUGHG LQ WKH FRXUWURRP GXULQJ WKH WULDO 7LPH DQG DJDLQ WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV ZRXOG VLW LQ WKH FRXUWURRP RIWHQ DUULYLQJ ODWH DIWHU PLVVLQJ FUXFLDO VWHSV LQ WKH SURFHHGLQJVf DQG WKHQ GXULQJ D UHFHVV ZRXOG LQWHUYLHZ WKH DWWRUQH\V LQ WKH KDOOZD\ DQG DVN WKH DWWRUQH\V WR VXP XS WKH GD\nV HYHQWV 7KXV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH REVHUYDWLRQV RI DQ LPSDUWLDO REVHUYHU WUDLQHG WR SUHVHQW REMHFWLYHO\ DOO SRLQWV RI YLHZ WKH REVHUYDWLRQV RI D ELDVHG VRXUFHf§ZKR LV SOHGJHG LQ D FULPLQDO FDVH WR SUHVHQW WKH VWURQJHVW OHJDOO\ VXSSRUWDEOH FDVH RQ EHKDOI RI HLWKHU WKH 6WDWH RU WKH GHIHQGDQWf§DUH EHLQJ SUHVHQWHG WR WKH SXEOLF $QG DOWKRXJK WKLV VLWXDWLRQ GRHV QRW PHHW WKH FULWHULD HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH FDVH VWXG\ IRU GLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH WKH UHVHDUFKHU SHUFHLYHG D SRWHQWLDO IRU GLVWRUWLRQ LQ WKH FRYHUDJH 7KHUHIRUH UHJDUGLQJ WKH *XLGHOLQHV WKH UHVHDUFKHU UHFRPPHQGV ILUVW WKDW EURDGFDVWHUV FRQWLQXH WR EH UHTXLUHG

PAGE 209

WR IROORZ VWULFWO\ WKH VWULFWXUHV SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH WHFKQLFDO UHTXLUHPHQWV GHVLJQHG WR PLQLPL]H GLVWUDFWLQJ VRXQG DQG OLJKW 0RUHRYHU LQ WKH LQWHUHVW RI LPSURYHG FRYHUDJH DQG WR VDIHJXDUG DJDLQVW SRWHQWLDO GLVWRUWLRQf PHGLD UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV PLJKW ZRUN ZLWK FRXUWURRP SHUVRQQHO WR SHUPDQHQWO\ ZLUH DW OHDVW RQH FRXUWURRP LQ HDFK MXULVGLFWLRQ WR DFFRPPRGDWH HOHFWURQLF HTXLSPHQW 7KLV ZRXOG DOORZ EURDGFDVWHUV WR PDNH IXOO XVH RI WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SUHVHQW DFWXDOLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK DWWRUQH\V RU DV LV RIWHQ WKH FDVH LQ WHOHYLVLRQ FRYHUDJH DXGLR UHSRUWV RI SURFHHGLQJV YRLFHG RYHU VLOHQW YLGHR RI FRXUWURRP SDUWLFLSDQWVf 8QGLVWRUWHG &RYHUDJH 'DWD FROOHFWHG GLUHFWO\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH LVVXH RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH OHDGV WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW UDWKHU WKDQ IDFW HUURUV WKH PDMRU FDXVH RI SHUFHLYHG GLVWRUWLRQ LV GXH WR D JHQHUDO IHHOLQJ SDUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ PHPEHUV RI WKH %DU WKDW MRXUQDOLVWV PLVLQWHUSUHW VRPH RI ZKDW WKH\ VHH DOWKRXJK JHQHUDOO\ XQVXSSRUWHG E\ VSHFLILF H[DPSOHV GXULQJ WKH VWXG\f 2I HYHQ JUHDWHU FRQFHUQ WR FRXUW RIILFHUV LV WKH EUHYLW\ RI PRVW EURDGFDVW FRYHUDJH GXH LQ SDUW WR WKH LQDELOLW\ RI WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVW WR VSHQG D VXIILFLHQW DPRXQW RI WLPH LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WR FRPSUHKHQG IXOO\ WKH SURFHHGLQJV ,Q WKH FDVH VWXG\ ZLWK WHOHYLVLRQ VWRULHV WKH DYHUDJH OHQJWK RI WKH DFWXDO SUHVHQWDWLRQ RQ WKH QHZV ZDV URXJKO\ ZLWK

PAGE 210

UDGLR VWRULHV WKH DYHUDJH OHQJWK RI WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RQ WKH QHZV ZDV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ 6HH 7DEOHV WKURXJK VXSUD DQG $SSHQGL[ &f 0RUHRYHU LQ FRQWUDVW ZLWK SULQW UHSRUWHUV ZKR ZHUH SUHVHQW LQ WKH FRXUWURRP WKURXJKRXW PRVW RI HDFK WULDOf PDQ\ RI WKH EURDGFDVW UHSRUWHUV ZHUH LQ WKH FRXUWURRP RQO\ SDUW RI HDFK GD\ DQG ZLWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI RQH UDGLR VWDWLRQnV ILHOG UHSRUWHU VSHFLILFDOO\ KLUHG WR FRYHU DV PXFK RI D VLQJOH HYHQW DV SRVVLEOHf GLIIHUHQW EURDGFDVW UHSRUWHUV RIWHQ FRYHUHG GLIIHUHQW GD\V RI D WULDO VRPHWLPHV HYHQ GLIIHUHQW SDUWV RI D GD\ 7KXV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI XQGLVWRUWHG FRYHUDJH WKH UHVHDUFKHU UHFRPPHQGV ILUVW WKDW EURDGFDVWHUV UHFRJQL]H WKH SRWHQWLDO GDQJHUV RI LQFRPSOHWH FRYHUDJH DQG PDNH HYHU\ HIIRUW WR LQFUHDVH WKH OHQJWK RI FRYHUDJH RI FRXUWURRP VWRULHV :LWKLQ WKH UHJUHWWDEOHf OLPLWDWLRQV RI WUDGLWLRQDO EURDGFDVW QHZV VXFK HIIRUWV PLJKW KDYH D QHJOLJLEOH HIIHFW KRZHYHU DFNQRZOHGJHPHQW RI WKH SUREOHP PLJKW OHDG HYHQWXDOO\ WR PRUH JDYHOWRJDYHO FRYHUDJH RI WULDOV PXFK DV WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WUDGLWLRQDO WHOHYLVLRQ QHWZRUN QHZV OHG WR WKH HYHQWXDO VXFFHVV RI DOOQHZV VWDWLRQV DQG QHWZRUNV VXFK DV &11 0RUHRYHU LQ WKH LQWHUHVW RI LPSURYHG FRYHUDJH ORFDO VWDWLRQV PLJKW IROORZ WKH WHOHYLVLRQ QHWZRUNVn OHDG DQG DWWHPSW PRUH EHDW FRYHUDJH DOORZLQJ UHSRUWHUV WR EHFRPH PRUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK FRXUWURRP SURFHGXUHV DQG DEOH WR PRUH TXLFNO\ JUDVS WKH HVVHQWLDOV RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO WULDO

PAGE 211

-XGLFLDO 3URFHVV 7KH ILQDO DUHD RI FRQFHUQ RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV SRVVLEOH GLVUXSWLRQ WR WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV FDXVHG E\ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV 7KH GDWD LQGLFDWH DV ZDV SUHGLFWHG LQ VRPH RI WKH UHFHQW OLWHUDWXUHf WKDW UDWKHU WKDQ VSHFLILF SUREOHPV DULVLQJ IURP WKH XVH RI FDPHUDV PDMRU FRQFHUQV DUH WKRVH RI WUDGLWLRQDO )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO VXFK DV WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU SUHMXGLFLDO SXEOLFLW\ FRQFRPLWDQW ZLWK SUHWULDO FRYHUDJH ,Q WKLV DUHD WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU GLVUXSWLRQ VHHPV FRPSRXQGHG E\ WKH DSSDUHQW LJQRUDQFH RI VRPH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV ZKR PD\ HQWHU WKH FRXUWURRP ZLWK DQ LQVXIILFLHQW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV DQG WKH GHOLFDF\ RI LWV VDIHJXDUGV %DVHG RQ LQWXLWLRQ D VXUYH\ RI MRXUQDOLVP VFKRROV ZRXOG EH D QDWXUDO QH[W VWHS LQ UHVHDUFKf WKH UHVHDUFKHU FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV UHFHLYH LQVXIILFLHQW HGXFDWLRQ LQ FRXUWURRP SURFHGXUHV )RU LQVWDQFH RQH VWXGHQWf MRXUQDOLVW DUULYHG DW WKH WKLUG RI WKH WULDOV WR nZKLFK KH KDG EHHQ DVVLJQHG GXULQJ WKH FDVH VWXG\ VRXJKW RXW WKH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ DQG WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ DVNHG ZDV ZKHWKHU WKH FOLHQW KDG SOHDGHG JXLOW\ WKH DWWRUQH\ JULWWHG KLV WHHWK DQG RQ PLNH H[SODLQHG WKDW LI WKH SOHD KDG EHHQ JXLOW\ WKHUH ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ QR QHHG IRU D WULDO $GPLWWHGO\ RQH RI WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV SDUWLFXODU VWXG\ LV WKH GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH QXPEHU RI VWXGHQW MRXUQDOLVWV FRYHULQJ WKH QHZV LQ D FROOHJH WRZQ +RZHYHU WKHUH LV

PAGE 212

QRWKLQJ LQ WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV EDFNJURXQG DV D SURIHVVLRQDO EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVW LQ ERWK ODUJH DQG VPDOO PDUNHWV DV D EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVP HGXFDWRU DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKUHH GLIIHUHQW HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV RU LQ GDWD JDWKHUHG GXULQJ LQIRUPDO LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK SURIHVVLRQDO QRQVWXGHQWf MRXUQDOLVWV HQFRXQWHUHG GXULQJ WKH FDVH VWXG\ ZKLFK ZRXOG LQGLFDWH MRXUQDOLVP VFKRROV DUH IXOO\ UHFRJQL]LQJ WKH SUREOHP WKH UHFHQW LQFUHDVH LQ VWDWHV SHUPLWWLQJ VRPH IRUP RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUD FRYHUDJH RQO\ RI WKH VWDWHV FXUUHQWO\ SHUPLWWLQJ FRYHUDJH DOORZHG DQ\ FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV EHIRUH f VXJJHVWV FXUULFXOXP UHYLVLRQV DUH QHHGHG $ ILQDO REVHUYDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ FRYHUDJH RI FRXUWV LV RIIHUHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ UHDFKHG LQGXFWLYHO\ DIWHU FRQGXFWLQJ WKH FDVH VWXG\ DV WKH SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ OLWHUDWXUH VXJJHVWHGf UDWKHU WKDQ DV D GLUHFW UHVXOW RI DWWHPSWLQJ WR DQVZHU WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV RQ FDPHUD XVDJH -XVW DV VRPH RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH KDG SUHGLFWHG WKHUH ZDV HYLGHQFH RI VRPH SUHMXGLFH LQ WKH OHJDO FRPPXQLW\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI MRXUQDOLVWV SDUWLFXODUO\ EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV WR LQWHUSUHW SURSHUO\ ZKDW WKH\ VDZ LQ WKH FRXUWURRP 7KH PRVW QRWLFHDEOH LQVWDQFH ZDV RQH DWWRUQH\nV FKDUJLQJ D EURDGFDVWHU ZLWK PLVLQWHUSUHWLQJ WHVWLPRQ\ XQIDYRUDEOH WR KLV FOLHQW WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV QRWHV DJUHHG ZLWK WKH EURDGFDVWHUf 7KH UHVHDUFKHU ZLWK VRPH HGXFDWLRQ LQ ERWK FRQVWLWXWLRQDO ODZ DQG FULPLQDO SURFHGXUH REVHUYHG VHYHUDO

PAGE 213

LQVWDQFHV ZKHUH WKH MRXUQDOLVWV LQGHHG PLVXQGHUVWRRG WKH QXDQFHV RI WKH SURFHHGLQJV )RU LQVWDQFH WKH MRXUQDOLVWV URXWLQHO\ OHIW WKH FRXUWURRP ZKHQ WKH MXGJH ZDV UHDGLQJ MXU\ LQVWUXFWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV DV GXOO DQG URXWLQH QRW UHDOL]LQJ WKDW WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV PLJKW LQFOXGH LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV VXFK DV ZKHWKHU OHVVHU FKDUJHV ZRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHGf IDFWRUV ZKLFK ZRXOG SUHVXPDEO\ KDYH DQ LPSDFW RQ WKH MXU\nV GHOLEHUDWLRQV DQG RQ WKH YHUGLFW +RZHYHU RQ WKH RWKHU VLGH RI WKH LVVXH WKH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV DFFXUDWHO\ SUHVHQWHG FRYHUDJH IURP WKH OD\PDQnV SRLQW RI YLHZ %HFDXVH WKH W\SLFDO MRXUQDOLVW FRYHULQJ WKH FRXUWURRP GLG QRW KDYH D OHJDO HGXFDWLRQ KH ZDV GHWDFKHG IURP WKH LQWULFDFLHV RI WKH PDFKLQDWLRQV RI WKH DWWRUQH\V ZKR DUH WUDLQHG WR WDNH DGYDQWDJH RI OHJDO WHFKQLFDOLWLHV WR ZLQ WKHLU FDVHV WKH MRXUQDOLVW GLG QRW VHH HDFK PRWLRQ JUDQWHG DV D SRLQW IRU HLWKHU VLGH EXW UDWKHU FRQFHQWUDWHG RQ WKH GHIHQGDQWDQG WKH YHUGLFWf§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

PAGE 214

RI EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVWV LQ SDUWLFXODU HJ WKH QHHG WR PHHW VSOLWVHFRQG GHDGOLQHV WKH WUDGLWLRQ RI WKH )DLUQHVV 'RFWULQH ZKLFK KDV OHG VRPH PHPEHUV RI WKH SXEOLF WR H[SHFW HYHU\ EURDGFDVW QHZV VWRU\ WR EDODQFH HTXDOO\ RSSRVLQJ YLHZSRLQWVf PLJKW HQKDQFH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PHPEHUV RI WKH SUHVV DQG EDU 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK $V GLVFXVVHG HDUOLHU D VWXG\ RI RQO\ D KDQGIXO RI FULPLQDO WULDOV DOO IRU ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHUf LQ D VLQJOH MXULVGLFWLRQ D PHGLXPVL]HG EURDGFDVW PDUNHW ZLWK RQO\ RQH FRPPHUFLDO WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQ FRPSHWLQJ ZLWK WKH SXEOLF VWDWLRQf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f§LQ RUGHU WR GUDZ VRPH YDOLG FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ ZKHWKHU WKH TXDOLILHG GLIIHUHQWLDO JHQHUDOO\ DOORZLQJ FRXUWURRP DFFHVV WR SULQW PHGLD ZKLOH UHJXODWLQJ DFFHVV E\

PAGE 215

HOHFWURQLF PHGLD UHPDLQV DSSURSULDWH 1RWKLQJ LQ WKH UHVHDUFKHUnV VWXG\ RI WKH KLVWRU\ RI FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV DQG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI QHZ WHFKQRORJ\ RU WKH OHJDO TXHVWLRQV LQYROYHG VXFK DV WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\ RI DFFHVV DQG WKH DSSHOODWH UHFRUGnV JHQHUDO ODFN RI FRQYLFWLRQV RYHUWXUQHG GXH WR FRXUWURRP FDPHUD FRYHUDJH VXSSRUWV FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO 1RU GRHV WKH GDWD JDWKHUHG IRU WKH LQVWDQW VWXG\ZKLFK VHHPV WR EH D ILUVW DWWHPSW DW FRPELQLQJ SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ RI DFWXDO FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH ZLWK LQWHUYLHZV VXUYH\V DQG FRQWHQW DQDO\VLVDQG ZKLFK PLJKW VHUYH DV WKH EDVLV IRU WKHRUHWLFDO FRQFOXVLRQV WR EH WHVWHG E\ IXWXUH TXDQWLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK $V DOVR GLVFXVVHG HDUOLHU WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ RI SDUWLFLSDQW REVHUYDWLRQ UDLVHV TXHVWLRQV EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI WKH VWXG\ LWVHOI TXHVWLRQV ZKLFK PLJKW EH DQVZHUHG E\ IXUWKHU LQTXLU\ )RU LQVWDQFH WKH REVHUYHU UHDOL]HG LQ FRQGXFWLQJ WKH VWXG\ WKDW DOWKRXJK LW VHHPHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH D OLPLWHG SRWHQWLDO IRU FDPHUDV WR GLVUXSW WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV LW PLJKW EH XVHIXO WR FRQFHQWUDWH RQ WKH VXJJHVWLRQV LQ (VWHV WKDW FDPHUDV PLJKW KDYH DQ DGYHUVH LPSDFW RQ WKH GHIHQGDQW RU RQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI WHVWLPRQ\ RI WKH ZLWQHVVHV 7KXV IXWXUH UHVHDUFKHUV PLJKW VWXG\ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKH LPSDFW RI FDPHUD FRYHUDJH RQ WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV RWKHU WKDQ WKH MXGJHV DWWRUQH\V DQG MXURUV RI WKH FDVH VWXG\ $QG FRPPXQLFDWLRQV UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR KDYH PDGH RQO\ D YHU\ KHVLWDQW VWDUW LQ WKH DUHD PLJKW GR ZHOO WR FRQGXFW VWXGLHV

PAGE 216

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

PAGE 217

H[SODLQHG $ EDVLF SKLORVRSK\ ZH KDYH LV WKDW ZKHQ SHRSOH DUH LQIRUPHG WKH\ DUH DEOH WR DVVHVV MXGLFLDO SURFHHGLQJV DQG GHYHORS D UHVSHFW IRU WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV 7KH HLJKW 0LDPL WHOHYLVLRQ VWDWLRQV GHYRWHG KXQGUHGV RI KRXUV WR FRYHUDJH RI WKH /R]DQR WULDO UHYLHZV RI WKH FRYHUDJH FRPSULVHG RQHILIWK RI WKH 0LDPL +HUDOGnV SRVWn YHUGLFWGD\ QHZV ZLWK FROXPQV E\ ERWK WKH $QJOR 79 FROXPQLVW DQG KLV +LVSDQLF DVVRFLDWH LQFOXGLQJ 093 DZDUGV DQG RQH IRU PRVW HPEDUUDVVLQJ PRPHQWf :LOOLDP /R]DQR ZDV FRQYLFWHG RQ 'HFHPEHU DQG RQ WKDW GD\ WKHUH ZHUH QR ULRWV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH YHUGLFW LWVHOI SHUKDSV WKH FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV KDG FRQWULEXWHG LQ VRPH ZD\ WR GHIXVLQJ WKH SRWHQWLDOO\ H[SORVLYH VLWXDWLRQ $V GLVFXVVHG FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV ZHUH WKH VFDSHJRDW IRU WKH GLVUXSWLRQ RI WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV LQ WKH PRVW VHQVDWLRQDO FDVH RI LWV WLPH PRUH WKDQ \HDUV DJR +DXSWPDQQf WKH\ ZHUH GHULGHG E\ WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW IRU VSHFXODWLYH PLVFKLHYRXV SRWHQWLDOLWLHV WR GXH SURFHVV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR DQ RYHUWXUQHG FRQYLFWLRQ \HDUV DJR (VWHVf 7RGD\ KRZHYHU DV LQ /R]DQR FRXUWURRP FDPHUDV PD\ DJDLQ EH LQYLWHG WR HQWHU WKH FRXUWURRP LQ RUGHU WR GUDPDWL]H WKH IDLUQHVV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH XQLTXH SURFHVV RI MXGLFLDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ XQGHU WKH 86 &RQVWLWXWLRQ &XULRXV KLVWRU\ LQGHHG

PAGE 218

1RWHV L)RU H[DPSOH DV QRWHG LQ HDUOLHU GLVFXVVLRQ )ORULGDnV *XLGHOLQHV KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG ERWK IRU JHQHUDO FRYHUDJH RI WKH IHGHUDO FRXUWV &KDSWHU 1RWH DQG GLVFXVVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ 3HWLWLRQ WR WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV &RQFHUQLQJ 9LVXDO DQG $XUDO &RYHUDJH RI )HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV E\ WKH (OHFWURQLF DQG 3ULQW 3UHVV 0DUFK DV ZHOO DV VSHFLILFDOO\ IRU FRYHUDJH RI WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW &KDSWHU 1RWH DQG GLVFXVVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ SURSRVDO E\ 'HDQ 7DOERW >6DQG\@ 'n$OHPEHUWH LQ D OHWWHU WR -XVWLFH 5HKQTXLVWf 6HH DOVR :HVWPRUHODQG Y &%6 )HG G DW 1RWH )ORULGD *XLGHOLQHV SURSRVHG IRU XVH LQ FRYHUDJH RI :HVWPRUHODQG WULDOf 6HH HJ 6XVDQQD %DUEHU 1HZV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO 'HEDWH %RVWRQ $EOH[ 3XEOLVKLQJ f 5DEEL 6RORPRQ 6FKLII TXRWHG E\ %DUU\ .OHLQ 0LDPL 6WDWLRQ $LUV 7ULDO WR 'HIXVH 5DFLDO 7HQVLRQV (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD 'HFHPEHU )RU IXUWKHU GLVFXVVLRQ RI PHGLD FRYHUDJH RI WKH /R]DQR WULDO VHH HJ 0DUYLQ 'XQQ :K\ WKH /R]DQR 7ULDO 6KRXOG EH 0RYHG 0LDPL +HUDOG 2FWREHU & 6RORPRQ 6FKLII t 'RQDOG %LHUPDQ /LVWHQ WR WKH 9RLFHV RI 5HDVRQ -XVWLFH 6\VWHP LV 3URYLGLQJ D )DLU 7ULDO WR 2IILFHU :LOOLDP /R]DQR 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU $ 6 6RQVN\ 79 *HWV +LJK 0DUNV IRU +LJK6WDNHV &RYHUDJH DQG &DUORV &RWR &KDQQHO /HG 6SDQLVK /DQJXDJH 79 &RYHUDJH 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU $ 6HH DOVR 0 :LOVRQ 79 &RYHUDJH 1R &RXUWURRP 'UDPD %XW ,W 6HUYHG ,WV 3XUSRVH 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU '

PAGE 219

$33(1',; $ 67$1'$5'6 2) &21'8&7 $1' 7(&+12/2*< *29(51,1* (/(&7521,& 0(',$ $1' 67,// 3+272*5$3+< &29(5$*( 2) -8',&,$/ 352&((',1*6 *8,'(/,1(6f

PAGE 220

3(7,7,21 2) 32671(:6 :((. 67$7,216 )/25,'$ )OD GLH )OD 6RG $33(1',; 3(7,7,21 2) 3267 1(:6:((. 67$7,216 (7& &L8 0W +D 6R$O (TXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO Df 1RW PRUH WKDQ RQH SRUWDEOH WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUD >ILOP FDPHUDf§ PP VRXQG RQ ILOP VHOI EOLPSHGf RU YLGHR WDSH HOHFWURQLF FDPHUDM RSHUDWHG E\ QRW PRUH WKDQ RQH FDPHUD SHUVRQ VKDOO EH SHUPLWWHG LQ DQ\ WULDO FRXUW SURFHHGLQJ 1RW PRUH WKDQ WZR WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUDV RSHUDWHG E\ QRW PRUH WKDQ RQH FDPHUD SHUVRQ HDFK VKDOO O!F SHUPLWWHG LQ DQ\ DSSHOODWH FRXUW SURFHHGn LQJ Ef 1RW PRUH WKDQ RQH VWLOO SKRWRJUDn SKHU XWLOL]LQJ QRW PRUH WKDQ WZR VWLOO FDPHUDV ZLWK QRW PRUH WKDQ WZR OHQVHV IRU HDFK FDPHUD DQG UHODWHG HTXLSPHQW IRU SULQW SXUSRVHV VKDOO EH SHUPLWWHG LQ DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ LQ D WULDO RU DSSHOODWH FRXUW Ff 1RW PRUH WKDQ RQH DXGLR V\VWHP IRU UDGLR EURDGFDVW SXUSRVHV VKDOO EH SHUPLWn WHG LQ DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ LQ D WULDO RU DSSHOODWH FRXUW $XGLR SLFNXS IRU DOO PHGLD SXUSRVHV VKDOO EH DFFRPSOLVLLHG IURP H[LVWLQJ DXGLR V\VWHPV SUHVHQW LQ WKH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ ,I QR WHFKQLFDOO\ VXLWDEOH DXGLR V\VWHP H[LVWV LQ WKH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ PLFURn SKRQHV DQG UHODWHG ZLULQJ HVVHQWLDO IRU PHGLD SXUSRVHV VKDOO EH XQREWUXVLYH DPL VKDOO EH ORFDWHG LQ SODFHV GHVLJQDWHG LQ DGYDQFH RI DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ E\ WKH FKLHI MXGJH RI WKH MXGLFLDO FLUFXLW RU GLVWULFW LQ ZKLFK WKH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ LV ORFDWHG Gf $Q\ fSRROLQJf DUUDQJHPHQWV DPRQJ WKH PHGLD UHTXLUHG E\ WKHVH OLPLWDWLRQV RQ HTXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO VKDOO EH WKH VROH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKH PHGLD ZLWKRXW FDOOLQJ XSRQ WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH WR PHGLDWH DQ\ GLVSXWH DV WR WKH DSSURSULDWH PHGLD UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RU HTXLSPHQW DXWKRUL]HG WR FRYHU D SDUWLFXODU SURFHHGLQJ ,Q WKH DEVHQFH RI DGYDQFH PHGLD DJUHHPHQW RQ GLVSXWHG HTXLSPHQW RU SHUVRQQHO LVVXHV WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH VKDOO H[FOXGH DOO FRQWHVWLQJ PHGLD SHUVRQQHO IURP D SURFHHGn LQJ 6RXQIL DPL OLJKW FULWHULD Df2QO\ WHOHYLVLRQ SKRWRJUDSKLF DQG DXGLR HTXLSPHQW ZKLFK GRHV QRW SURGXFH GLVWUDFWLQJ VRXQG RU OLJKW VKDOO OLH HPn SOR\HG WR FRYHU MXGLFLDO SURFHHGLQJV 6SHn FLILFDOO\ VXFK SKRWRJUDSKLF DQG DXGLR HTXLSPHQW VKDOO SURGXFH QR JUHDWHU VRXQG RU OLJKW WKXQ WKH HTXLSPHQW GHVLJQDWn HG LQ $SSHQGL[ $ DQQH[HG KHUHWR ZKHQ WKH VDPH LV LQ JRRG ZRUNLQJ RUGHU 1R DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJ GHYLFH RI DQ\ NLQG VKDOO EH HPSOR\HG LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH WHOHYLVLRQ FDPHUD Ef 2QO\ VWLOO FDPHUD HTXLSPHQW ZKLFK GRHV QRW SURGXFH GLVWUDFWLQJ VSXQG RU OLJKW VKDOO EH HPSOR\HG WR FRYHU MXGLFLDO SURFHHGn LQJV 6SHFLILFDOO\ VXFK VWLOO FDPHUD HTXLSn PHQW VKDOO SURGXFH QR JUHDWHU VRXQG RU OLJKW WKDQ D PP /HLFD f0 6HQHV 5DQJHILQGHU FDPHUD DQG QR DUWLILFLDO OLJKWLQJ GHYLFH RI DQ\ NLQG VKDOO EH HPSOR\HG LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK D VWLOO FDPHUD Ff ,W VKDOO EH WKH DIILUPDWLYH GXW\ RI PHGLD SHUVRQQHO WR GHPRQVWUDWH WR WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH DGHTXDWHO\ LQ DGYDQFH RI DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ WKDW WKH HTXLSPHQW VRXJKW WR EH XWLOL]HG PHHWV WKH VRXQG DQG OLJKW FULWHULD HQXQFLDWHG KHUHLQ $ IDLOXUH WR REWDLQ DGYDQFH MXGLFLDO DSSURYDO IRU HTXLSn PHQW VKDOO SUHFOXGH LWV XVH LQ DQ\ SURFHHGn LQJ /RFDWLRQ RI HTXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQn QHO Df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f $ VWLOO FDPHUD SKRWRJUDSKHU VKDOO +MVLWLRQ KLPVHOI RU KHUVHOI LQ VXFK ORFDWLRQ LQ WLOH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ DV VKDOO EH GHVLJQDWHG E\ WKH FKLHI MXGJH RI WKH MXGLFLDO FLUFXLW RU GLVWULFW LQ ZKLFK VXFK IDFLOLW\ LV VLWXDWHG 7KH DUHD GHVLJQDWHG VKDOO SURYLGH UHDVRQDn EOH DFFHVV WR FRYHUDJH 6WLOO FDPHUD SKRWRJUDSKHUV VKDOO DVVXPH D IL[HG SRVLn WLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH GHVLJQDWHG DUHD DQG RQFH D SKRWRJUDSKHU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG KLPVHOI RU KHUVHOI LQ D VKRRWLQJ SRVLWLRQ KH RU VKH VKDOO DFW VR DV QRW WR FDOO DWWHQWLRQ WR KLPVHOI RU KHUVHOI WKURXJK IXUWKHU PRYHn PHQW 6WLOO FDPHUD SKRWRJUDSKHUV VKDOO QRW EH SHUPLWWHG WR PRYH DERXW LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ SKRWRJUDSKV RI FRXUW SURFHHGLQJV

PAGE 221

)OD 6287+(51 5(3257(5 G 6(5,(6 $33(1',; Ff %URDGFDVW PHGLD UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV VKDOO QRW PRYH DERXW WKH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ ZKLOH SURFHHGLQJV DUH LQ VHVVLRQ DQG PLFURSKRQHV RU WDSLQJ HTXLSPHQW RQFH SRVLWLRQHG DV UHTXLUHG E\ Ff DERYH VKDOO QRW EH PRYHG GXULQJ WKH SHQGHQF\ RI WKH SURFHHGLQJ 0RYHPHQW GXULQJ SURFHHGLQJV 1HZV PHGLD SKRWRJUDSKLF RU DXGLR HTXLSPHQW VKDOO QRW EH SODFHG LQ RU UHPRYHG IURP WKH FRXUW IDFLOLW\ H[FHSW SULRU WR FRPPHQFHPHQW RU DIWHU DGMRXUQn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n WZHHQ FRFRXQVHO RI D FOLHQW RU EHWZHHQ FRXQVHO DQG WKH SUHVLGLQJ MXGJH KHOG DW WKH EHQFK ,PSHUPLVVLEOH XVH RI PHGLD PDWHULDO 1RQH RI WKH ILOP YLGHR WDSH VWLOO SKRWRJUDSKV RU DXGLR UHSURGXFWLRQV GHYHOn RSHG GXULQJ RU E\ YLUWXH RI WKH SLORW f§&RQWLQXHG SURJUDP VKDOO EH DGPLVVLEOH DV HYLGHQFH LQ WKH SURFHHGLQJ RXW RI ZKLFK LW DURVH DQ\ SURFHHGLQJ VXEVHTXHQW RU FROODWHUDO WKHUHn WR RU XSRQ DQ\ UHWULDO RU DSSHDO RI VXFK SURFHHGLQJV $SSHOODWH UHYLHZ 6R WKDW WKH &RXUW PD\ HYDOXDWH LQ GHSWK DOO H[SHULHQFHV HQJHQGHUHGn XQGHU WKH SURJUDP DW WKH HQG RI RQH \HDU DQG WR SUHFOXGH DSSHOODWH DFWLYLW\ GXULQJ WKH WHDW \HDU f QR DSSHOODWH UHYLHZ VKDOO EH DYDLODEOH WR WKH HOHFWURQLF RU VWLOO SKRWRn JUDSKLF PHGLD IURP LQGLYLGXDO RUGHUV HQWHUHG E\ WULDO RU DSSHOODWH FRXUWV UXOLQJ XSRQ PDWWHUV DULVLQJ XQGHU WKHVH VWDQn GDUGV DQG f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n SDWLQJ MXGJHV DUH UHTXHVWHG WR IXUQLVK WR WKH &RXUW D UHSRUW RI WKHLU H[SHULHQFH XQGHU WKH SURJUDP VR WKDW WKH &RXUW FDQ GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU WR ZKDW H[WHQW &DQRQ $f VKDOO EH PRGLILHG

PAGE 222

$33(1',; % &28575220 3$57,&,3$17 48(67,211$,5( 1DPH 7LWOH $UH \RX IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH HQFORVHGf 6WDQGDUGV RI &RQGXFW DQG 7HFKQRORJ\ *RYHUQLQJ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD DQG 6WLOO 3KRWRJUDSK\ &RYHUDJH RI -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV" ,I VR KRZ GLG \RX EHFRPH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH *XLGHOLQHV" +RZ GR \RX IHHO LQ SULQFLSOH DERXW DOORZLQJ LQ WKH FRXUWURRP D 7HOHYLVLRQ FDPHUDV" E $XGLR UHFRUGHUV" F 6WLOO FDPHUDV" 'R \RX KDYH D SUREOHP LQ WKHRU\ RU SUDFWLFH ZLWK DQ\ RI WKH VHFWLRQV RI WKH *XLGHOLQHV" ,I VR SOHDVH GHVFULEH D (TXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO E 6RXQG DQG OLJKW FULWHULD F /RFDWLRQ RI HTXLSPHQW DQG SHUVRQQHO G 0RYHPHQW GXULQJ SURFHHGLQJV H &RXUWURRP OLJKW VRXUFHV I &RQIHUHQFHV RI FRXQVHO J ,PSHUPLVVLEOH XVH RI PDWHULDO K $SSHOODWH UHYLHZ 'R \RX KDQGOH FDVHV FRYHUDJH RI FDVHVf DQ\ GLIIHUHQWO\ VLQFH WKH DGYHQW RI FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV" ,I VR SOHDVH H[SODLQ +RZ RIWHQ ZRXOG \RX HVWLPDWH \RX HQFRXQWHU LQ \RXU FRXUWURRP DVVLJQ UHSRUWHUV WRf WHOHYLVLRQ UDGLR RU VWLOO SKRWRJUDSK\ FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH" 3OHDVH OLVW DQ\ VXFK FDVHV HQFRXQWHUHG FRYHUHGf WKH SDVW \HDU

PAGE 223

'R \RX IRUHVHH DQ\ FKDQJH LQ WKH DPRXQW RI FRXUWURRP FRYHUDJH ZLWK WHOHYLVLRQ UDGLR RU VWLOO SKRWRJUDSKLF HTXLSPHQW LQ IXWXUH" $Q\ RWKHU FRPPHQWV UHJDUGLQJ FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV 7KDQN
PAGE 224

$33(1',; & &217(17 $1$/<6(6 )ORULGD Y 6LPPRQV *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ )HEUXDU\ 3 $ 7HHQ VD\V SODQ WR nLQWLPLGDWHn HQGHG LQ PDQ EHDWHQ WR GHDWK &RQQLH %RXFKDUG WKUHHFROXPQ SKRWR GHIHQGDQW 6LPPRQV t DWWRUQH\ RQHDQGRQHKDOIFROXPQ SKRWR ZLWQHVV %XUJHUf )LUVW GD\ RI WULDO 7HVWLPRQ\ RI ZLWQHVVHV &KULV %XUJHU DQG 0LFKDHO :LOOLDPV PHQWLRQV 'HON 6LPPRQV WRRN WKH SLSH t KLW KLP DWWDFNHG KLP ZLWK D ILYH SRXQG ZLQGRZ VDVK ZHLJKW )HEUXDU\ 3 $ -XU\ VZLIWO\ FRQYLFWV \HDUROG RI PXUGHU &RQQLH %RXFKDUG &RQFOXVLRQ RI WULDO YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ 6LPPRQV EHDW +RUQH WR GHDWK ZLWK D PHWDO ZHLJKW 0DUFK 0XUGHU YLFWLPnV IDPLO\ IRXQG VRODFH LQ OHJDO V\VWHP /HWWHUWR(GLWRU Vf *LQQ\ 0F.R\ t 1DQF\ .DQDDQ IRU WKH IDPLO\ RI 'DYLG +RUQH SUDLVLQJ KDQGOLQJ RI FDVH E\ JRYHUQPHQW RIILFLDOV t FRXUW SDUWLFLSDQWVf 0DUFK % $UFKHU WHHQ JHWV \HDUV LQ GHDWK &RQQLH %RXFKDUG )ROORZXS VHQWHQFLQJ RI :LOOLDPV t %XUJHU SOHDf :&-%79 )HEUXDU\ SP WHOO RYHU NH\ JUDSKLF %DFNJURXQG DQG ILUVW GD\ RI WULDO PHQWLRQ RI ZLWQHVVHV %XUJHU t :LOOLDPV +RUQH EOXGJHRQHG WR GHDWK ZLWK D ZRRGHQ KDQGOH )HEUXDU\ QRRQ WHOO RYHU NH\ JUDSKLF 0RUQLQJnV WULDO WHVWLPRQ\ ZLWQHVVHV 6LPPRQVn FHOOPDWH %HQWRQ DQG PHGLFDO H[DPLQHU )HEUXDU\ SP WHOO RYHU NH\ JUDSKLF -XU\ LV GHOLEHUDWLQJ DW WKLV KRXU 0HQWLRQV SURVHFXWRU t GHIHQVH VD\V +RUQH EOXGJHRQHG ZLWK D ZRRGHQ KDQGOH

PAGE 225

)HEUXDU\ SP WHOO RYHU NH\ JUDSKLF -XU\ YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ :8)779 )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRP VFHQH 6LPPRQV VRPH RWKHU MXGJHf $GYDQFH VWRU\ PHQWLRQV :LOOLDPV SOHD )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRPf ,QF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ f DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ SXEOLF GHIHQGHUf 'H 7KRPDVLV f PHQWLRQV :LOOLDPV t %XUJHU )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRP 6LPPRQVf -XU\ LV GHOLEHUDWLQJ DW WKLV KRXU 6LPPRQV KLW +RUQH WZLFH RQ WKH KHDG ZLWK D OHDG SLSH 0HQWLRQV :LOOLDPV t %XUJHU )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRP 6LPPRQVf 9HUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ JUDSKLF 6LPPRQ 7ULDOf 0DUFK HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR )ROORZn XS VHQWHQFLQJ RI :LOOLDPVf :8)7)0 )HEUXDU\ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU %URZQ 2SHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV PHQWLRQV %XUJHU WHVWLPRQ\ )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU %URZQ 6WDWHnV FDVH LQF ELWH SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ QRW DOO HYLGHQFH EHLQJ DOORZHG LQf DQG ELWH GHIHQVH 'H 7KRPDVLV 6WDWHnV GHDOV ZLWK ZLWQHVVHV XQIDLU WR 6LPPRQVf 0XUGHU ZHDSRQ GHVFULEHG DV D WZRIRRW PHWDO REMHFW )HEUXDU\ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 0HGLFDO H[DPLQHUnV WHVWLPRQ\ t UHFDS %XUJHU t :LOOLDPV WHVWLPRQ\ )HEUXDU\ HYHQLQJ QHZV SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ -XU\ GHOLEHUDWLQJ 6LPPRQV WHVWLPRQ\ 0HQWLRQV :LOOLDPV SOHD )HEUXDU\ PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 6HQWHQFLQJ LQF ELWH 3URVHFXWRU 7RELQ UH UHFRQVLGHULQJ GHDO PDGH ZLWK :LOOLDPV t %XUJHU

PAGE 226

)HEUXDU\ PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 6HQWHQFLQJ LQF ELWH 3URVHFXWRU 7RELQ UH UHFRQVLGHULQJ GHDO PDGH ZLWK :LOOLDPV t %XUJHU :58)$0 )HEUXDU\ DP SUHYLHZ LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH 'H 7KRPDVLV 0HQWLRQV %XUJHU t :LOOLDPV SP SKRQHU UHSRUWHU 0LFKHOVRQ IURP FRXUWKRXVH %XUJHU WHVWLPRQ\ SP SKRQHU UHSRUWHU 0LFKHOVRQ IURP FRXUWKRXVH :LOOLDPV SOHD 6LPPRQV DFFXVHG RI EHDWLQJ +RUQH ZLWK D PHWDO ZHLJKW SP SKRQHU UHSRUWHU 0LFKHOVRQ IURP FRXUWKRXVH :LOOLDPV WHVWLPRQ\ 6LPPRQV XVHG D ZRRGHQ D[H SP UHFDS SP UHFDS 6LPPRQV EHDW +RUQH ZLWK D ZRRGHQ KDQGOH SP UHFDS 6LPPRQV EHDW +RUQH ZLWK D ZRRGHQ KDQGOH )HEUXDU\ SP UHFDS MXU\ GHOLEHUDWLQJ SP UHSRUWHU $FNHU MXU\ GHOLEHUDWLQJ SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO :HDSRQ ZDV ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH DQG VRPH NQLYHV SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ

PAGE 227

SP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO :HDSRQ ZDV D ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH )HEUXDU\ DP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO DP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ DP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ :HDSRQ ZDV D ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH DP YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO 6LPPRQV t IULHQGV FDUULHG DQ D[ KDQGOH DQG VRPH NQLYHV QRRQ YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFLQJ LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UH DSSHDO 6LPPRQV t IULHQGV FDUULHG DQ D[ KDQGOH DQG VRPH NQLYHV )ORULGD Y & +DUULV t 3 +DUULV *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ 6HSWHPEHU % 0XUGHU WULDO VHW WR EHJLQ 0LWFK 6WDF\ %DFNJURXQG LQFOXGHV &DUO +DUULVn UHFRUG RI IHORQ\ DUUHVWV 6HSWHPEHU % %URWKHUV LQ PXUGHU WULDO SOHDG VHOIGHIHQVH 0LWFK 6WDF\ 6WDWH ZLWQHVV 7RQ\ 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\ ,QF IRXUFROXPQ SKRWR +DUULV EURWKHUV t DWWRUQH\V 6HSWHPEHU % 0XUGHU WULDO IRFXV VKLIWV WR ZHDSRQV 0LWFK 6WDF\ 6D\V H[SHUW WHVWLILHG YLFWLPnV KDQGV GLG FRQWDLQ VXIILFLHQW WUDFHV RI JXQSRZGHU WR FRQFOXGH WKDW KH GHILQLWHO\ ILUHG WKH VKRW 6HSWHPEHU % 0XUGHU FKDUJHG GURSSHG DJDLQVW EURWKHU )DWDLPD $KPDG &KDUJH DJDLQVW &DUO +DUULV GURSSHG TXRWHV 3LHUUHnV DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV LQ UHVSRQVH 2FWREHU % &RXUWURRP MXELODWLRQ %URWKHU LQQRFHQW RI GHDWK )DWDLPD $KPDG -XU\ DFTXLWV 3LHUUH +DUULV TXRWHV &DUOnV DWWRUQH\ WKHQ 3LHUUHnV DWWRUQH\ LQ UHVSRQVH *LYHV ERWK DJHV DV

PAGE 228

2FWREHU % ,Q WKH 0DUJLQ &ROXPQ RI IHDWXUH WLGELWV PHQWLRQV GXULQJ PLQXWH UHFHVV WR H[FXVH MXURU LQ +DUULV WULDO MXGJH VZHDUV LQ WKUHH QHZ %DU PHPEHUVf :8)779 6HSWHPEHU SDFNDJH UHSRUWHU 0F(OUR\ ,QFOXGHV YLGHR RI FULPH VLWH ELWH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV 6HSWHPEHU YRLFH RYHU YLGHR LQFOXGHV ELWH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV SURVHFXWRU UHIXVHV FRPPHQW 6HSWHPEHU YRLFH RYHU YLGHR LQFOXGHV ELWH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV SURVHFXWLRQ UHIXVHV FRPPHQW 6HSWHPEHU LQFOXGHV UHSRUWHU &HLGH OLYH SKRQHU IURP FRXUWKRXVH RYHU YLGHR DFTXLWWDO RI &DUO +DUULV 'HVFULEHV 3LHUUH +DUULVn WHVWLPRQ\ RYHU YLGHR RI 7RQ\ 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\f 2FWREHU YRLFH RYHU YLGHR DFTXLWWDO RI 3LHUUH +DUULV :8)7)0 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ %DFNJURXQGHU MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ WR EHJLQ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ -XU\ VHOHFWLRQ EHJLQV YLFWLPnV IDPLO\ ZDWFKLQJ HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ -XU\ VHOHFWLRQ HQGLQJ 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV SUHWULDO SXEOLFLW\ QRW DQ LVVXHf DP ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV GHOD\V DUH QRW XQXVXDOf QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 2SHQ WR EHJLQ HYHQLQJ QHZV SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 6WDWHnV RSHQ Y GHIHQVH SODQ RI VHOIGHIHQVH

PAGE 229

6HSWHPEHU r t DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 2SHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV t GHIHQVH VWUDWHJ\ DP ,QF 6WDWH ZLWQHVV 7RQ\ 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\ DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQGV QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\ t UHVSRQVH HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 6WDWH FDVH RQH MXURU H[FXVHG 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 'HIHQVH WR EHJLQ DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 'HIHQVH WR EHJLQ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ 'HIHQVH EHJLQV HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ &DUO +DUULV DFTXLWWHG .58($0 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU )ROH\ SKRQHU MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ SP UHSRUWHU 0HOYLQ SKRQHU MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU -DPHV WULDO EHJLQV LQF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV VHOIGHIHQVHf DQG 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQVH WR 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\ DP FODLP LV VHOIGHIHQVH ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQVH WR 5DPVH\ WHVWLPRQ\ 6HSWHPEHU DP WULDO FRQWLQXHV ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV VHOIGHIHQVHf DP WULDO FRQWLQXHV ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV VHOIGHIHQVHf SURVHFXWRU UHIXVHV FRPPHQW

PAGE 230

SP WULDO FRQWLQXHV ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV VHOIGHIHQVHf GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 5REHUW 5XVK 6HSWHPEHU DP UHSRUWHU %HQMDPLQ 6WDWH SUHVHQWLQJ FDVH 6WDWH DOUHDG\ SOD\HG WDSHV DP PHGLFDO H[DPLQHU WHVWLPRQ\ ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQVH MXURU UHSODFHG \HVWHUGD\ DP MXURU UHSODFHG \HVWHUGD\ WULDO FRQWLQXHV SP &DUO +DUULV DFTXLWWHG ,QF 3LHUUH +DUULV GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQGV SP MXU\ LV GHOLEHUDWLQJ ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV JODG MXU\ LV WDNLQJ LWV WLPHf SP MXU\ H[SHFWHG WR KDQG GRZQ YHUGLFW 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ 6HSWHPEHU DP &DUO +DUULV DFTXLWWHG ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV UHVSRQGV MXU\ UHFRQYHQHV WKLV PRUQLQJ QRRQ WULDO FRQWLQXHV &DUO +DUULV DFTXLWWHG ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV ORRNV JRRG IRU 3LHUUHf SP WULDO FRQWLQXHV &DUO +DUULV DFTXLWWHG ,QF GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 'H 7KRPDVLV ORRNV JRRG IRU 3LHUUHf SP MXU\ GHOLEHUDWLQJ LQF -XGJH &DWHV FRPPHQWV SP 3LHUUH +DUULV DFTXLWWHG LQF -XGJH &DWHV FRPPHQWV 2FWREHU DP ERWK EURWKHUV DFTXLWWHG LQF -XGJH &DWHV FRPPHQWV )ORULGD Y 6SLNHV *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ 6HSWHPEHU % 7ULDO VHW LQ JUDQGIDWKHUnV EXUQLQJ GHDWK 0LWFK 6WDF\ EDFNJURXQGHU

PAGE 231

6HSWHPEHU % 6SLNHVn PXUGHU WULDO SRVWSRQHG %ULHI WULDO SRVWSRQHG GXH WR GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\nV IDPLO\ HPHUJHQF\ 2FWREHU % 7ULDO VFKHGXOHG LQ EXUQLQJ GHDWK %ULHI EDFNJURXQGHU 2FWREHU % 7ULDO GHOD\HG LQ EXUQLQJ GHDWK 0LWFK 6WDF\ 6WDWHnV FDVH FRQWLQXDWLRQ GXH WR GHIHQVH PRWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR VXESRHQD ZLWQHVV WKRXJKW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ VXESRHQDHG E\ VWDWH $XQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ JUDQGIDWKHUnV DFFXVDWLRQ ,QFOXGHV WKUHHFROXPQ SKRWR RI GHIHQGDQW DQG DWWRUQH\ LQ FRXUW 2FWREHU % 0DQ VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ *UDQGVRQ JXLOW\ RI PXUGHU DUVRQ $QD $FOH 6HQWHQFH UHUHDGLQJ RI ZLWQHVV &REE WHVWLPRQ\ IRU MXU\ GHIHQGDQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ LPSOLFDWLQJ DXQW ,QFOXGHV WKUHHFROXPQ SKRWR RI GHIHQGDQW LQ FRXUW )ORULGD 7LPHV8QLRQ 2FWREHU % 0DQnV ORVW ORYH FLWHG LQ JUDQGn IDWKHUnV GHDWK /DUU\ 6FKQHOO 6WDWHnV FDVH FRQWLQXDWLRQ 0HQWLRQV KRVWLOH H[FKDQJH ZLWK DXQW UHJDUGLQJ GHDWK RI IDWKHU QRW FOHDU ZKHWKHU ZLWQHVV NQHZ GHDWK RI GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\nV IDWKHU KDG FDXVHG HDUOLHU WULDO SRVWSRQHPHQW 2FWREHU % -XU\ FRQYLFWV PDQ RI VHWWLQJ IDWDO ILUH /DUU\ 6FKQHOO 6HQWHQFH 1R PHQWLRQ RI GHIHQGDQW WHVWLPRQ\ RU UHUHDGLQJ RI WHVWLPRQ\ IRU MXU\f :8)779 2FWREHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU 0DGHU 2SHQLQJ DUJXPHQWV ,QFOXGHG UHSRUWHU RQ ORFDWLRQ RI FULPH VFHQH VRXQG ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU LQWHUYLHZ ZLWK QHLJKERU 2FWREHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU 0DGHU 3KRQHU IURP FRXUWKRXVH RYHU YLGHR RI GHIHQVH LQFOXGHV VHQWHQFH :8)7)0 2FWREHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ FRPSOHWH

PAGE 232

2FWREHU DP EDFNJURXQG ,QFOXGHV VRXQG ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ UH VWUDWHJ\ DP EDFNJURXQG ,QFOXGHV VRXQG ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ UH VWUDWHJ\ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU 2OLYHU DXQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ HYHQLQJ QHZV SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ DXQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ 2FWREHU DP H[SODLQV GHOD\ ,QF VRXQG ELWH SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ DXQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ DP H[SODLQV GHOD\ ,QF VRXQG ELWH SURVHFXWRU 7RELQ DXQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ 2FWREHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ UHFDS 2FWREHU QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ GHIHQVH ZLWQHVV GHIHQGDQWnV WHVWLPRQ\ HYHQLQJ QHZV SKRQHU UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV MXU\ LV GHOLEHUDWLQJ HYHQLQJ QHZV EUHDNLQ YHUGLFW LQ 2FWREHU DP ZUDSXS LQF VRXQG ELWH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ :HKOEXUJ DSSHDO DP ZUDSXS LQF VRXQG ELWH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ :HKOEXUJ DSSHDO DP UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ ZUDSXS

PAGE 233

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nV PXUGHU -XGJH FOHDUV ZD\ IRU WULDO 0LWFK 6WDF\ -XU\ VHOHFWLRQ EHJLQV WKLV PRUQLQJ 0HQWLRQV VLGH LVVXH OHJDOLW\ RI 6WDWH $WWRUQH\nV VWDWXV GXH WR IDLOXUH WR EH UHJLVWHUHG WR YRWH LQ GLVWULFW SULRU WR DSSRLQWPHQW 'HFHPEHU 3 % 0HFKDQLFnV PXUGHU WULDO EHJLQV 0LWFK 6WDF\ t 7RP /\RQV WZRFROXPQ SKRWR GHIHQGDQW 6WDQOH\ t DWWRUQH\f )LUVW GD\ RI WULDO %RG\ IRXQG QLQH GD\V DIWHU /DERU 'D\ PXUGHU 6WDQOH\ FDOPO\ DWH GLQQHU DIWHU VKRRWLQJ

PAGE 234

H[FRZRUNHU RYHU GHEW KH FDPH WR FROOHFW H[ZLIH VD\V 6WDQOH\ LV QRW SURQH WR YLROHQFH 'HFHPEHU 3 % 6XVSHFW ,W ZDV LQ VHOIGHIHQVH 0LWFK 6WDF\ 6WDQOH\ WHVWLILHV 3LSSLQV WKUHDWHQHG KLP ZLWK D VDZHGRII VKRWJXQ 0HQWLRQV VLGH LVVXH UHSHDWHG DWWHPSWV RI GHIHQVH IRUPHU SURVHFXWRUf WR FODLP VWDWH DWWRUQH\ YLRODWHV UXOHV E\ IDLOLQJ WR GLVFORVH LQIRUPDWLRQ 'HFHPEHU 3 % EULHIf -XGJH WHOOV MXURUV WKH\ DUH HDWLQJ OXQFK DW WD[SD\HUVf H[SHQVH QRW FOHDU ZKHWKHU VXJJHVWLQJ WKH\ RUGHU KDPEXUJHUV RU VWHDN 'HFHPEHU 3 % :RUNHU JHWV \HDUV LQ NLOOLQJ 0LWFK 6WDF\ 'HVSLWH SOHDV IRU OHQLHQF\ GXH WR SRRU KHDOWK H[ZLIH ZHHSV /DVW VHQWHQFH 6WDQOH\ VDLG KH ZDQWHG WKH FDVH WR JR WR MXU\ EHFDXVH KH FRXOG QRW MXVWLI\ SXWWLQJ KLPVHOI LQ MDLO IRU D FULPH KH IHOW KH GLG FRPPLW VDLG 0F0DKRQ 'HFHPEHU 3 % &RUUHFWLRQ f>7@KH ODVW VHQWHQFH RI D VWRU\ LQ 6DWXUGD\nV 6XQ DERXW D PXUGHU WULDO YHUGLFW VKRXOG KDYH UHDG n'HIHQGDQW &KDUOLHf 6WDQOH\ VDLG KH ZDQWHG WKH FDVH WR JR WR MXU\ EHFDXVH KH FRXOG QRW MXVWLI\ SXWWLQJ KLPVHOI LQ MDLO IRU D FULPH KH IHOW KH GLG QRW FRPPLW VDLG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ *UHJRU\f 0F0DKRQn 7KH VHFRQG nQRWn ZDV LQDGYHUWHQWO\ OHIW RXW RI 6DWXUGD\nV VWRU\ :8)779 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRPf WULDO EHJLQV WRPRUURZ LQF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRP \HVWHUGD\f MXURUV ZLOO KHDU FRQIHVVLRQ WDSH 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRPf FRQIHVVLRQ SOD\HG DQRWKHU FRZRUNHUnV WHVWLPRQ\ FRQWURYHUVLDO LQF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV YRLFH RYHU YLGHR FRXUWURRPf YHUGLFW DQG VHQWHQFH :8)7)0 'HFHPEHU QRRQ UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ MXU\ VHOHFWLRQ EHJLQV MXGJH UHMHFWV DOO GHIHQVH PRWLRQV

PAGE 235

'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WULDO EHJLQV WRPRUURZ 'HFHPEHU PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WULDO EHJLQV H[SHFWHG WR WDNH WZR GD\V 'HFHPEHU QRRQ UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ LQYHVWLJDWRUVn WHVWLPRQ\ WKLV PRUQLQJ 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ MXU\ VDZ JUXHVRPH VOLGHV 6WDQOH\ FRYHUHG KLV H\HV 'HFHPEHU PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ VOLGHV MXU\ PD\ QRW JHW FDVH XQWLO WRPRUURZ 'HFHPEHU QRRQ UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WDSH FRQIHVVLRQ 'HFHPEHU FRQIHVVLRQ HYHQLQJ QHZV R R Of§+ UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WDSH 'HFHPEHU PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WDSH MXU\ ZLOO JHW FDVH WRGD\ 'HFHPEHU PRUQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ WDSH DUJXPHQW RYHU PRQH\ VDZHGRII VKRWJXQ 'HFHPEHU QRRQ UHSRUWHU &DUPRG\ VXPPDWLRQ MXU\ LQVWUXFWLRQV WR FRPH DQG WKHQ YHUGLFW 'HFHPEHU HYHQLQJ QHZV UHSRUWHU 3HUGRPR YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFH :58)0 'HFHPEHU SP MXU\ ZLOO KHDU WDSH LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ SP MXU\ ZLOO KHDU WDSH 0F0DKRQ VD\V LWnV VHOI GHIHQVH 'HFHPEHU /6 DP WULDO FRQWLQXHV LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ

PAGE 236

DP VOLGHV VKRZQ QRRQ SKRQHU UHSRUWHU :DOVK SURVHFXWLRQ ZUDSSLQJ XS SP LQYHVWLJDWRUVn WHVWLPRQ\ WDSHG FRQIHVVLRQ SOD\HG LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ 6WDQOH\ DFWHG LQ VHOIGHIHQVH SP LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ QR SUHPHGLWDWLRQ 'HFHPEHU DP LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ QR SUHPHGLWDWLRQ DP \HVWHUGD\ VHOIGHIHQVH MXU\ KHDUG WDSHG FRQIHVVLRQ DP LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ JXQ HYLGHQFH LV XQUHODWHG WR FULPH DP HYLGHQFH LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ UH JXQ DP LQF VRXQG ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ HYLGHQFH GRHVQnW DGG XS WR VHOIGHIHQVH DP UHFDSV &DUOLQnV VWDWHPHQW SP MXU\ LV GHOLEHUDWLQJ SP UHSRUWHU %HQMDPLQ YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFH SP DZNZDUG LQF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ FDVH ZDV DSSHDO LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ UH QHFHVVDU\ LQF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ VHQWHQFH YHUGLFW t VHQWHQFH UHFDSV 0F0DKRQ t &DUOLQ LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ UH DSSHDO

PAGE 237

'HFHPEHU DP LQF DSSHDO ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ UH DP LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ UH DSSHDO LQF ELWH ZLWK SURVHFXWRU &DUOLQ VHQWHQFH QHFHVVDU\ DP LQF ELWH ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 0F0DKRQ WULDO XQIDLU

PAGE 238

$33(1',; 6(/(&7(' $57,&/(6 $1' 6&5,376 7KH VHOHFWLRQ LQFOXGHV WKH IROORZLQJ IRU FRYHUDJH RI WULDOV REVHUYHG f DOO RI WKH QHZVSDSHU DUWLFOHV ZKLFK LQFOXGHG SKRWRJUDSKV f DOO RI WKH WHOHYLVLRQ VFULSWV f DQ\ QHZVSDSHU DUWLFOHV RU WHOHYLVLRQ RU UDGLR VFULSWV ZKLFK IRU DQ\ UHDVRQ ZHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH VWXG\ $OO EURDGFDVW VFULSWV DUH UHW\SHG RULJLQDOV RQ ILOHf

PAGE 239

6DPXHO (GXDUG 6LPPRQV OHIW RQ WULDO IRU WKH PXUGHU RI D 1HZEHUU\ PDQ VLWV QH[W WR ELV DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H7KRPDVLV GXULQJ WHVWLPRQ\ 7KXUVGD\ LQ FLUFXLW FRXUW 7HHQ VD\V SODQ WR fLQWLPLGDWHf HQGHG LQ PDQ EHDWHQ WR GHDWK %\ &211,( %28&+$5' 6XQ VWDII ZQWHU 1LQHWHHQ\HDUROG 6DPXHO (GZDUG 6LPPRQV PDVWHUn PLQGHG D SODQ ODVW 0D\ LQ ZKLFK KH DQG WKUHH RWKHU WHHQDJHUV ZRXOG LQWLPLGDWH D \HDUROG 1HZEHUU\ PDQ EXW KH ZRXQG XS EHDWLQJ WKH PDQ WR GHDWK WZR RI WKH WHHQV WHVWLILHG 7KXUVGD\ LQ 6LPPRQVn ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU WULDO 7KH ZKROH WKLQJ ZDV OLNH D VHWXS VDLG 0LFKDHO :LOn OLDPV RI WKH IDWDO 0D\ YLVLW WR WKH KRPH RI 'DYLG +RUQH $UPHG ZLWK NQLYHV DQG D ZRRGHQ D[ KDQGOH WKH WHHQn DJHUV ZHUH RXW WR fJHW +RUQH IRU D GLVJUXQWOHG IULHQG :LOOLDPV DQG \HDUROG &KULV %XUJHU WHVWLILHG 7KXUVGD\ 7KH WULDO LQ ZKLFK 6LPPRQV LV DOVR FKDUJHG ZLWK EXUn JODU\ LV H[SHFWHG WR HQG WRGD\ ,W UHVXPHV DW DP :LOOLDPV %XUJHU DQG \HDUROG 0HOLVVD 'HON ZHUH DUUHVWHG ZLWK 6LPPRQV D GD\ DIWHU WKH 0D\ DWWDFN RQ +RUQH :LOOLDPV DQG %XUJHU WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH\ DFFRPSDQLHG 6LPPRQV MXVW GD\V DIWHU WKH\ RYHUKHDUG KLP WDONLQJ DERXW JHWWLQJ HYHQ ZLWK +RUQH 6HH %($7(1 RQ SDJH $ 0$5. '2/$17KH *DPHVYQLH 6XQ &KULV %XUJHU DQ DGPLWWHG DFFRPSOLFH LQ WKH PXUGHU RI 'DYLG +RPH WHVWLILHG DJDLQVW 6DPXHO 6LPPRQV 7KXUVGD\

PAGE 240

%($7(1 &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH $ %XUJHU VDLG KH KHDUG 6LPPRQV WHOO DQRWKHU WHHQDJHU ,fP JRLQJ WR JHW KLP $QG 6LPPRQV WROG WKH VDPH SHUn VRQ DIWHU WKH VOD\LQJ f
PAGE 241

:&-%79 6OXJ 6,00216$ 'DWH 3%%2; 3$,*(f $ 085'(5 75,$/ :,// &217,18( 7202552: 0251,1* ,1 $/$&+8$ &2817< &,5&8,7 &2857 )25 $1 <($5 2/' $5&+(5 5(6,'(17 $&&86(' 2) 085'(5 3526(&87256 &/$,0 6$08(/ (':$5' 6,00216 &2(5&(' 7+5(( )5,(1'6 72 +(/3 +,0 72 .,// '$9,' +251( 2) 1(:%(55< 7+( 085'(5 +$33(1(' 0$< 7+ /$67 <($5 ,19(67,*$7256 6$< +251( :$6 %/8'*(21(' 72 '($7+ :,7+ $ :22'(1 +$1'/( '()(1'$176 ,1 7+( &$6( 0,&+$(/ :,//,$06 $1' &+5,6 %85*(5 7(67,),(' 72'$< +2:(9(5 7+( 7+,5' '()(1'$17 0(/,66$ '(/.6 :+2 +$6 127 %((1 &+$5*(':,// 127 7(67,)< %(&$86( 6+(n6 5(&29(5,1* )520 685*(5<

PAGE 242

:&-%79 6OXJ 6,00216 $O 'DWH %2%:06 &/26( 83 *22' $)7(51221 (9(5<21( 7+( 3526(&87,21 +$6 5(67(' ,76 &$6( ,1 7+( 75,$/ 2) 6$08(/ 6,00216 7+( <($5 2/' ,6 $&&86(' 2) %($7,1* <($5 2/' '$9,' +251( 2) 1(:%(55< 72 '($7+ '85,1* 7(67,021< 7+,6 0251,1* &+$5/(6 %(1721 :+2 6+$5(' $ &(// :,7+ 6,00216 $7 7+( &2817< -$,/ 6$,' 6,00216 72/' +,0 +( %($7 $ 0$1 29(5 7+( +($' /$7(5 $1 2)),&,$/ :,7+ 7+( 0(',&$/ (;$0,1(5n6 ,668(' $ 67$7(0(17 21 9,'(2 7$3( +( 9(5,),(' +251( :$6 .,//(' )520 6(9(5$/ %/2:6 72 7+( +($' 6,00216 :$6 $//(*('/< 7+( 0$67(5n 0,1' %(+,1' $ 3/27 72 %($7 83 +251 )25 $ )5,(1' :+2 :$6 $1*5< $7 +251 7+( '()(16( ,6 (;3(&7(' 72 %(*,1 ,76 &$6( /$7(5 7+,6 $)7(51221 $1' %( ),1,6+(' %< 7+5(( 2n&/2&.

PAGE 243

:&-%79 6OXJ 6,00216 $ 'DWH 3%%2; 3$,*(f $1 $/$&+8$ &2817< -85< ,6 '(/,%(5$7,1* $7 7+,6 +285 ,1 7+( ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 75,$/ 2) 6$08(/ 6,00216 7+( <($5 2/' $5&+(5 0$1 ,6 &+$5*(' ,1 7+( %($7,1* '($7+ 2) <($5 2/' '$9,' +251( 2) 1(:%(55< 67$7( $77251(< +$55,6 72%,1 6$,' 6,00216 2:1 7(67,021< 3529(' +( :$6 /<,1* 6,00216 $77251(< &5$,* '( 7+20$6,6 6$,' 0267 2) 7+( (9,'(1&( ,6 &21)/,&7,1* $1' +( :$176 7+( &+$5*( 72 %( 5('8&(' 72 6(&21' '(*5(( 085'(5 +251( :$6 %/8'*(21(' 72 '($7+ ,1 0$< 2) /$67 <($5 :,7+ $ :22'(1 +$1'/(

PAGE 244

:&-%79 6OXJ 6,00216 $ 'DWH /8&$6 %2; -2+1f $1 <($5 2/' $5&+(5 0$1 +$6 %((1 )281' *8,/7< 721,*+7 2) 7+( %($7,1* '($7+ 2) '$9,' +251( 2) 1(:%(55< $)7(5 $ &283/( 2) +2856 2) '(/,%(5$7,1* $1 $/$&+8$ &2817< -85< 5(7851(' )281' 6$08(/ 6,00216 *8,/7< 2) ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 $1' %85*/$5< :,7+ $66$8/7 6,00216 +$6 %((1 6(17(1&(' 72 /,)( ,1 35,621 %87 :,// %( (/,*,%/( )25 3$52/( ,1 <($56 +( $/62 5(&(,9(' $ <($5 6(17(1&( )25 7+( %85*/$5< &219,&7,21

PAGE 245

:8)779 )HEUXDU\ 1HZV 2Q WDOHQW .H\ JUDSKLF -XU\ 6HOHFWLRQ -85< 6(/(&7,21 ,6 81'(5:$< )25 7+( 75,$/ 2) $1 $&&86(' 085'(5(5 )520 $5&+(5 929LGHR 6LPPRQV FRXUWURRPf &$ODFKXD &RXQW\ &RXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH 6$08(/ 6,00216 )$&(6 ),567'(*5(( 085'(5 &+$5*(6 ,1 &211(&7,21 :,7+ 7+( %($7,1* '($7+ 2) 1(:%(55< 5(6,'(17 '$9,' +251( /$67 0$< 6,00216 $1' $127+(5 0$1 $17+21< :,//,$06 $5( &+$5*(' :,7+ +251(n6 085'(5 /$67 0217+ :,//,$06 3/($'(' *8,/7< 72 6(&21''(*5(( 085'(5 $1' :,// %( 6(17(1&(' /$7(5 7+,6 0217+ 6,00216n 75,$/ ,6 6(7 72 67$57 7+856'$< +251(n6 %2'< :$6 )281' $7 +,6 +20( ,1 0$
PAGE 246

:8)779 )HEUXDU\ 1HZV 2Q WDOHQW .H\ JUDSKLF 6LPPRQV 7ULDO 7:2 3(23/( 7(67,),(' 72'$< 7+$7 $1 $5&+(5 0$1 0$67(50,1'(' 7+( '($7+ 2) $ <($52/' 1(:%(55< 0$1 6$08(/ (':$5' 6,00216 )$&(6 ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 &+$5*(6 )25 7+( %/8'*(21,1* '($7+ 2) '$9,' +251( /$67 0$< 929LGHR 6LPPRQV FRXUWf 7+( -85< 72'$< +($5' 7(67,021< )520 7:2 7((1$*(56 :+2 6$< 7+(< :(5( ,03/,&$7(' ,1 7+( 085'(5 6,;7((1 & $ODFKXD &R &RXUWKRXVH *DLQYHVYLOOH <($52/' &+5,6 %85*(5 $1' 6(9(17((1 <($52/' 0,&+$(/ :,//,$06 6$< 6,00216 3/$11(' 7+( 085'(5 $1' +(/3(' %($7 7+( 9,&7,0 72 '($7+ %87 7+( '()(16( 6$<6 7+( -85< 6+28/'1n7 %(/,(9( 7+(,5 7(67,021< 38%/,& '()(1'(5 &5$,* '( 7+20$6,6 6$<6 7+( 67$7( $77251(< +$6 /(66(1(' 7+( &+$5*(6 $*$,167 7+( 7((1$*(56 $1' %(&$86( 2) 7+$7 7+(
PAGE 247

:8)779 )HEUXDU\ 1HZV 2Q WDOHQW .H\ JUDSKLF 6LPPRQV 7ULDO & .DWK\ 2UHQGRUII 929LGHR 6LPPRQV FRXUWf 7+( -85< ,6 '(&,',1* ,) (':$5' 6$08(/ 6,00216 ,6 *8,/7< 2) ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 ,1 7+( '($7+ 2) '$9,' +251( 7+( 67$7( &/$,06 6,00216 /(' $ *5283 2) 7+5(( 7((16 /$67 0$< 72 +251(f6 +20( ,1 1(:%(55< 7:2 2) 7+( 7((16 &+5,6 %85*(5 $1' 0,&+$(/ :,//,$06 7(67,),(' $*$,167 6,00216 :,//,$06 6758&. $ '($/ %< 3/($',1* *8,/7< 72 6(&21''(*5(( 085'(5 %87 7+( '()(16( 6$<6 +( ,6 5($//< 7+( 21( :+2 .,//(' +251( 7(67,)<,1* ,1 +,6 2:1 '()(16( 6,00216 6$<6 +( 3/$11(' 72 -867 %($7 83 +251( %87 $'0,77(' +( +,7 +251( 7:,&( 21 7+( +($' :,7+ $ /($' 3,3( -85256 0867 '(&,'( 6,00216 '(/,%(5$7(/< 3/$11(' 72 .,// +251( $1' $&7(' $/21( ,1 25'(5 72 *,9( $ ),567'(*5(( 085'(5 '(&,6,21

PAGE 248

:8)779 )HEUXDU\ 1HZV 2Q WDOHQW .H\ JUDSKLF 6LPPRQV 6HQWHQFHG 929LGHR 6LPPRQV FRXUWf $1' $127+(5 6(17(1&(f§7+,6 21( 025( 6(9(5( $ 0$1 )281' *8,/7< 2) 085'(5,1* $ 1(:%(55< 0$1 :,// 63(1' $7 /($67 72 <($56 %(+,1' %$56 $ -85< '(&,6,21 )5,'$< +$6 (':$5' 6$08(/ 6,00216 6(59,1* $ -$,/ 6(17(1&( )25 7+( 085'(5 2) '$9,' +251( /$67 0$< 6,00216 *(76 /,)( ,035,6210(17 )25 7+( ),567'(*5(( 085'(5 &219,&7,21 +( +$6 $127+(5 <($5 7(50 :,7+ 7+( '(3$570(17 2) &255(&7,216 )25 %85*/$5< :,7+ $66$8/7 )5,'$< 7+( -85< '(&,'(' 6,00216 $&7(' $/21( $1' '(/,%(5$7(/< 3/$11(' 72 .,// +251(

PAGE 249

:8)779 :LOOLDPV 6HQWHQFH .DWK\ 92 r r r.$7+
PAGE 250

:8)7)0 %52:1 6LPPRQV 7ULDO 6$08(/ (':$5' 6,00216 ,6 21 75,$/ )25 7+( ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 ,1 $1 $/$&+8$ &2817< &2857 +286( +( ,6 $&&86(' 2) 3/$11,1* 7+( '($7+ 2) '$9,' +251 67$7( $77251(<6 $5( 75<,1* 72 3529( 6,00216 /($' 7+5(( 27+(5 7((1$*(56 72 +251n6 1(:%(55< $5($ +20( 72 +(/3 +,0 :,7+ 7+( .,//,1* 7+( -85< +$6 6((1 %/22'< 6+((76 )520 +251n6 5220 $/21* :,7+ :+$7 7+( 67$7( &/$,06 ,6 7+( 085'(5 :($321 ,7n6 %((1 '(6&5,%(' $6 $ 7:2)227 0(7$/ 2%-(&7 67$7( $77251(< +$55,6 72%,1 6$<6 7+( -8'*( 127 $//2:,1* $// (9,'(1&( ,1 7+( &28575220 &$57 72%,1 ZLQ RU ORVH DW WKLV SRLQW 7+( '()(16( $77251(< ,6 &5$,* '( 7+20$6 +( ,6 $ 35,9$7( $77251(< $6.(' %< 7+( &2857 72 '()(16( 6,00216 +( &/$,06 7+( 67$7(n6 '($/ 0$.,1* :,7+ $ .(< :,71(66 72 7+( 085'(5 ,6 81)$,5 72 +,6 &/,(17 &$57 7+( 75,$/ ,6 (;3(&7(' 72 /$67 21/< 7:2 '$<6 $77251(<6 6$< ,7 6+28/' *2 72 7+( -85< 7202552: $)7(51221

PAGE 251

:58)$0 0,&+(/621 QG 92,&(5 7+( 75,$/ 2) 6$08(/ 6,00216 ,6 ,1 352*5(66 ,1 7+( $/$&+8$ &2817< &2857+286( (,*+7((1<($52/' 6,00216 ,6 $&&86(' 2) 085'(5,1* '$9,' +251( %< %($7,1* +,0 :,7+ $ 0(7$/ :(,*+7 /$67 0$< 7+5(( 27+(5 7((1$*(56 :(5( 35(6(17 7+( 1,*+7 2) 7+( 085'(5 21( :$6 <($52/' 0,&+$(/ :,//,$06 :,//,$06 3/(' *8,/7< 2) 6(&21' '(*5(( 085'(5 2) '$9,' +251( $1' +( ,6 12: :$,7,1* 72 %( 6(17(1&(' :,//,$06 ,6 $ )250(5 &/$660$7( 2) 6,00216 21 7+( 1,*+7 2) 7+( 085'(5 :,//,$06 7+28*+7 7+( 7((16 :(5( *2,1* 72 7+( 029,(6 %87 ,167($' 7+(< :(17 72 7+( +20( 2) '$9,' +251( 62&

PAGE 252

:58)$0 UG 92,&(5 ,1 6$08(/ 6,00216 085'(5 75,$/ <($5 2/' 0,&+$(/ 6,00216 7(67,),(' +( :$6 35(6(17 7+( 1,*+7 '$9,' +251( :$6 .,//(' :,//,$06 6$<6 +( :(17 287 :,7+ 6,00216 ,17(1',1* 72 *2 72 7+( 029,(6 ,167($' 7+(< :(17 72 '$9,' +251(n6 +20( ,1 1(:%(55< :,//,$06 6$<6 ($5/,(5 7+$7 '$< +251( +$' 38//(' $ *81 21 :,//,$06 +,6 )5,(1' $1' +,6 6,; <($5 2/' %527+(5 :,//,$06 +$6 3/(' *8,/7< 72 6(&21' '(*5(( 085'(5 $1' ,6 $:$,7,1* 6(17(1&,1* :,//,$06 7(67,),(' +( 6$: 6,00216 %($7 +251( :,7+ $ :22'(1 $;( ,1 (;&+$1*( )25 +,6 3/($ 72 6(&21' '(*5(( 085'(5 $1' +,6 7(67,021< $7 6,00216n 75,$/ :,//,$06 :,// %( 6(17(1&(' $6 $ -89(1,/( 2))(1'(5 62&

PAGE 253

:58)$0 1221 6$7 /,)( 6(17(1&( $ 1(:%(55< 7((1$*(5 :,// %( 63(1',1* $ /21* 7,0( ,1 35,621 -85256 )281' 6,00216 *8,/7< 2) ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 ,1 7+( %/8'*(21,1* '($7+ 2) '$9,' +251( 6,00216 7(67,),('f§+,6 )5,(1'6 $1' +( :(17 72 +251(f6 +286( 72 ,17,0,'$7( +,0 :,7+ $1 $; +$1'/( $1' 620( .1,9(6 +2:(9(5 :,71(66(6 6$< 6,00216 :281' 83 %($7,1* +251( 72 '($7+ 6,00216n6 $77251(< &5$,* '( 7+20$6,6 6$<6 6,00216n6 $&7,216 :(5( 127 35(0(',7$7(' $1' +(n// $33($/ 7+( ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 '(&,6,21 )5, '( 7+20$6,6 2) ),567 '(*5(( 6,00216 :$6 *,9(1 $ /,)( 6(17(1&(f§3/86 )285 <($56 )25 %85*/$5
PAGE 254

0XUGHU WULDO VHW WR EHJLQ %\ 0,7&+ 67$&< 6XQ VWDII ZDWHU 7ZR EURWKHUV IURP *DLQHVYLOOH ZLOO VWDQG WULDO EHJLQQLQJ 7XHVGD\ IRU WKH PXUGHU ODVW 2FWREHU RI D \HDUROG PDQ &DUOWRQ /RUHQ]R +DUULV DQG 3LHUUH &XOOHQ +DUULV ZHUH FKDUJHG ZLWK ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 2FW VWDEELQJ GHDWK RI ,UYLQJ (XJHQH /DZUHQFH ZKR OLYHG LQ DQ DSDUW B PHQWDWO 6( WK 6W $Q DUJXn PHQW RYHU PRQn H\ DSSDUHQWO\ OHG WR D FRQIURQn WDWLRQ EHWZHHQ /DZUHQFH DQG f WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV ODWH B WKDW 2FWREHU HYHQLQJ SROLFH /DZUHQFH ZDV IRXQG E\ SROLFH O\n LQJ LQ D YDFDQW ORW RQ 1( VW $YHQXH ZLWK D VWDE ZRXQG WR WKH FKHVW DIWHU VRPHRQH ZKR OLYHG LQ WKH DUHD FDOOHG DXWKRULWLHV DERXW KHDULQJ D JXQVKRW SROLFH VDLG /DZUHQFH ZDV SURQRXQFHG GHDG RQ DUULYDO DW $ODFKXD *HQHUDO +RVSLn WDO HDUO\ WKH QH[W PRUQLQJ 3LHUUH +DUULV ZDV DUUHVWHG DW *DLQHVYLOOH SROLFH KHDGTXDUWHUV KRXUV DIWHU WKH VWDEELQJ SROLFH VDLG +H FDPH WKHUH IRU TXHVWLRQLQJ LQ UHn VSRQVH WR D UHTXHVW IURP SROLFH GHWHFWLYHV &DUOWRQ +DUULV ZDV ORFDWHG DW WKH FRXQW\ MDLO 2FW +H KDG WXUQHG KLPVHOI LQ WKH GD\ EHIRUH IRU XQUHODWHG ZDUUDQWV WKDW LQFOXGHG YLn RODWLRQ RI SDUROH &DUOWRQ +DUULV KDV D KLVWRU\ RI IHORQ\ DUUHVWV LQFOXG 6HH 75,$/ RQ SDJH % 75,$/ &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% LQJ D FRQYLFWLRQ IRU DJJUDYDWHG DVVDXOW 3ROLFH GHWHFWLYHV VDLG WKH\ WDONHG WR ZLWQHVVHV ZKR VDZ DQ DUJXPHQW ODWH WKDW HYHQLQJ EHWZHHQ /DZUHQFH DQG WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV $ ORQJ IROGn LQJ NQLIH ZDV UHFRYHUHG DQG LV EHn OLHYHG WR EH WKH PXUGHU ZHDSRQ 7KH WZR EURWKHUV ZLOO EH WULHG WRJHWKHU 3ROLFH QHYHU GHWHUPLQHG WKH RULJLQ RI WKH JXQVKRW KHDUG E\ WKH QHLJKERU 7KH +DPV EURWKHUV ZLOO EH WULHG WRJHWKHU DQG ZLOO EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ *DLQHVYLOOH ODZ\HUV &UDLJ 'H7KRPDVLV DQG 5REHUW 5XVK $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ 0DUJDUHW 0 6WDFN ZLOO WU\ WKH FDVH EHIRUH &LUn FXLW -XGJH 5REHUW 3 &DWHV -XU\ VHn OHFWLRQ LV VHW WR EHJLQ 7XHVGD\ QRUQLQJ

PAGE 255

pKU IMPXI%XLOOU £!LP 7KXUVGD\ 6HSWHPEHU rr 3LHUUH +DUULV OHIW DQG ELV EURWKHU &DUOWRQ IDU ULJKW VLW DV WKHLU GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V &UDLJ 'H7KRPDVLV QHDULQJ JODVVHV DQG +XEHUW +XVK FRQIHU ,Q FRXUW :HGQHVGD\ 7KH +DUULV EURWKHUV DUH VWDQGLQJ WULDO IRU WKH PXUGHU RI LW\HDU ROG ,UYLQJ /DZUHQFH ,QVW \HDU ‘! %URWKHUV LQ PXUGHU WULDO SOHDG VHOIGHIHQVH pWDF\ 6XQ WODIO ZQOWU 3LHUUH +DUULV ZDV GHIHQGLQJ KLPVHOI DQG KLV EURWKHU IURP WKH DJJUHVVLYH DGYDQFHV RI ,UYLQJ (XJHQH /DZUHQFH ZKHQ KH VWDEEHG /DZUHQFH WR GHDWK ,Q D YDFDQW ORW ODVW 2FWREHU +DUn ULVf GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ VDLG :HGQHVGD\ +DUULV FDPH WR WKH DLG RI KLV EURWKHU &DUOWRQ /RUHQ]R +DUULV DIWHU /DZUHQFH DSSURDFKHG DQG KLW WKH HOGHU +DUULV ,Q WKH KHDG ZLWK WKH EXWW RI D SLVWRO DQG -XPSHG RQ KLP DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H7KRPDV,V WROG DQ $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FLUn FXLW FRXUW MXU\ 3LHUUH +DUULV EHFDPH ,QYROYHG ,Q WKH VFXIIOH RQO\ DIWHU D VKRW ZDV ILUHG DQG DQ DUPHG /DZUHQFH EDFNHG KLP XS LQWR WKH YDFDQW ORW RQ 1( VW $YHQXH 7KH +DUULV EURWKHUV ERWK DUH FKDUJHG ZLWK ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU IRU WKH 2FW GHDWK RI /DZUHQFH DQG DUH VWDQGLQJ WULDO EHIRUH &LUFXLW -XGJH 5REHUW 3 &DWHV 'H7KRPDV,V DQG DWWRUQH\ 5REHUW $ 5XVK ZKR ,V UHSUHn VHQWLQJ &DUOWRQ +DUULV ZLOO WU\ WR VKRZ WKDW /DZUHQFH VRXJKW RXW WKH EURWKHUV EHFDXVH WKH\ RZHG KLP PRQH\ DQG WKDW 3LHUUH +DUULV SXOOHG KLV IROGLQJ SRFNHWNQOIH DQG VODEEHG /DZUHQFH ,Q VHOIGHIHQVH
PAGE 256

75,$/ &MQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% ORXVH RQ 1( VW $YHQXH :KLOH KH $GPLWWHG WKDW /DZUHQFH KLW &DUOWRQ ODPV ILUVW 5DPVH\ WHVWLILHG WKDW /DZUHQFH ZDV QRW FDUU\LQJ D JXQ 7KH JXQ KH VDLG ZDV LQ &DUOWRQ +DUn DVn KDQG GXULQJ WKH ILJKW 7KH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V JULOOHG 5DPVH\ RQ GHWDLOV RI WKH HYHQLQJ DRLQWLQJ RXW VHYHUDO GLVFUHSDQFLHV EHWZHHQ KLV WHVWLPRQ\ DQG RQWKH UHFRUG VWDWHPHQWV KH JDYH WR WKH DWn WRUQH\V LQ -XQH 7KH GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V DOVR SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV FRRSHUn DWHG IXOO\ ZLWK SROLFH LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH FDVH DQG HYHQ NHSW WKH EORRGn VWDLQHG FORWKLQJ DQG WXUQHG LW RYHU WR SROLFH ZKHQ DVNHG 'H7KRPDVLV DQG 5XVK ZHUH DVn VLJQHG E\ WKH FRXUW WR UHSUHVHQW WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV EHFDXVH RI D FRQn IOLFWRILQWHUHVW VLWXDWLRQ LQYROYLQJ WKH SXEOLF GHIHQGHUfV RIILFH 7KH !I ILFH WKDW SURYLGHV ODZ\HUV R UHSUHn VHQW GHIHQGDQWV ZKR FDQQRW DIIRUG WR KLUH DQ DWWRUQH\ KDV LQ WKH SDVW UHSn UHVHQWHG VRPH ZLWQHVVHV ZKR ZLOO EH FDOOHG E\ VWDWH DWWRUQH\V WR WHVWLI\ LQ WKH WULDO %HFDXVH RI WKDW SXEOLF GHn IHQGHUV GLG QRW ZDQW WR EHFRPH LQn YROYHG LQ WKH +DUULVn GHIHQVH ,QFOXGHG LQ 3LHUUH +DUULVn FDVH ILOH DUH D QXPEHU RI OHWWHUV IURP IULHQGV DQG DFTXDLQWDQFHV DWWHVWLQJ WR KLV JRRG FKDUDFWHU $PRQJ WKHP LV L OHWWHU IURP -HDQ &KDOPHUV D IRUn PHU *DLQHVYLOOH FLW\ FRPPLVVLRQHU LQG FDQGLGDWH IRU VWDWH UHSUHVHQWDn WLYH ZKR ZURWH WKDW VKH NQRZV +DUn ULVn PRWKHU DQG KDV QHYHU KHDUG RI 3LHUUH +DUULV FDXVLQJ DQ\ WURXEOH ,I FRQYLFWHG RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUn GHU WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV FRXOG EH VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ 6WDWH DWn WRUQH\V PXVW SURYH SUHPHGLWDWLRQ WR JHW D ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU FRQYLFWLRQ 7KH WULDO ZDV WR FRQWLQXH DW WKLV PRUQLQJ DW WKH $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FRXUWKRXVH

PAGE 257

,nEH *DLQHVULOOH 6XQ )ULGD\ 6HSWHPEHU 0XUGHU WULDO IRFXV VKLIWV WR ZHDSRQV %\ 0,7&+ 67$&< 6XQ VWDII ZULWHU 7KH IRFXV RI WKH PXUGHU WULDO RI WZR *DLQHVYLOOH EURWKHUV WXUQHG WR ZHDSRQV DV WKH WULDO HQWHUHG LWV WKLUG GD\ 7KXUVGD\ ([SHUWV WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH\ ZHUH XQDEOH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKR KHOG D FDOLEHU SLVWRO RQ WKH QLJKW ,UYLQJ (XJHQH /DZUHQFH ZDV VWDEEHG WR GHDWK GXULQJ D VFXIIOH LQ WKH VWUHHW ODVW 2FWREHU D IDFW RQ ZKLFK WKH VWDWHfV FDVH PD\ KLQJH &DUOWRQ /RUHQ]R +DUULV DQG 3LHUUH &XOOHQ +DUULV DUH VWDQGn LQJ WULDO LQ $ODFKXD &RXQW\ LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 2FWREHU GHDWK RI /DZUHQFH $WWRUQH\V IRU WKH +DUULV EURWKHUV DUH FRQWHQGLQJ WKDW 3LHUUH +DUULV DFWHG LQ GHIHQVH RI KLPVHOI DQG KLV EURWKHU ZKHQ KH VWDEEHG /DZUHQFH WZLFH LQ WKH FKHVW GXULQJ D VFXIIOH LQ D YDFDQW ORW RQ 1( VW 6WUHHW /DZUHQFH DSSURDFKHG WKH EURWKn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n FLDQ WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH UHVLGXH WDNHQ IURP /DZUHQFHfV KDQGV GLG FRQWDLQ VXIILFLHQW WUDFHV RI JXQSRZGHU WR FRQFOXGH WKDW KH GHILQLWHO\ ILUHG WKH VKRW $OVR WHVWLPRQ\ UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH SLVWRO ZDV KDQGOHG E\ D PDQ ZKR IRXQG LW RQ WKH JURXQG DQG E\ DW OHDVW RQH SROLFH RIILFHU HIIHFWLYHO\ ZLSLQJ DZD\ DQ\ ILQJHUSULQWV WKDW FRXOG KDYH EHHQ XVHG WR WHOO ZKR KHOG WKH JXQ $ PDQ ZKR ZDV ZLWK /DZUHQFH WKDW QLJKW DV KH VRXJKW WKH EURWKHUV SUHYLRXVO\ WHVWLILHG WKDW &DUOWRQ +DUn ULV KHOG WKH JXQ GXULQJ WKH VWUXJJOH 0HGLFDO ([DPLQHU :LOOLDP ) +DPLOWRQ WHVWLILHG WKDW ZRXQGV WR /DZUHQFHfV ERG\ FRXOG KDYH EHHQ LQn IOLFWHG E\ D FURXFKLQJ 3LHUUH +DUULV VWDEELQJ WKH RWKHU PDQ DERYH KLP 'HIHQVH DWWRUQH\V FRQWHQG WKDW /DZn UHQFH ZDV RQ WRS RI +DUULV ZKHQ +DUULV VWUXFN RXW LQ VHOIGHIHQVH 7KH EURWKHUV FRXOG ERWK IDFH OLIH LQ SULVRQ LI FRQYLFWHG RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU 6WDWH DWWRUQH\V PXVW SURYH SUHPHGLWDWLRQ WR JHW D FRQYLFWLRQ RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU 7KH WULDO FRQWLQXHV WRGD\ EHIRUH &LUFXLW -XGJH 5REHUW 3 &DWHV

PAGE 258

L L &RXUWURRP MXELODWLRQ %URWKHU LQQRFHQW RI GHDWK %\ )$7$,0$ $+0$' 6XQ FRUUHVSRQGHQW $ FLUFXLW FRXUW MXU\ IRXQG 3LHUUH &XOOHQ +DUULV LQQRFHQW RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU 6DWn XUGD\ DIWHUQRRQ DQG KLV IULHQGV DQG IDPLO\ EXUVW LQWR WHDUV DQG SUD\HU 2K WKDQN *RGf RQH ZRPDQ VDLG 7KDQN \RX -HVXVf 3LHUUH +DUULV DQG KLV EURWKHU &DUOWRQ /RUHQ]R +DUULV ZHUH ERWK VWDQGLQJ WULDO LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 2FW VWDEELQJ GHDWK RI ,UYLQJ (XJHQH /DZUHQFH D \HDUROG *DLQHVYLOOH PDQ 7KH FRXUW GLVPLVVHG ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU FKDUJHV DJDLQVW &DUOWRQ +DUULV )ULGD\ ZKHQ WKH VW£IH IDLOHG WR SURYH +DUULV KDG KHOSHG 3LHUUH NLOO /DZUHQFH &LUFXLW -XGJH 5REHUW 3 &DWHV VDLG 7KHUH ZDV PRUH HYLGHQFH WKDW (OYLV LV VWLOO DOLYH WKDQ HYLGHQFH DJDLQVW WKHVH WZR PHQf GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 5REHUW $ 5XVK VDLG DIWHU WKH YHUGLFW ZDV DQQRXQFHG 5XVK UHSUHVHQWHG &DUOWRQ +DUULV +H DQG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H7KRPDVLV ZKR UHSUHVHQWHG 3LHUUH +DUn ULV ZRUULHG WKDW WKH MXU\ PLJKW ILQG +DUULV JXLOW\ RI D OHVVHU FKDUJH VRPHWKLQJ WKH VWDWH DUJXHG IRU LQ LWV FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV 6DWXUGD\ PRUQLQJ %XW LQ WKH HQG MXVWLFH ZDV GRQH 'H7KRPDVLV VDLG 'H7KRPDVLVf FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV UHPLQG 6HH 75,$/ RQ SDJH % 75,$/ &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% HG WKH MXU\ WKDW QR ZLWQHVVHV VDZ WKH VWDEELQJ %XW 3LHUUH +DUULV WHOOV \RX ZKDW KDSSHQHGf 'H7KRPDVLV WROG WKH MXU\ LQ KLV FORVLQJ DUJXPHQW f+H WROG WKH SROLFH HYHU\WKLQJ WKDW KDSn SHQHG 7KH PDQ WROG WKHP HYHU\n WKLQJ EHFDXVH KHn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f+DOI RU PRVW RI WKH VWDWHnV HYLn GHQFH VXSSRUWV ZKDW 3LHUUH +DUULV VDLG LQFOXGLQJ &DUOWRQ +DUULVf EORRGVWDLQHG MDFNHW 'H7KRPDVLV VDLG 7KH VWDWHfV FORVLQJ DUJXPHQW IRn FXVHG RQ WKH EORRG VPHDUV DORQJ WKH OHIW VOHHYH RI WKDW MDFNHW DV WKH SURRI RI WKHLU WKHRU\ &DUOWRQ +DUULV KDG /DZUHQFH LQ D KHDGORFN ZKLOH 3LHUUH +DUULV LQWHQWLRQDOO\ VWDEEHG KLP ,I &DUOWRQ +DUULV KDG KHOSHG KLV EURWKHU IURP XQGHUQHDWK /DZn UHQFHfV ERG\ DIWHU /DZUHQFH ZDV VWDEEHG WKHUH VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ EORRG VWDLQV RQ ERWK DUPV $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ 0DUJDUHW 6WDFN VDLG 7KH MDFNHW 'H7KRPDVLV UHEXWWHG KDG EORRG VWDLQV RQO\ RQ WKH OHIW DUP EHFDXVH ZKHQ &DUOWRQ +DUULV EHQW DQG OLIWHG /DZUHQFHfV ERG\ KLV OHIW DUP ZDV RYHU /DZUHQFHfV SXQFWXUHG KHDUW 7KH MXU\ GHOLEHUDWHG DERXW WZR KRXUV EHIRUH UHDFKLQJ LWV YHUGLFW DQG HQGLQJ WKH ILYHGD\ WULDO

PAGE 259

:8)779 6OXJ +$55,6 %526 75,$/ 'DWH r r r6+$5,r r r 7:2 *$,1(69,//( %527+(56 )$&,1* ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 &+$5*(6 $33($5(' ,1 &2857 7+,6 $)7(51221 7+(
PAGE 260

3.* 62&f 0F(OUR\ YRYLGHR EURWKHUV t DWW\Vf :,71(66(6 6$< 7+(< 6$: &$5/ $1' 3,(55( +$55,6 $5*8,1* :,7+ ,59,1* /$:5(1&( 21 7+( 1,*+7 2) 2&72%(5 & $ODFKXD &R &RXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH 7+ /$67 <($5 '()(16( $77251(<6 6$< 7+( ',6387( :$6 29(5 021(< 7+(< &/$,0 7+( $5*80(17 %52.( ,172 9,2/(1&( 21/< :+(1 /$:5(1&( %(&$0( $**5(66,9( 7+(< 6$< 7+( 67$%%,1* :$6 6(/)'()(16( &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLVf & &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV 'HIHQVH $WWRUQH\ 7KHUHnV EHHQ DQ LQFLGHQW ZKHUH XK D SHUVRQ ZKR HQGV XS G\LQJ ZDV DQ DJJUHVVRU ZDV DUPHG DQG ZDV FRPLQJ DW ERWK 3LHUUH +DUULV DQG KLV EURWKHU 2Q 0F(OUR\ 2Q ORFDWLRQ HPSW\ ORWf ,7 :$6 ,1 7+,6 9$&$17 /27 21 1257+($67 ),567 $9(18( 7+$7 32/,&( )281' /$:5(1&( +( :$6 67,// $/,9( %87 67$%%(' ,1 7+( &+(67 /$7(5 92FRXUW GHIHQVH DWW\V 7+$7 0251,1* +( ',(' $7 $/$&+8$ *(1(5$/ +263,7$/ 7+( 3526(&8725 :,// 127 &200(17 21 7+( &$6( %87 EURWKHU 7+( '()(16( &/$,06 6(9(5$/ 3526(&87,21 :,71(66(6 :(5( 81'(5 7+( MXU\f ,1)/8(1&( 2) '58*6 25 +$9( &5,0,1$/ 5(&25'6 2) 7+(,5 2:1 ,) &219,&7(' 7+( %527+(56 &28/' )$&( /,)( ,035,6210(17 25 7+( '($7+ 3(1$/7< 7+( '()(16( $77251(<6 +23( 7+( -85< :,// 6(( 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56n $&7,216 21 7+$7 2&72%(5 (9(1,1* 127 $6 085'(5 %87 $6 6(/)'()(16( ODXUD 0FHOUR\ QHZV

PAGE 261

:8)779 6OXJ +$55,6 085'(5 75,$/ 'DWH r r r$0
PAGE 262

3526(&87,1* $77251(< 0$5*(5(7 67,&. :28/' 127 &200(17 21 &$0(5$ %87 ,1 23(1,1* $5*80(176 6+( 6$,' 7+( 085'(5 :$6 35(0(',7$7(' ,) &219,&7(' 2) ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56 &28/' ($&+ )$&( /,)( ,1 35,621

PAGE 263

:8)779 6OXJ +$55,6 75,$/ $QFKRU *5$+$0 5HSRUWHU '2'' 'DWH & &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV 'HIHQVH $WWRUQH\ r r r*5$+$0r r r 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56n6 ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 75,$/ (17(56 '$< 7:2 67$7( :,71(66(6 722. 7+( 67$1' 7+,6 $)7(51221 72 *,9( $1 $&&2817 2) :+$7 +$33(1(' 7+( 1,*+7 ,59,1* /$:5(1&( :$6 67$%%(' ,1 $ 9$&$17 /27 ,1 1257+:(67 *$,1(69,//( /$:5(1&( ',(' )520 7+( 67$% :281' %87 0267 2) 7+,6 $)7(51221n6 7(67,021< )2&86(' 21 $ *81 $1' :+2 :$6 &$55<,1* ,7 :+(1 7+( $/7(5&$7,21 %(*$1 '()(16( $77251(<6 6$< 7+,6 /,1( 2) 48(67,21,1* ,6 $1 $77(037 %< 7+( 3526(&87,21 72 6+2: &5,0,1$/ ,17(17 %< 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56 %27+ '()(16( $77251(<6 6$< 7+( %527+(56 $&7(' ,1 6(/) '()(16( $1' 7+$7 7+( 7(67,021< '2(61n7 3529( 35(0(',7$7,21 &5$,* '( 7+20$6,6 7KH UHDO LVVXH LV WKDW LW GRHVQnW KHOS WKHLUV DW DOO 8P LW KDV QRW HVWDEOLVKHG DQ\ RI WKH HOHPHQWV RI WKH RIIHQVH WKDW WKH\ QHHG WR HVWDEOLVK 8P DQG XS WR WKLV SRLQW KDYH QRW KHDUG DQ\WKLQJ WKDW HYHQ WHQGV WR VKRZ ZKDW WKH\nYH FKDUJHG P\ FOLHQW ZLWK f%,7(6 &/,(17 :,7+ 7+( 3526(&87,21 5()86(' 72 &200(17 21 7+( &$6( 025( 025( 025( 025(f

PAGE 264

3526(&87256 387 &5,0( 6&(1( ,19(67,*$7256 $1$/<=(56 $1' ),5( $506 (;3(576 21 7+( 67$1' :+2 6$,' 12 *81 5(6,'8( :$6 )281' 21 7+( 9,&7,0n6 +$1'6 7+( 67$7( +23(6 72 :5$3 83 7(67,021< 72'$< 7+( '()(16( :,// &$// ,76 :,71(66(6 7202552:

PAGE 265

:8)779 6OXJ +$55,6 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 6+$5, 'DWH r rr6+$5,r r r $1' $ 7:,67 2) (9(176 ,1 7+( 085'(5 75,$/ 2) 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56 %27+ :(5( &+$5*(' :,7+ 7+( 67$%%,1* '($7+ 2) $ *$,1(69,//( 0$1 7+( 75,$/ (17(56 ,76 )2857+ '$< $1' $/5($'< $ '(&,6,21 0$'( :+,&+ &28/' 7851 ,1 7+( '()(16(n6 )$925 1(:6 ),9(n6 0,.( &(,'( -2,16 86 /,9( )520 7+( $/$&+8$ &2817< &2857+286( 0,.( %5,1* 86 83 72 '$7( 21 7+( 67$57/,1* '(&,6,21 7+(5( :(// 0,.( +2: ,6 7+( 3526(&87,21 +$1'/,1* 7+,6 7851 2) (9(176" 0,.( 92

PAGE 266

0LNH &HLGH 929LGHR JUDSK SKRWR 0LNH &HLGH /,9( $ODFKXD &RXQW\ &RXUWKRXVHf 9LGHR MXGJH &DUO t DWW\ 3LHUUH t DWW\f FRXUWURRP 7RPP\ 6PLWK FRXUWURRPf 6+$5, 0$&,$692f 0LNH &HLGH 929LGHR JUDSKLFf :HOO 6KDUL WKH QXPEHU RI GHIHQGDQWV LQ WKH +DUULV PXUGHU WULDO GZLQGOHG WR RQH WKLV DIWHUQRRQ DV &DUO +DUULV ZDV DFTXLWWHG RQ KLV ILUVW GHJUHH PXUGHU FKDUJH &LUFXLW &RXUW -XGJH 5REHUW &DWHV GLVPLVVHG WKH ROGHU RI WKH WZR EURWKHUV GXH WR LQVXIILFLHQW HYLGHQFH 'HIHQVH DWWRUQH\ &UDLJ 'H 7KRPDVLV LV WU\LQJ WR SDLQW D SLFWXUH IRU WKH MXU\ WKDW 3LHUUH +DUULV DFWHG LQ VHOIGHIHQVH LQ WKH VWDEELQJ PXUGHU RI \HDUROG ,UYLQJ /DZUHQFH ODVW 2FWREHU 7KH GHIHQVH FDOOHG RQ 7RPP\ 6PLWK WR UHn HQDFW WKH DOWHUFDWLRQ EHWZHHQ &DUO +DUULV DQG ,UYLQJ /DZUHQFH /DWHU 3LHUUH +DUULV WRRN WKH VWDQG LQ KLV RZQ GHIHQVH DQG WHVWLILHG KH IHOW KLV DQG KLV EURWKHUnV OLYHV ZHUH LQ GDQJHU ZKHQ KH VWDEEHG /DZUHQFH WZLFH LQ WKH FKHVW LQ DQ DEDQGRQHG ORW LQ 1RUWKHDVW *DLQHVYLOOH DOPRVW D \HDU DJR 3LHUUH +DUULV WKHQ UHFUHDWHG WKH SRVLWLRQ KH ZDV LQ DV ,UYLQJ /DZUHQFH ZDV KLWWLQJ KLP ZLWK WKH EXWW RI D UHYROYHU 7KH MXU\ ZLOO KHDU FORVLQJ DUJXPHQWV LQ WKH FDVH WRPRUURZ DQG 6KDUL LI WKH\ UHWXUQ D YHUGLFW RI JXLOW\ 3LHUUH +DUULV FRXOG VSHQG WKH UHVW RI KLV OLIH LQ SULVRQ :(// 0,.( +2: ,6 7+( 3526(&87,21 +$1'/,1* 7+,6 7851 2) (9(176" :HOO 6KDUL WKH SURVHFXWLRQ LVQnW WDONLQJ ULJKW QRZ EXW LQ P\ FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZLWK GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ 5REHUW 5XVK ZKR UHSUHVHQWHG WKH DFTXLWWHG &DUO +DUULV KH VD\V KH IHHOV FRQILGHQW 3LHUUH ZLOO IROORZ WKH OHDG KLV EURWKHU VHW DQG EH UHOHDVHG LQ WKH QH[W IHZ GD\V $QG WKDWnV DERXW DOO WKH GHWDLOV KDYH ULJKW QRZ RQ WKH +DUULV PXUGHU WULDO 7+$1.6 0,.( 7+$7 :$6 0,.( &(,'( 5(3257,1* /,9( )520 7+( $/$&+8$ &2817< &2857+286(

PAGE 267

:8)779 6OXJ +$55,6 75,$/ 'DWH r r r*5$+$0r r r 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56 +$9( $ /2$' 2)) 7+(,5 0,1'6 7+,6 (9(1,1* %27+ &$5/721 $1' 3,(55( +$55,6 :(5( 21 75,$/ 72*(7+(5 /$67 :((. )25 ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 7+(< :(5( &+$5*(' :,7+ 085'(5 ,1 &211(&7,21 :,7+ 7+( 67$%%,1* 2) ,59,1* (8*(1( /$:5(1&( %87 %27+ $5( 12: )5(( 7+( -8'*( ',60,66(' &+$5*(6 $*$,167 &$5/721 %(&$86( 2) $ /$&. 2) (9,'(1&( $1' 21 6$785'$< 7+( -85< )281' 3,(55( ,112&(17 2) 085'(5 7+( 3526(&87,21 $5*8(' 7+$7 7+( +$55,6 %527+(56 085'(5(' /$:5(1&( :,7+ &5,0,1$/ ,17(17 7+( +$55,6n $77251(<6 $5*8(' 7+( +$55,6(6 .,//(' /$:5(1&( ,1 6(/) '()(16(

PAGE 268

:58)$0 $ 0$1 21 75,$/ )25 085'(5 6$<6 ,7 :$6 6(/)'()(16( 3,(55( +$55,6 ,6 $&&86(' 2) 67$%%,1* <($52/' ,59,1* /$:5(1&( 72 '($7+ /$67 2&72%(5 7+( -85< /22.(' 21 72'$< $6 7+( '()(1'$17 $1' +,6 %527+(5 5((1$&7(' /$67 <($5n6 (9(176 7+( -85< ,6 12: '(/,%(5$7,1* '()(16( $77251(< &5$,* '( 7+20$6,6 6$<6 +(n6 */$' 7+( -85< ,6 7$.,1* ,76 7,0( ,1 5($&+,1* $ 9(5',&7 )5, '( 7+20$6,6 $ 9(5',&7f 7+( 75,$/ 5(&219(1(6 7202552: 0251,1* :+(1 7+( -85< ,6 (;3(&7(' 72 +$1' '2:1 $ 9(5',&7 ,) &219,&7(' +$55,6 &28/' 63(1' 7+( 5(67 2) +,6 /,)( ,1 35,621

PAGE 269

:58)$0 $ 0$1 21 75,$/ )25 085'(5 ,1 *$,1(69,//( 6$<6 +( ',' ,7 ,1 6(/)'()(16( 3,(55( +$55,6 ,6 $&&86(' 2) 67$%%,1* <($5 2/' ,59,1* /$:5(1&( 72 '($7+ /$67 2&72%(5 :+,/( +,6 %527+(5 +(/' 7+( 9,&7,0 ,1 $ +($'/2&. 7+( -85< ,6 (;3(&7(' 72 +$1' '2:1 $ 9(5',&7 021'$< 0251,1*

PAGE 270

LKU 4DLQUVWULOOU e"XQ 7KXUVGD\ 2FWREHUV rr 67(3+(1 025721 7KH 2DLQPYLOOR 6XQ )UDQN /HH 6SLNHV OLVWHQV WR WHVWLPRQ\ QH[W WR ELV DWWRUQH\ $VVLVWDQW 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU 6XVDQ :HKOEXUJ GXUn LQJ WKH ILUVW GD\ RI ELV PXUGHU WULDO :HGQHVGD\ LQ FLUFXLW FRXUW 7ULDO GHOD\HG LQ EXUQLQJ GHDWK %\ 0,7&+ 67$&< 6XQ VWDII ZULWHU )UDQN /HH f3HH :HHf 6SLNHV ZLOO KDYH WR ZDLW XQWLO DW OHDVW QH[W :HGQHVn GD\ WR ILQG RXW LI DQ $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FLUFXLW FRXUW MXU\ ZLOO ILQG KLP UHVSRQn VLEOH IRU WKH GHDWK RI KLV \HDUROG JUDQGIDWKHU IURP EXPV VXIIHUHG LQ D )HEUXDU\ DSDUWPHQW ILUH &LUFXLW -XGJH (O]LH 6 6DQGHUV :HGQHVGD\ JUDQWHG D PRWLRQ E\ 6SLNHVf DWWRUQH\ $VVLVWDQW 3XEOLF 'Hn IHQGHU 6XVDQ :HKOEXUJ WR SRVWSRQH WKH UHPDLQGHU RI WKH WULDO XQWLO WKHQ $ ZLWQHVV VKH SODQV WR FDOO WR WHVWLI\ f§ D ILUH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV H[SHUW IURP WKH VWDWH ILUH FROOHJH LQ 2FDOD f§ LV RXW RI VWDWH XQWLO QH[W ZHHN :HKOEXUJ UHIXVHG WR FRPPHQW IXUn WKHU RQ WKH PRWLRQ %XW $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ +DUULV % 7RELQ VDLG WKH GHn IHQVH DWWRUQH\ IDLOHG WR VXESRHQD WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV H[SHUW DIWHU WKH WULDO ZDV SRVWSRQHG ODVW PRQWK EHFDXVH :HKOEXUJ KDG WR WHQG WR D IDPLO\ HPHUJHQF\ 7RELQ ZKR ILQLVKHG ZLWK KLV ZLWQHVVn HV :HGQHVGD\ DIWHUQRRQ LV WU\LQJ WR VKRZ WKDW 6SLNHV SRXUHG NHURVHQH DURXQG KLV JUDQGIDWKHUfV DSDUWPHQW LQ D ILW RI UDJH DQG LJQLWHG LW ZLWK OLW SLHFHV RI QHZVSDSHU )HE 7KH ILUH VHYHUHO\ EXUQHG KLV JUDQGIDWKHU DOVR QDPHG )UDQN /HH 6SLNHV RQ WKH IDFH KHDG FKHVW DQG DUPV +H GLHG GD\V ODWHU DW 6KDQGV +RVSLWDO 7KH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV LV FKDUJHG ZLWK ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG ILUVWGHJUHH DUVRQ RI D GZHOOLQJ ,I IRXQG JXLOW\ KH FRXOG EH VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ $UWDQ]LH +XPSKUH\ ZKR LV WKH GHn IHQGDQWnV DXQW WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV FDPH RYHU WR WKH 1( :DOGR 5RDG DSDUWPHQW ZKHUH VKH OLYHG ZLWK WKH JUDQGIDWKHU ZKR ZDV KHU IDWKHU 7KH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV ZDV XSn VHW EHFDXVH KH WKRXJKW KLV H[ZLIH ZDV WKHUH LQ D EHGURRP KDYLQJ VH[ ZLWK KLV JUDQGIDWKHU +XPSKUH\ VDLG 7KH JUDQGIDWKHU DOORZHG 6SLNHV WR JR WR WKH EDFN EHGURRP WR VHH WKDW KLV H[ZLIH ZDVQfW WKHUH +XPSKUH\ VDLG EXW DSSDUHQWO\ WKDW ZDVQnW JRRG HQRXJK +H JRW WKH NHURVHQH FDQf IURP XQn GHU WKH WDEOH SRXUHG LW RQ WKH EHGURRPf GRRU RQ WKH WDEOH RQ WKH 79 DQG RQ DQRWKHU FRXFK LQ WKH KDOO VDLG D WHDUIXO +XPSKUH\ +H WKHQ WXUQHG RYHU D NHURVHQH KHDWHU DSSDUn HQWO\ WU\LQJ WR SRXU PRUH IXHO RQ WKH IORRU VKH VDLG :KLOH GRLQJ VR VKH VDLG 6SLNHV H[FODLPHG WKDW KH ZDV JRn LQJ WR NLOO KLV JUDQGIDWKHU 6SLNHV WKHQ OLW D QHZVSDSHU DQG LJn QLWHG KLV JUDQGIDWKHUfV EHGURRP GRRU DQG RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH DSDUWPHQW VKH VDLG +XPSKUH\ VDLG VKH \HOOHG IRU KHU IDWKHU WR JHW RXW EXW KH UHIXVHG FDOOn LQJ EDFN WKDW f3HH :HH DLQfW JRLQJ WR GR QRWKLQJ %HIRUH WHVWLPRQ\ EHJDQ :HKOEXUJ ZDLYHG KHU ULJKW WR PDNH DQ RSHQLQJ VWDWHPHQW XQWLO DIWHU 7RELQ SUHVHQWHG KLV FDVH 6KH KDV JLYHQ QR FOHDU LQGLFDn WLRQ RI ZKDW NLQG RI D GHIHQVH VKH ZLOO 6HH 75,$/ RQ SDJH %

PAGE 271

75,$/ &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% SUHVHQW IRU 6SLNHV +RZHYHU -RVHSK 0D\R WKH *DLQHVYLOOH SROLFH RIILFHU ZKR DUn UHVWHG 6SLNHV DW DQRWKHU UHVLGHQFH D IHZ KRXUV DIWHU WKH ILUH VDLG 6SLNHV WROG RIILFHUV WKDW KH ZDV EXUQLQJ SDn SHU LQ WKH NHURVHQH KHDWHU ZKHQ LW WLSSHG RYHU DFFLGHQWDOO\ DQG FDXJKW KLV JUDQGIDWKHUfV EHGURRP GRRU RQ ILUH %XW D IRUPHU FLW\ ILUH LQYHVWLJDWRU ZKR ZDV DVVLJQHG WR WKH VFHQH VDLG WKH EXUQW DUHDV RQ WKH GRRU DUH FRQn VLVWHQW ZLWK +XPSKUH\fV FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW 6SLNHV GHOLEHUDWHO\ VSUHDG WKH NHURVHQH DORQJ WKH WRS RI WKH GRRU 7KH WULDO ZLOO FRQWLQXH ZLWK :HKOEXUJ FDOOLQJ KHU ZLWQHVVHV DW DP :HGQHVGD\

PAGE 272

WWOWU IMDLLLUDXWOOU £LQ 7KXUVGD\ 2FWREHU r r 63(1&(3 :(,1(% )UDQN /HH 3HH :HHf 6SLNHV DSSHDUV LQ FRXUW :HGQHVGD\ 6SLNHV ZDV VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ IRU VHWWLQJ WKH ILUH WKDW UHVXOWHG LQ WKH GHDWK RI ELV JUDQGIDWKHU 0DQ VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ %\ $1$ $&/( 6XQ VWDII ZULWHU )UDQN /HH 3HH :HHf 6SLNHV ZDV VHQWHQFHG WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ :HGQHVGD\ IRU VHWWLQJ WKH )HEUXDU\ DSDUWPHQW ILUH WKDW UHVXOWHG LQ WKH GHDWK RI KLV \HDUROG JUDQGIDWKHU $Q $ODFKXD &RXQW\ FLUFXLW FRXUW MXU\ GHOLEHUDWHG QHDUO\ WZR KRXUV DQG DW RQH SRLQW UHTXHVWHG WKDW WKH WHVWLPRn Q\ RI RQH ZLWQHVV EH UHDG EDFN E\ WKH FRXUW UHSRUWHU EHIRUH ILQGLQJ 6SLNHV JXLOW\ RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG DUVRQ 6SLNHV VKRZHG QR HPRWLRQ ZKHQ &LUn FXLW -XGJH (O]LH 6 6DQGHUV VHQWHQFHG KLP WR OLIH LPSULVRQPHQW ZLWK D PLQLn PXP PDQGDWRU\ VHQWHQFH RI \HDUV IRU WKH PXUGHU RI KLV JUDQGIDWKHU DOVR QDPHG )UDQN 6SLNHV 6DQGHUV DOVR VHQn WHQFHG 6SLNHV WR \HDUV IRU ILUVWGHJUHH DUVRQ 7KLV VHQWHQFH ZLOO UXQ DW WKH VDPH WLPH DV WKH PXUGHU *UDQGVRQ JXLOW\ RI PXUGHU DUVRQ VHQWHQFH 6SLNHV SUHYLRXVO\ KDG EHHQ FRQYLFWn HG RI WKUHH IHORQLHV f§ SRVVHVVLRQ RI FRFDLQH FDUU\LQJ D FRQFHDOHG ZHDSRQ DQG DJJUDYDWHG EDWWHU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ +DUULV $ 7RELQ DP REYLRXVO\ KDSS\ ZLWK WKH YHUn GLFW 7RELQ VDLG ,W ZDV RXU SRVLWLRQ WKDW ,W ZDV ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG WKDW KH NLOOHG KLV JUDQGIDWKHU 7KH IRXUZRPDQ WZRPDQ MXU\ GHn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nV WHVWLPRQ\ ZDV UHDG ,Q KLV WHVWLPRQ\ 6SLNHV VDLG KH GLGQnW VWDUW WKH ILUH WKDW NLOOHG KLV JUDQGIDWKHU DQG LPSOLHG WKDW $UWDQ]LH +XPSKUH\ KLV DXQW ZKR DOVR OLYHG DW WKH DSDUWPHQW PD\ KDYH VWDUWHG LW 6SLNHV VDLG WKDW KH DQG KLV DXQW KDG EHHQ GULQNLQJ DQG VPRNLQJ FUDFN FRn FDLQH WKH QLJKW WKH ILUH VWDUWHG 2QFH WKH\ KDG UXQ RXW RI URFNV +XPn SKUH\ ZDQWHG WR JHW PRUH EXW WKH\ GLGQnW KDYH DQ\ PRQH\ +H VDLG +XPn SKUH\ ZDQWHG WR EXP WKH KRXVH GRZQ 6HH *8,/7< RD SDJH %

PAGE 273

*8,/7< &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% WR JHW PRQH\ IURP WKH LQVXUDQFH fOLNH ODVW WLPHf 6SLNHV VDLG WKHUH ZDV D UXPRU FLUFXODWLQJ WKDW +XPn SKUH\ KDG SODQQHG D ILUH IRU WKDW UHDn VRQ RQ DQRWKHU RFFDVLRQ %XW ODVW ZHHN +XPSKUH\ WHVWLILHG RWKHUZLVH 6KH VDLG 6SLNHV VWDUWHG WKH DSDUWPHQW ILUH EHFDXVH KH WKRXJKW KLV JUDQGIDWKHU ZDV WKHUH KDYLQJ VH[ ZLWK WKH \RXQJHU 6SLNHVf H[ZLIH 6KH VDLG KH OLW KLV JUDQGIDn WKHUfV GRRU WDEOH WHOHYLVLRQ DQG D FRXFK RQ ILUH 6SLNHVf DWWRUQH\ $VVLVWDQW 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU 6XVDQ :HKOEXUJ VDLG VKH ZLOO DSSHDO WKH FRQYLFWLRQ :H IHOW WKHUH ZDV QRW VXIILFLHQW HYLGHQFH WR FRQYLFW EH\RQG D UHDVRQn DEOH GRXEW DQG ,fP GLVDSSRLQWHG WKDW WKH MXU\ GLG QRW DJUHH ZLWK XV :HKOEXUJ VDLG 7KH WULDO KDG EHHQ SRVWSRQHG D ZHHN EHFDXVH WKH GHIHQVHfV ZLWQHVV D FKHPLVW IURP 2FDOD ZKR LQYHVWLJDWn HG WKH HYLGHQFH ZDV RXW RI VWDWH XQWLO :HGQHVGD\

PAGE 274

7+856'$< 2&72%(5 &DOO %R[ 6WDWH 'HDWKV :KDWnV +DSSHQLQJ 7+( )/25,'$ 7,0W81,21 )/25,'$ 0DQfV ORVW %\ /DUU\ 6FKQHOO WXUI PLLZ *$,1(69,//; f§ $ GLVSXWH EHWZHHQ D QXQ DQG ,QV JUDQGIDWKHU 'LDO OHG WR D IDWDO ILUH P )HEUXDU\ D DV SURPSWHG E\ WKH \RXQJ PDQ V VXVSLFLRQ WKDW KLV H[ ZLIH ZDV LQ EHG ZLWK WKH HOGHU PDQ WKH GHDG PDQ f! GDXJKWHU WROG D MXU\ \HVWHUGD\ 7KH WHVWLPRQ\ FDPH IURP $UWDQ]LH +XPSKUH\ DV LQ DO EHJDQ RI KHU QHSKHZ )UDQN /HH 6SLNHV OU RQ D ILUVW GHJUHH PXUGHU FKDUJH LQ WKH GHDWK ,Q OLUH RI )UDQN 6SLNHV 7KH HOGHU 6SLNHV R OLO 1 :DOGR 5RDG GLHG ORYH FLWHG LQ JUDQGIDWKHUfV GHDWK RI KXPV VHYHUDO ZHHNV DIWHU EHLQJ SXOOHG IURP WKHLU VKRZHG WKDW KH ZDV DORQH LQ KLV EHGURRP 6SLNSV FRQ VWDUWHG EXW KH VDLG IURP KLV FORVHG URRP OKDW 6SLNHV IODPLQJ KRPH )HE OLQXHG KLV FRPPRWLRQ 0V +XPSKUH\ VDLG 7KH FRQ ZDVQnW JRLQJ WR GR DQ\ KDUP :KHQ 6SLNHV OLJKWHG WKH 7KH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV ZKR LV IHHW WDOO DQG QLFN GLHW FRPPXWnG GHVSLWH WKH JUDQGIDWKHU V FDOO IRU TXLHW NHURVHQH ZLWK D IODPLQJ SDSHU VKH UDQ OR D FRQYH QDPHG 3HH :HHf DOVR LV FKDUJHG ZLWK DUVRQ VR KH FRXOG JHO VRPH VOHHS VKH VDLG QLHQFH VWRUH DQG FDOOHG WKH SROLFH 0V +XPSKUH\ WHVWLILHG WKDW VKH KHU IDWKHU DQG KHU )LQDOO\ ZKLOH VKH ZDV ZDVKLQJ KHU KDLU 6SLNHV WRRN 6SLNHVn GHIHQVH ZDV SRVWSRQHG XQWLO QH[W :HGQHVGD\ QHSKHZ VKDUHG WKH VPDOO DSDUWPHQW ZKHUH WKH LQFL D FDQ RI NHURVHQH XVHG IRU KHDOLQJ WKH DSDUWPHQW DQG DW WKH UHTXHVW RI 6SLNHVn GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\ DIWHU SURVH f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f

PAGE 275

0DQ WKRXJKW JUDQGIDWKHU ZLWQ H[ZLIH ZRPDQ VD\V )URP 3DJH %f :HGQHVGD\ %XW GXULQJ FURVV H[DPLQDWLRQ VKH UHSHDWHGO\ DVNHG LI 0V +XPSKUH\ KDG WDNHQ DQ\ GUXJV WKH QLJKW KHU IDWWLHU ZDV NLOOHG DQG LI VKH ZDV RQ GUXJV RU DOFRKRO GXULQJ KHU WHVWLPRQ\ \HVn WHUGD\ 0V +XPSKUH\ VRPHWLPHV FULHG FORVHG KHU H\HV RU UHVWHG KHU KHDG RQ KHU KDQGV GXULQJ KHU WHVWLPRQ\ 6KH GHQLHG XVLQJ GUXJV RU DOFRKRO EHIRUH WKH ILUH RU EHIRUH WKH WULDO %XW VKH VDLG WKH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV ZDV VPRNLQJ FUDFN EHIRUH WKH ILUH :KHQ SUHVVHG DERXW GHWDLOV RI WKH QLJKW WLHU IDWKHU ZDV EXUQHG VKH VDLG WR 0V :HKOEXUJ :KDW ZHUH \RX GRLQJ ZKHQ \RXU IDWKHU GLHG ,W ZDV QRW FOHDU ZKHWKHU 0V +XPSKUH\ NQHZ WKDW 0V :HKOEXUJnV IDWKHU GLHG ODVW PRQWK IRUFLQJ D SRVWSRQHPHQW RI WKH WULDO $IWHU D EULHI SDXVH FURVVH[DPLQDn WLRQ FRQWLQXHG

PAGE 276

7OfH -IORULW-D &LPH6+QLRQ -DFNVRQYLOOH 7KXUVGD\ 2FWREHU -XU\ FRQYLFWV PDQ RI VHWWLQJ IDWDO ILUH %\ /DUU\ 6FKQHOO 6WDII ZULWHU *$,1(69,//( f§ $ *DLQHVYLOOH PDQ ZDV IRXQG JXLOW\ \HVWHUGD\ RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG DUVRQ IRU EXUQLQJ KLV JUDQGIDWKHU OR GHDWK UOXULQJ D UDJH RI MHDORXV\ )UDQN /HH 6SLNHV -U 1 ( :DOGR 5RDG ZDV FRQYLFWHG RI VHWn WLQJ D ILUH LQ WKH DSDUWPHQW ZKHUH KH OLYHG ZLWK KLV JUDQGIDWKHU )UDQN 6SLNHV DQG KLV DXQW $UWDQ]LH +XPSKUH\ $ ZLWQHVV WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH \RXQJHU 6SLNHV ZDV DQJU\ EHn FDXVH KH EHOLHYHG KLV H[ZLIH ZDV LQ EHG ZLWK KLV JUDQGIDWKHU VR KH GRXVHG WKH DSDUWPHQW ZLWK NHURn VHQH DQG VHW LW RQ ILUH -XGJH (O]LH 6DQGHUV VHQWHQFHG 6SLNHV WR OLIH LQ SULVRQ ZLWK PLQLn PXP \HDUV IRU WKH PXUGHU FRQn YLFWLRQ DQG \HDUV IRU WKH DUVRQ FRQYLFWLRQ 6SLNHVn DWWRUQH\ $VVLVWDQW 3XEOLF 'HIHQGHU 6XVDQ :HKOEXUJ FRPn SODLQHG WKDW QXPHURXV DQG UHSHWLn WLRXV SKRWRJUDSKV RI WKH DXWRSV\ RI WKH JUDQGIDWKHU ZHUH XQIDLUO\ SUHn VHQWHG WR WKH MXU\ 6KH VDLG VKH ZLOO DSSHDO IRU D QHZ WULDO ([SHUW ZLWQHVVHV FDOOHG E\ $VVLVn WDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ +DUULV 7RELQ VXSSRUWHG 0V +XPSKUH\nV WHVWLPRn Q\ WKDW NHURVHQH ZDV QRW VSLOOHG EXW WKURZQ RQWR WKH IORRU DQG HOVHn ZKHUH LQ WKH DSDUWPHQW 0V +XPSKUH\ VDLG 6SLNHV ZDV DQJU\ EHFDXVH KH EHOLHYHG KLV H[ ZLIH ZDV KDYLQJ VH[ ZLWK ,QV JUDQGIDWKHU DQG HYHQ DOWHU WKH HOn GHU 6SLNHV RSHQHG KLV GRRU WR VKRZ KH ZDV DORQH WKH JUDQGVRQ ZDV QRW DSSHDVHG :KLOH VPRNLQJ FUDFN FRFDLQH LQ WKH OLYLQJ URRP KH PDGH D FRPn PRWLRQ XQWLO KLV JUDQGIDWKHU FDOOHG RXW WR VWRS WKH QRLVH VKH WHVWLILHG :KLOH 0V +XPSKUH\ ZDV ZDVKn LQJ KHU KDLU VKH VDZ 6SLNHV WDNH WKH WZRJDOORQ FDQ RI NHURVHQH DWP EHJLQ GRXVLQJ WKH GRRU WKH KDOO DQG IXUQLWXUH VKH VDLG 7KHQ KH WULHG WR GUDLQ PRUH NHURVHQH IURP D KHDWHU VKH VDLG 6KH WHVWLILHG WKDW VKH ZDUQHG KHU JUDQGIDWKHU EXW KH FDOOHG EDFN IURP KLV URRP WKDW 6SLNHV ZRXOGQnW GR DQ\WKLQJ KDUPIXO 7KH HOGHU 6SLNHV ZDV UHVFXHG IURP WKH EXUQn LQJ DSDUWPHQW EXW ZDV EDGO\ EXUQHG +H GLHG VHYHUDO ZHHNV ODn WHU

PAGE 277

6OXJ 63,.(6 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 6+$5, 'DWH r r r 6+$5,r r r $ 6(9(10(0%(5 -85< /,67(16 72 23(1,1* $5*80(176 $1' 7(67,021< 7+,6 $)7(51221 ,1 7+( &$6( 2) $ *$,1(69,//( 0$1 $&&86(' 2) 085'(5,1* +,6 *5$1')$7+(5 $1' %851,1* '2:1 +,6 +20( %87 $6 1(:6 ),9(n6 $0< 0$'(5 7(//6 <28 7+( &$6( ,6 127 &/($5 &87 $1' 0$1< 48(67,216 5(0$,1 3.* 62&

PAGE 278

3.* 62& f )5$1.,( /(( 63,.(6 3/($'(' ,112&(17 72 &+$5*(6 +( 085'(5(' +,6 *5$1')$7+(5 $1' 6(7 ),5( 72 +,6 *5$1')$7+(5f6 +286( %87 67$7( $77251(<6 $5(1n7 %8<,1* 63,.(6n 3/($ $1' 7+(< )((/ 237,0,67,& 7+( 75,$/ :,// (1' ,1 $ &219,&7,21 2Q 7RELQ & +DUULV 7RELQ 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ FDQ WHOO \RX WKDW ZH KDYH KDG DQ H[SHUW WHVWLI\ WKDW LQ KHU RSLQLRQ WKLV ZDV DQ LQWHQWLRQDOO\VHW ILUH 8K KDYH KDG D ZLWQHVV WHVWLI\ WKDW VKH VDZ WKH GHIHQGDQW LQWHQWLRQDOO\ VHW LW 6R KDYH ERWK H\HZLWQHVV WHVWLPRQ\ DQG H[SHUW WHVWLPRQ\ WKDW EDFNV XS WKDW H\HZLWQHVV WHVWLPRQ\ 63,.(6 6$<6 +( $&&,'(17$//< .12&.(' 29(5 $ .(526(1( +($7(5 :+,&+ 67$57(' 7+( ),5( 1(,*+%256 6$< 7+(
PAGE 279

2Q 0DGHU 2Q ORFDWLRQ DW DSWf & $P\ 1DGHU 7+( 67$7( $5*8(6 7+$7 )5$1.,( /(( $1' +,6 *5$1')$7+(5 ','1n7 *(7 $/21* <(7 2n1($/ 6$<6 )5$1.,( /(( $1' +,6 *5$1')$7+(5 :(5( /,9,1* :,7+ ($&+ 27+(5 +(5( ,1 7+,6 $3$570(17 ),9( 72 6,; 0217+6 %()25( 7+( ,1&,'(17 2&&855(' $1' 1(,*+%256 6$< 7+$7 12 0$77(5 :+2 ,6 5(63216,%/( 7+( 3(5621 :+2 ',' 6(7 7+( +286( 21 ),5( 6+28/' %( 381,6+(' $0< 0$'(5 1(:6

PAGE 280

6OXJ 63,.(6 085'(5 $QFKRU 6+$5, 'DWH 0DGHU 92JUDSKLF 6SLNHV JXLOW\f & $P\ 0DGHU /,9( n $ODFKXD &R &RXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH 92YLGHR FRXUWURRP VFHQHVf EDFN t IRUWK UHDFWLRQ VKRWV RQ WDOHQWf rrr6+$5,r rr 7+( 75,$/ ,6 29(5 )25 $ *$,1(69,//( 0$1 $&&86(' 2) .,//,1* +,6 *5$1')$7+(5 $1' %851,1* +,6 +286( $ -85< +$1'(' '2:1 $ &219,&7,21 7+,6 $)7(51221 $1' 1(:6 ),9(n6 $0< 0$'(5 -2,16 86 /,9( )520 7+( $/$&+8$ &2817< &2857+286( :,7+ $ 5(3257 $0< 7+,6 75,$/ &(57$,1/< +$' ,76 61$*6 &$1 <28 7(// 86 025( $%287 )5$1.,( /(( 63,.(6n &219,&7,21"
PAGE 281

0DGHU 92 JUDSKLF SKRWR 0DGHUf & $P\ 0DGHU /,9( $ODFKXD &R &RXUWKRXVH *DLQHVYLOOH
PAGE 282

Â’ &/$,06 6(/)'()(16( 0HFKDQLFfV PXUGHU WULDO EHJLQV A 63(1&(5 :(,1(5 &KDUOLH 6WDQOH\ ULJKW OLVWHQV WR WHVWLPRQ\ LQ ELV ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU WULDO :HGQHVGD\ $W OHIW LV DWWRUQH\ :LOOLDP &HUYRQH RQH RI ELV FRXUWDSSRLQWHG GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V %\ 0,7&+ 67$&< DQG 720 /<216 6XQ VWDII ZULWHUV &KDUOLH 6WDQOH\ VKRW DQG NLOOHG D FRZRUNHU DQG WKHQ FDOPO\ ZHQW RXW WR GLQQHU WKDW HYHQLQJ ZLWK KLV H[ ZLIH DQG VWHSGDXJKWHU D SURVHFXWRU LQ 6WDQOH\fV ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU WULDO WROG MXURUV :HGQHVGD\ &KLHI $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ -RKQ &DUOLQ LV WU\LQJ WR VKRZ WKDW WKH \HDUROG +DZWKRUQH WUXFN PHn FKDQLF KDG SODQQHG WR NLOO $OH[ 3HWH 3LSSLQV D \HDUROG FRZRUNHU ZKR KDG EHHQ WU\LQJ WR FROOHFW D 6 GHEW IURP KLP &DUOLQ PXVW SURYH SUHPHGLWDWLRQ WR JHW D FRQYLFWLRQ RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUGHU 3LSSLQVf GHFRPSRVLQJ ERG\ ZDV IRXQG LQ KLV SLFNXS WUXFN RQ 6HSW ,Q D ZRRGHG DUHD QHDU (DUOHWRQ RII &RXQW\ 5RDG $ 7KH VKRRWLQJ WRRN SODFH QLQH GD\V HDUOLHU *UHJRU\ 0F0DKRQ RQH RI 6WDQn OH\nV WZR FRXUWDSSRLQWHG GHIHQVH ODZ\HUV FRQWHQGV WKDW 6WDQOH\ VKRW DQG NLOOHG 3LSSLQV ,Q VHOIGHIHQVH DIn WHU 3LSSLQV WKUHDWHQHG KLP ZLWK D VDZHGRII VKRWJXQ ,Q KLV RSHQLQJ VWDWHPHQW 0F0DKRQ UHPLQGHG WKH AMU\ WKDW 6WDQOH\ LV WKH RQO\ RQH DOLYH ZKR NQRZV ZKDW UHDOO\ KDSSHQHG WKDW GD\ f:KDW \RX ZRQnW KHDU IURP ZLWn QHVVHVf ,V WHVWLPRQ\ DERXW ZKDW KDSSHQHG DW WKH VFHQH 0F0DKRQ VDLG *UHJRU\ 5DQGDOO ZKR ZRUNHG ZLWK 6WDQOH\ DQG 3LSSLQV DW &LUFOH & 7UXFNLQJ LQ 3XWQDP &RXQW\ VDLG 6WDQOH\ KDG WDONHG DERXW QRW SD\LQJ WKH GHEW DQG EDG PHQWLRQHG RQFH WKDW KH ZRXOG UDWKHU NLOO 3LSSLQV WKDQ SD\ KLP 2Q WKH GD\ RI WKH NLOOLQJ 5DQGDOO VDLG 6WDQOH\ FDOOHG DQG DVNHG WKDW KH PHHW KLP LQ 2UDQJH +HLJKWV :KHQ 5DQGDOO DUULYHG KH VDZ 6WDQ 6HH 75,$/ RQ SDJH %

PAGE 283

75,$/ &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% OH\ GLLYLQJ 3LSSLQVf WUXFN DQG IROn ORZHG KLP WR WKH ZRRGHG DUHD ZKHUH 6WDQOH\ SDUNHG 2Q WKH ULGH EDFN WR 6WDQOH\fV PRn ELOH KRPH 6WDQOH\ DGPLWWHG NLOOLQJ 3LSSLQV 5DQGDOO WHVWLILHG :KHQ DVNHG KRZ PDQ\ WLPHV KH VKRW 3LSn SLQV 6WDQOH\ KHOG XS WKUHH ILQJHUV 7KDW DIWHUQRRQ 6WDQOH\ ZHQW WR VHH KLV VWHSGDXJKn WHU DQG H[ZLIH -RDQQH 'UDNH DW WKHLU PRELOH KRPH ZKHUH KH IL[HG KLV VWHSn GDXJKWHUfV FDU 'UDNH WHVWLILHG :HGQHVGD\ VKH GLGQfW QRWLFH DQ\n WKLQJ XQXVXDO DERXW 6WDQOH\ GXUn LQJ WKH YLVLW ZKLFK LQFOXGHG GLQQHU DW D UHVWDXUDQW 6KH VDLG VKH fSLWFKHG D ILWf WR JHW KLP WR JR WR 3HQQV\OYDQLD WR UHWULHYH D WUDYHO WUDLOHU VKH KDG EHHQ DZDUGn HG LQ WKHLU GLYRUFH VHWWOHPHQW 6WDQOH\ ZDV UHOXFWDQW WR WDNH WKH WULS LQ SDUW EHFDXVH RI D VHULRXV KHDUW FRQGLWLRQ WKDW KDG DOUHDG\ IRUFHG KLP WR UHWLUH IURP KLV IRUPHU MRE DV D ORQJGLVWDQFH WUXFNHU +LV H[ZLIH GHVFULEHG KLP DV VRIW VSRNHQ HYHQWHPSHUHG DQG QRW DW DOO SURQH WR YLROHQFH 6WDQOH\ ZDV DUUHVWHG WZR GD\V DIn WHU WKH VKRRWLQJ DW D 5LGJHODQG 6& KRVSLWDO +H KDG VXIIHUHG D KHDUW DWn WDFN ZKLOH KDXOLQJ WKH WUDLOHU IURP 3HQQV\OYDQLD DFFRUGLQJ WR WHVWLPRQ\ 3DUW RI :HGQHVGD\fV WHVWLPRQ\ IRn FXVHG RQ WKH VDZHGRII VKRWJXQ ZKLFK ZDV IRXQG XQGHU WKH VHDW RI 3LSSLQVf SLFNXS WUXFN $ODFKXD &RXQn W\ 6KHULIIV ,QYHVWLJDWRU 'LFN 6FXOO\ WHVWLILHG WKDW WKH ZHDSRQ ZDV UXVWHG DQG FRYHUHG ZLWK GXVW DQG GLUW ZKHQ KH UHWULHYHG LW IURP WUXFN EXW VDLG KH GLG QRW FRQGXFW WHVWV WR VHH LI WKH ZHDSRQ ZRXOG ILUH 7KH WULDO ZLOO FRQWLQXH WKLV PRUQn LQJ EHIRUH &LUFXLW -XGJH (O]LH 6 6DQGHUV

PAGE 284

A L _6 :RUNHU JHWV \HDUV LQ NLOOLQJ %\ 0,7&+ 67$&< 6XQ VWDII ZULWHU +DZWKRUQH WUXFN PHFKDQLF &KDUn OLH 6WDQOH\ ZDV VHQWHQFHG WR \HDUV LQ SULVRQ )ULGD\ IRU WKH /DERU 'D\ PXUGHU RI D IRUPHU FRZRUNHU 7KH FLUFXLW FRXUW MXU\ GHOLEHUDWHG DERXW L KRXUV EHIRUH ILQGLQJ 6WDQn OH\ JXLOW\ RI VHFRQGGHJUHH PXUGHU 3URVHFXWRUV ZHUH WU\LQJ WR JHW D FRQYLFWLRQ RI ILUVWGHJUHH PXUn GHU EXW ZHUH XQVXFFHVVIXO LQ SURYLQJ WKDW 6WDQOH\ KDG SODQQHG WKH NLOOLQJ 6WDQOH\ FODLPHG WKDW $OH[ 3HWH 3LSSLQV KDG JUDEEHG D VDZHGRII VKRWJXQ IURP WKH VHDW RI D SLFNXS WUXFN MXVW EHIRUH 6WDQOH\ VKRW KLP WZLFH ZLWK D FDOLEHU KDQGJXQ 3LSSLQV FDPH WR 6WDQOH\fV +DZn WKRUQH PRELOH KRPH RQ WKH PRUQLQJ RI 6HSW WR WU\ WR FROOHFW 6WDQOH\ RZHG KLP DFFRUGLQJ WR WHVWLn PRQ\ GXULQJ WKH IRXUGD\ WULDO 'HVSLWH SOHDV IRU OHQLHQF\ IURP GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V DQG IDPLO\ PHPn EHUV -XGJH (O]LH 6 6DQGHUV IROORZHG WKH \HDU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI f &KLHI $VVLVWDQW 6WDWH $WWRUQH\ -RKQ O &DUOLQ LQ VHQWHQFLQJ 6WDQOH\ 6WDWH ^ VHQWHQFLQJ JXLGHOLQHV FDOOHG IRU EH r WZHHQ VHYHQ DQG \HDUV LQ SULVRQ W 'HIHQVH DWWRUQH\V *UHJRU\ 0F0D W KRQ DQG :LOOLDP &HUYRQH DVNHG WKDW I 6DQGHUV WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW 6WDQOH\fV M DJH DQG SHULORXV KHDOWKf GXH WR D KHDUW FRQGLWLRQ &HUYRQH WROG WKH MXGJH WKDW 6WDQOH\ ZKR KDV QR SULRU A FULPLQDO UHFRUG PD\ QRW HYHQ OLYH r 6HH 9(5',&7 RQ SDJH %

PAGE 285

9(5',&7 &RQWLQXHG IURP SDJH ,% WKURXJK WKH PDQGDWRU\ WKUHH \HDUV KH PXVW VSHQG LQ SULVRQ IRU XVLQJ D ILUHDUP LQ WKH FULPH FDQnW IDXOW WKH MXGJH EHFDXVH WKH MXGJH GRHV ZKDW KH KDV WR GR LQ KLV RZQ PLQG VDLG 0F0DKRQ :H ZRXOG KDYH OLNHG WR KDYH VHHQ VRPHn WKLQJ EHWWHU WR KLV 6WDQOH\fVf HQG 6WDQOH\ KLV H[ZLIH -RDQQH 'UDNH DQG RWKHU IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZKR VWRRG ZLWK KLP ZHSW DV WKH\ OLVn WHQHG WR GHIHQVH DWWRUQH\V DQG WKHQ DVNHG 6DQGHUV IRU OHQLHQF\ +HnV D YHU\ JRRG PDQ YHU\ JHQn WOH MXVW OLNH WROG \RX LQ P\ WHVWLPRQ\ VDLG 'UDNH DV VKH VWRRG ZLWK DQ DUP DURXQG KHU H[KXVEDQG ,Q UHVSRQVH WR WKH SOHDV &DUOLQ VDLG 0U 6WDQOH\nV VWDWH RI KHDOWK LV D ORW EHWWHU WKDQ 0U 3LSSLQVf 7KH SURVHFXWRU KDG FDOOHG WKH NLOOn LQJ fFROG DQG FDOFXODWHG WKLQN WKH MXU\ GHOLEHUDWHG IDLUO\ DQG WKRURXJKO\ DQG WKLQN WKH YHUn GLFW WKH\ UHDFKHG ZDV IDLUf KH VDLG FDOOLQJ WKH SULVRQ VHQWHQFH MXVW &DUOLQ VDLG KH ZDVQnW VXUSULVHG WKH MXU\ GLG QRW ILQG WKDW 6WDQOH\ SODQQHG WKH PXUGHU GHVSLWH WHVWLPRQ\ IURP ZLWQHVVHV ZKR VDLG KH KDG WDONHG DERXW NLOOLQJ 3LSSLQV 3URYLQJ SUHn PHGLWDWLRQ LV GLIILFXOW &DUOLQ VDLG HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ WKHUH DUH QR H\HZLWn QHVVHV WR WKH NLOOLQJ $IWHU WKH VKRRWLQJ 6WDQOH\ ORDGHG 3LSSLQVn ERG\ LQ WKH SLFNXS WUXFN GURYH LW WR D UHPRWH DUHD QHDU (DUOHWRQ DQG SDUNHG LW DPRQJ WKH WUHHV DFFRUGLQJ WR WHVWLPRQ\ +H WROG RQO\ D FRZRUNHU DERXW WKH VKRRWLQJ 6KHULIInV GHSXWLHV GLVFRYn HUHG WKH WUXFN DQG WKH ERG\ QLQH GD\V ODWHU 6WDQOH\ ZDV DUUHVWHG DIWHU EHLQJ UHOHDVHG IURP D 5LGJHODQG 6& KRVn SLWDO ZKHUH KH ZDV WDNHQ ZKHQ KH VXIIHUHG D KHDUW DWWDFN ZKLOH KDXOLQJ D WUDYHOWUDLOHU EDFN WR )ORULGD IURP 3HQQV\OYDQLD +H OHIW RQ WKH WULS WKH GD\ DIWHU WKH VKRRWLQJ DW WKH XUJLQJ RI KLV H[ZLIH ZKR KDG EHHQ DZDUGn HG WKH WUDLOHU LQ WKHLU GLYRUFH VHWWOHPHQW DFFRUGLQJ WR KHU WHVWLPRQ\ 0F0DKRQ VDLG 6WDQOH\ KDG UHn IXVHG WR DFFHSW D SOHD DJUHHPHQW WKDW ZRXOG KDYH VHHQ KLP SOHDG QR FRQWHVW WR VHFRQGGHJUHH PXUGHU DQG HQG XS ZLWK D \HDU SULVRQ VHQn WHQFH 6WDQOH\ VDLG KH ZDQWHG WKH FDVH WR JR WR MXU\ EHFDXVH KH FRXOG QRW MXVWLI\ SXWWLQJ KLPVHOI LQ MDLO IRU D FULPH KH IHOW KH GLG FRPPLW VDLG 0F0DKRQ &RUUHFWLRQ XLQZL 7KH ODVW VHQWHQFH RI D VWRU\ ,Q 6DWXUGD\fV 6XQ DERXW D PXUGHU WULDO YHUGLFW VKRXOG KDYH UHDG 'HIHQGDQW &KDUOLHf 6WDQOH\ VDLG KH ZDQWHG WKH FDVH WR JR WR MXU\ EHFDXVH KH FRXOG QRW MXVWLI\ SXWWLQJ KLPVHOI ,Q -DLO IRU D FULPH KH IHOW KH GLG QRW FRPPLW VDLG GHn IHQVH DWWRUQH\ *UHJRU\f 0F0DKRQf 7KH VHFRQG QRW ZDV ,QDGYHUWHQWO\ OHIW RXW RI 6DWXUGD\nV VWRU\

PAGE 286

6OXJ 67$1/(< 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 6+$-4 'DWH r r r 6+$5,r r r $ 085'(5 75,$/ $/0267 81'(5:$< ,1 $1 $/$&+8$ &2817< &28575220 rrr-4rrr ())2576 72 '(/$< +($5,1*6 7+( ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 75,$/ 2) $ +$:7+251( 0(&+$1,& ,6 6(7 72 %(*,1 7202552: &+$5/,( 67$1/(< ,6 $&&86(' 2) 7+( 6+227,1* '($7+ 2) $/(; 3(7( 3,33,16 21 6(37(0%(5 ),)7+ 7:2 :((.6 /$7(5 32/,&( )281' 3,33,16n '(&20326,1* %2'< ,1 +,6 3,&. 83 758&. ,1 $ :22'(' $5($ 1($5 ($5/721 -RKQ &DUOLQf -RKQ &DUOLQ 3URVHFXWRU 3LSSLQf DQG 0U 6WDQOH\ ZHUH HPSOR\HHV DW &LUFOH & 7UXFNLQJ IURP +DZWKRUQH 7KH\ ZHUH FRZRUNHUV ,WnV WKH 6WDWHnV EHOLHI WKDW 0U 3LSSLQ KDG OHQW 0U 6WDQOH\ VRPH PRQH\ DQG 0U 6WDQOH\ ZDV QRW SD\LQJ WKH PRQH\ EDFN DQG WKDW OHG WR VRPH IULFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR DQG WKDW IULFWLRQ XOWLPDWHO\ HVFDODWHG WR WKH NLOOLQJ RI 0U 3LSSLQ 4XDWWOHEDXPf YRYLGHR FRXUWURRPf %87 67$1/(< &/$,06 +( ),5(' ,1 6(/) '()(16( 21/< :+(1 3,33,1 7+5($7(1(' 72 .,// +,0 ,) +( ','1n7 5(3$< 7+( 021(< '()(16( $77251(< *5(*25< 0&0$+21 6$<6 67$1/(< '2(61n7 +$9( $ &5,0,1$/ +,6725< *UHJRU\ 0F0DKRQf *UHJRU\ 0F0DKRQ 'HIHQVH $WWRUQH\ +HnV D ORQJWHUP ORQJKDXO WUXFN GULYHU WKDW KDG KDG WZR KHDUW DWWDFNV VR KH ZDV UHGXFHG WR EHLQJ D PHFKDQLF DQG KHnV ZRUNHG IRU WKH &URVE\nV EHIRUH DW &LUFOH &

PAGE 287

7UXFNLQJ DQG DV D UHVXOW RI WKDW KH ZDV D PHFKDQLF +H KDV QR FULPLQDO KLVWRU\ ZKDWVRHYHU DQG WKLV ZDV WKH ILUVW WLPH WKDW KHnV EHHQ LQ MDLO %87 0&0$+21 6$<6 3,33,1 ',' +$9( $ 5(&25' :+,&+ ,1&/8'(' )285 '8, &219,&7,216 23(1,1* $5*80(176 ,1 7+( 75,$/ 6+28/' %(*,1 7202552: 0251,1*

PAGE 288

:8)779 6OXJ 67$1/(< 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 3$76+$5, 'DWH r r r3$7r r r *22' (9(1,1* -85256 ,1 7+( ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 75,$/ 2) <($52/' &+$5/,( 67$1/(< :,// +($5 $ 7$3( :+,&+ $//(*('/< &217$,16 $ 085'(5 &21)(66,21 r r r 6+$5,r r r $/$&+8$ &2817< -8'*( (/=,( 6$1'(56 6(17 -85256 +20( )25 7+( '$< $1' 7+(1 58/(' 7+$7 7+(< :,// +($5 7+( 7$3( '()(16( $77251(<6 6$< -85256 6+28/' 127 +($5 ,7 %87 3526(&87256 6$< ,7 &217$,16 &58&,$/ (9,'(1&( 72 3529( 67$1/(< 085'(5(' +,6 &2:25.(5 $/(; 3(7( 3,33,16 32/,&( )281' 3,33,1n6 '(&20326(' %2'< ,1 $ 3,&.83 758&. 1($5 25$1*( +(,*+76 /$67 6(37(0%(5 21( :,71(66 )25 7+( 3526(&87,21 7(67,),(' +( :25.(' :,7+ %27+ 0(1 $7 &,5&/( & 758&.,1* $1' 7+$7 67$1/(< 72/' +,0 +( +$' .,//(' 3,33,1 27+(5 :,71(66(6 6$,' 67$1/(< :$6 $ &$/0 62)7632.(1 0$1 :,7+ 12 9,2/(17 7(1'(1&,(6

PAGE 289

:8)779 6OXJ 67$1/(< 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 686$1 'DWH rrr686$1rrr $ 7$3( 3526(&87256 6$< &217$,16 $ 085'(5 &21)(66,21 3/$<6 ,1 7+( 75,$/ 2) $ +$:7+251( 0$1 758&. 0(&+$1,& &+$5/(6 67$1/(< )$&(6 21( &2817 2) ),567 '(*5(( 085'(5 )25 +,6 $//(*(' 52/( ,1 7+( '($7+ 2) &2:25.(5 $/(; 3,33,16 3526(&87256 $5( &+$//(1*,1* 7+( 7(67,021< 2) $127+(5 &2:25.(5f§5$< )8//(5f§:+26( 7(67,021< 0$< +(/3 67$1/(< -RKQ &DUOLQf -RKQ &DUOLQ &KLHI $VVW 6WDWH $WW\ *UHJ 0F0DKRQf *UHJ 0F0DKRQ 'HIHQVH $WWRUQH\ 0U )XOOHU KDG PDGH D VWDWHPHQW ZKLFK WKH 6WDWH WKRXJKW ZDV LPSRUWDQW WR EULQJ EHIRUH WKH MXU\ :KHQ KH WRRN WKH VWDQG KH ZDIIOHG RQ WKDW VWDWHPHQW DQG ZH KDG UHTXHVWHG WKDW KH EH GHFODUHG DQ DGYHUVH ZLWQHVV 7KH 6WDWHnV DUJXLQJ FLUFXPVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH DQG WKHQ WKHUHnV DQ HYLGHQWLDU\ UXOH RQ WKDW 6R WKH\ GRQnW KDYH DQ\ H\HZLWQHVVHV ZH GRQnW KDYH DQ\ H\HZLWQHVVHV ,W ZRXOG ZRUN ERWK ZD\V REYLRXVO\ :H ZRXOG WKLQN DQ H\HZLWQHVV ZRXOG VXSSRUW RXU FDVH 7KH\ REYLRXVO\ WKLQN FRQWUDU\ $)7(5 )8//(5n6 7(67,021< -85256 *$7+(5(' $5281' $ 7$3( 5(&25'(5 72 /,67(1 72 7+( 7$3( 7+( 3526(&87,21 35(6(17(' $6 (9,'(1&( 7+( '()(16( 6+28/' 35(6(17 ,76 6,'( 2) 7+( &$6( 7202552:

PAGE 290

:8)779 6OXJ 67$1/(< 085'(5 75,$/ $QFKRU 686$16+$5, 'DWH rrr686$1rrr $ +$:7+251( 758&. 0(&+$1,& :,// 63(1' 83 72 ),)7((1 <($56 ,1 35,621 )25 7+( 085'(5 2) $ &2:25.(5 r r r6+$5,r r r $ -85< 7+,6 $)7(51221 )281' &+$5/(6 67$1/(< *8,/7< 2) 6(&21' '(*5(( 085'(5 67$1/(
PAGE 291

$33(1',; ( -8525 (;,7 32// ,I \RX FDUH WR SOHDVH WDNH D IHZ PLQXWHV WR DQVZHU WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ SUHVV FRYHUDJH RI WKH WULDO IRU ZKLFK \RX MXVW VHUYHG RQ WKH MXU\ 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLOO EH XVHG LQ D VWXG\ RQ WKH VXEMHFW RI FDPHUDV LQ FRXUWURRPV $OO UHVSRQVHV DUH DQRQ\PRXV 8VH WKH EDFN RI WKH SDJH LI QHFHVVDU\ ,I \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV \RX PD\ FRQWDFW WKH UHVHDUFKHU f 3OHDVH PDLO \RXU DQVZHUV WR 6KHUU\ $OH[DQGHU &ROOHJH RI -RXUQDOLVP :HLPHU +DOO 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH +RZ GR \RX IHHO DERXW WKH )ORULGD ODZ ZKLFK SHUPLWV QHZVSDSHU SKRWRJUDSKHUV DQG UDGLR DQG 79 UHSRUWHUV SURYLGHG WKH\ IROORZ FHUWDLQ JXLGHOLQHV WR EULQJ WKHLU HTXLSPHQW LQWR WKH FRXUWURRP" $ WKLQN LWnV D EDG LGHD DQG LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK WKH MXGLFLDO SURFHVV % WKLQN WKHUH DUH VRPH DGYDQWDJHV WR DOORZLQJ LW EXW VRPH GUDZEDFNV WRR & WKLQN LWnV D JRRG LGHD DQG KHOSV WKH SXEOLF XQGHUVWDQG WKH MXGLFLDO V\VWHP EHWWHU &RPPHQWV 'XULQJ WKH WULDO ZLWK ZKLFK \RX ZHUH LQYROYHG +RZ DZDUH ZHUH \RX RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI UHSRUWHUV DQG WKHLU HTXLSPHQW" $ KDUGO\ QRWLFHG WKH UHSRUWHUV RU WKHLU HTXLSPHQW % NQHZ WKH UHSRUWHUV DQG WKH HTXLSPHQW ZHUH WKHUH DQG VRPHWLPHV ZDV D OLWWOH GLVWUDFWHG E\ WKHLU SUHVHQFH & ZDV YHU\ DZDUH RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI UHSRUWHUV DQG WKHLU HTXLSPHQW DQG ZLVK WKH\ KDGQnW EHHQ LQ WKH FRXUWURRP &RPPHQWV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH WULDO ZLWK ZKLFK \RX ZHUH LQYROYHG $IWHU WKH WULDO

PAGE 292

D 'LG \RX UHDG WKH QHZVSDSHU FRYHUDJH"
PAGE 293

%,%/,2*5$3+< %RRNV $OWKHLGH 'DYLG &UHDWLQJ 5HDOLW\ +RZ 79 1HZV 'LVWRUWV (YHQWV %HYHUO\ +LOOV 6DJH 3XEOLFDWLRQV $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ $%$ 3URMHFW RQ 0LQLPXP 6WDQGDUGV IRU &ULPLQDO -XVWLFH 6WDQGDUGV 5HODWLQJ WR )DLU 7ULDO DQG )UHH 3UHVV 1HZ
PAGE 294

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
PAGE 295

-RKQVWRQH -RKQ (GZDUG 6ODZVNL DQG :LOOLDP %RZPDQ 7KH 1HZV 3HRSOH $ 6RFLRORJLFDO 3RUWUDLW RI $PHULFDQ -RXUQDOLVWV DQG 7KHLU :RUN 8UEDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ RI ,OOLQRLV 3UHVV .DQH 3HWHU 0XUGHU &RXUWV DQG WKH 3UHVV ,VVXHV LQ )UHH 3UHVV)DLU 7ULDO &DUERQGDOH 6RXWKHUQ ,OOLQRLV 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV /DVKQHU 0DULO\Q 7KH &KLOOLQJ (IIHFW LQ 79 1HZV ,QWLPLGDWLRQ E\ WKH 1L[RQ :KLWH +RXVH 1HZ
PAGE 296

6PDOO :LOOLDP 7R .LOO D 0HVVHQJHU 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV DQG WKH 5HDO :RUOG 1HZ
PAGE 297

$UWLFOHV LQ 3HULRGLFDOV DQG %RRNV $EHO -RKQ DQG 0LFKDHO :LUWK 1HZVSDSHU YV 79 &UHGLELOLW\ IRU /RFDO 1HZV -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f $EUDKDP +HQU\ 3UHVV )UHHGRP DQG )DLU 7ULDO DQG 3ULRU 5HVWUDLQW ,Q (UHHGRP DQG WKH &RXUW &LYLO 5LJKWV DQG /LEHUWLHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WK HG 1HZ
PAGE 298

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t 'HQQLV +XWFKLQVRQ &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV f $XGLR9LVXDO &RYHUDJH RQ 7ULDO LQ 6WDWHV 7KH 1HZV 0HGLD t WKH /DZ :LQWHU f %DEELH (DUO )LHOG 5HVHDUFK ,Q 7KH 3UDFWLFH RI 6RFLDO 5HVHDUFK WK HG %HOPRQW &$ :DGVZRUWK 3XEOLVKLQJ %DQW] &KDUOHV 6X]DQQH 0F&RUNOH DQG 5REHUWD %DDGH 7KH 1HZV )DFWRU\ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK -DQXDU\ f %DUEHU 6XVDQQD 7KH %LJ 'DQnV 5DSH 7ULDO $Q (PEDUUDVVPHQW IRU WKH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW $GYRFDWHV DQG WKH &RXUWV &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG WKH /DZ $SULO f &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUWnV 5HOXFWDQFH WR (QGRUVH 7HOHYLVHG 7ULDOV 7KH 6RXWKHUQ 6SHHFK &RPPXQLFDWLRQ -RXUQDO 6XPPHU f &RYHUDJH )DUHV 3RRUO\ $IWHU &KDQGOHU 1HZV 3KRWRJUDSKHU 0DUFK 7KH 3UREOHP RI 3UHMXGLFH $ 1HZ $SSURDFK WR $VVHVVLQJ WKH ,PSDFW RI &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV -XGLFDWXUH 'HFHPEHU-DQXDU\ f :LOOLDPV 7ULDO -XGJH 2IIHUV 1HZ 5HDVRQV IRU &DPHUD %DQ -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f

PAGE 299

%DUURQ -HURPH DQG & 7KRPDV 'LHQHV )UHH 3UHVV DQG )DLU 7ULDO ,Q +DQGERRN RI )UHH 6SHHFK DQG )UHH 3UHVV %RVWRQ /LWWOH %URZQ t &R %DUWOHWW +LJK &RXUW 3HUSHWXDWHV n0HGLHYDO $WPRVSKHUH RI 0\VWHU\n 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ ,QWHUFRP 1RYHPEHU %DVV 0DUWLQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULHQFH 7HOHYLVLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f 7HOHYLVLRQnV 'D\ LQ &RXUW 1HZ
PAGE 300

%UHFKQHU -RVHSK / 1HZV 0HGLD DQG WKH &RXUW ,Q )UHH t )DLU &RXUWURRP $FFHVV DQG WKH )DLUQHVV 'RFWULQH (G -RKQ .LWWURVV DQG .HQQHWK +DUZRRG 3KLODGHOSKLD $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU 3URIHVVLRQDO %URDGFDVW (GXFDWLRQ 5HSULQWHG IURP -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f )RO 5HSRUW 1R &ROXPELD 02 -XQH %UHHG :DUUHQ 6RFLDO &RQWURO LQ WKH 1HZVURRP $ )XQFWLRQDO $QDO\VLV 6RFLDO )RUFHV f %UHQQDQ 6D\V +H 'RHVQnW 7KLQN 5HKQTXLVW LV 2SSRVHG WR (OHFWURQLF &RYHUDJH RI 6XSUHPH &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ ,QWHUFRP )HEUXDU\ %XFKDQDQ 5D\PRQG %HUW 3U\RU 0LODQ 0HVNH DQG 'DYLG 6WUDZQ 7KH )ORULGD ([SHULPHQW 7ULDO $SULO f %XFNDOHZ -DPHV 1HZV (OHPHQWV t 6HOHFWLRQ E\ 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV (GLWRUV VORX[QDO RI 6[RDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f 7KH 5DGLR 1HZV *DWHNHHSHU DQG +LV 6RXUFHV -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ :LQWHU f &DPHUDV %DUUHG IURP 1HZ
PAGE 301

&KDQFH -HDQ &DPHUDV LQ &RXUW ,V 3UHVHQFH 3UHMXGLFLDO" )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 6HSWHPEHU2FWREHU f &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRP *R 2Q 7ULDO )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 2FWREHU f $ 'DYLG $PRQJ *ROLDWKV RQ WKH &KDQGOHU &DVH 7KH 4XLOO 6HSWHPEHU f 9LHZV &KDQJH 7RZDUG &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 6HSWHPEHU2FWREHU f &KULVWLDQV &OLIIRUG DQG -DPHV &DUH\ 7KH /RJLF DQG $LPV RI 4XDOLWDWLYH 5HVHDUFK ,Q 5HVHDUFK 0HWKRGV LQ 0DVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (G *XLGR 6WHPSHO DQG %UXFH :HVWOH\ (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 13UHQWLFH +DOO &RKHQ -HUHP\ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP DQG 'XH 3URFHVV $ 3URSRVDO IRU D 4XDOLWDWLYH 'LIIHUHQFH 7HVW :DVKLQJWRQ /DZ 5HYLHZ f &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV )DFH &UXFLDO 7HVW (GLWRU t 3XEOLVKHU 2FWREHU &UDLJ 5 6WHSKHQ &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRPV LQ )ORULGD -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ f &UDQEHUJ *LOEHUW :DUUHQ %XUJHUnV )OLPV\ &DVH &ROXPELD -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ -XO\$XJXVW f 'n$OHPEHUWH 7DOERW &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP /LWL JDW LRQ )DOO f /HW WKH 6XQVKLQH ,Q ,Q 0DVV 0HGLD DQG WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 7KH /HJDF\ RI WKH :DUUHQ
PAGE 302

'DYLV 1RUPDQ DQG &XUW 0DWWKHZV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 3XW 2XW WKH :HOFRPH 0DW7KDQNV %XW 1R 7KDQNV :DVKLQJWRQ -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ 0D\ f &XUUHQW -XO\$XJXVW f 'DYLV 5LFKDUG /LIWLQJ WKH 6KURXG 1HZV 0HGLD 3RUWUD\DO RI WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG WKH /DZ 2FWREHU f 'DZVRQ 0LWFKHOO DQG 5REHUW %HUQD\V %URDGFDVW 7ULDOV"
PAGE 303

(PHUVRQ 7KRPDV /HJDO )RXQGDWLRQV RI WKH 5LJKW WR .QRZ :DVKLQJWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ /DZ 4XDUWHUO\ 9RO 1XPEHU (VWORZ (GZDUG $ &DVH IRU &RXUWURRP &DPHUDV (GLWRU DQG 3XEOLVKHU -XQH ([FOXVLRQ RI 3UHVV 6HUYLFHV )URP 5DGLR WR EH 3URSRVHG DW 3XEOLVKHUVn 6HVVLRQ %URDGFDVWLQJ )HEUXDU\ )LFR )UHGHULFN 6WDWHKRXVH %URDGFDVW DQG 3ULQW 5HSRUWHUV $ &RPSDUDWLYH $QDO\VLV -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ )DOO f )LUHVWRQH &KDUOHV ,WnV 7LPH WR 2SHQ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW WR &DPHUDV %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU )LYH 6WDWHV '& %DQ &DPHUDV )URP &RXUWURRPV 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6LJPD 'HOWD &KL )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 5HSRUW :DVKLQJWRQ '& 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6LJPD 'HOWD &KL )ORULGD -XGJH (YDOXDWHV &DPHUD &RYHUDJH RI 7ULDO (GLWRU t 3XEOLVKHU -XQH )ORULGD 7ULDO RI n79 $GGLFWn *RHV RQ WKH $LU %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU )RZOHU 0DUN DQG 'DQLHO %UHQQHU $ 0DUNHWSODFH $SSURDFK WR %URDGFDVW 5HJXODWLRQ 7H[DV /DZ 5HYLHZ f )UDQNOLQ 0DUF 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ $PRQJ 0HGLD ,Q &DVHV DQG 0DWHULDOV RQ 0DVV 0HGLD /DZ UG HG 0LQHOD 1< )RXQGDWLRQ 3UHVV )UDVFD 5DOSK (VWLPDWLQJ WKH 2FFXUUHQFH RI 7ULDOV 3UHMXGLFHG E\ 3UHVV &RYHUDJH -XGLQDWXUH 2FWREHU1RYHPEHU f )UHW] 'RQDOG &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7ULDO 6HSWHPEHU f )XQNKRXVHU 5D\ 7KH ,VVXHV RI WKH 6L[WLHV $Q ([SORUDWRU\ &DVH 6WXG\ LQ WKH '\QDPLFV RI 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6SULQJ f

PAGE 304

*DUD\ 5RQDOG ,PSOHPHQWLQJ 7HOHYLVHG &RYHUDJH RI 6HVVLRQV RI WKH 86 &RQJUHVV -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ $XWXPQ f *DUGQHU 1DQF\ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP *XLGHOLQHV IRU 6WDWH &ULPLQDO 7ULDOV 0LFKLJDQ /DZ 5HYLHZ 'HFHPEHU f *HUEQHU *HRUJH 7ULDO E\ 7HOHYLVLRQ $UH :H DW WKH 3RLQW RI 1R 5HWXUQ" -XGLFDWXUH f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f *UDKDP )UHG DQG 'RQDOG )UHW] &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 'LDORJXH
PAGE 305

+LJK &RXUW 5HMHFWV 5DGLR &RYHUDJH 5DGLR 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ %XOOHWLQ 0D\ +RGJHV :LOOLDP DQG & /DZUHQFH 6WDJJ %URDGFDVWLQJ DQG 7HOHYLVLQJ 7ULDOV )DLU 7ULDO YHUVXV )UHH 3UHVV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD /DZ 5HYLHZ f +RXVH YV &RXUWV %DWWOH %UHZLQJ" %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU +R\W -DPHV &RXUWURRP &RYHUDJH 7KH (IIHFWV RI %HLQJ 7HOHYLVHG -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ )DOO f 5HYLHZ RI 1HZV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP E\ 6XVDQQD %DUEHU -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ :LQWHU f +XJKHV 5REHUW &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD &DPHUDV *HW 3UREDWLRQ LQ &RXUWURRP -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f ,GVYRRJ .DUO DQG -DPHV +R\W 3URIHVVLRQDOLVP DQG 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 7HOHYLVLRQ -RXUQDOLVWV -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ :LQWHU f -XGJH 'HQLHV &11 5HTXHVW WR 7HOHYLVH &%6:HVWPRUHODQG /LEHO 7ULDO %URDGFDVWLQJ 6HSWHPEHU -XGJH 6WULNHV %ORZ LQ 79 7ULDO &RYHUDJH %URDGFDVWLQJ 'HFHPEHU -XGJH 7HOOV 1HWZRUNV n1Rn %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH %ORFNV %URDGFDVW 0HGLD $FFHVV WR )HGHUDO &RXUWV %URDGFDVWLQJ 6HSWHPEHU -XOLQ 7KRPDV )HGHUDO (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD %DQ &KDOOHQJHG )ORULGD )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &OHDULQJ +RXVH 1HZVOHWWHU 0D\ f 7KH ,QHYLWDELOLW\ RI (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD $FFHVV WR )HGHUDO &RXUWV 'HWURLW &ROOHJH RI /DZ 5HYLHZ f -XVWLFH 6WHZDUW 5HWLUHV $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ -RXUQDO $XJXVW f

PAGE 306

.DPLVDU
PAGE 307

/DQJ *ODG\V (QJHO DQG .XUW /DQJ 7KH ,QIHUHQWLDO 6WUXFWXUH RI 3ROLWLFDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQV $ 6WXG\ RI 8QZLWWLQJ %LDV 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f /LPEXUJ 9DO 1LFKRODV /RYULFK &KDUOHV 6KHOGRQ DQG (ULN :DVPDQQ +RZ 3ULQW DQG %URDGFDVW -RXUQDOLVWV 3HUFHLYH 3HUIRUPDQFH RI 5HSRUWHUV LQ &RXUWURRP -RXUQDLVP 4XDUWHUO\ )DOO f /LQGDKO -XGLWK 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 7KH 'HEDWH &RQWLQXHV 7HOHYLVLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ )DOO f /LQGVH\ 5LFKDUG $Q $VVHVVPHQW RI WKH 8VH RI &DPHUDV LQ 6WDWH DQG )HGHUDO &RXUWV *HRUJLD /DZ 5HYLHZ 6SULQJ f /RHZHQ 5RQDOG &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ :DVKEXUQ /DZ -RXUQDO 6SULQJ f 0DKOHU 5LFKDUG n2Q 7ULDOn 5DLVHV 4XHVWLRQ RI &DPHUDV LQ &RXUWURRPV (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD -DQXDU\ 0DXUR 7RQ\ 7KH 1LQH 1R6HH n(PV -XVWLFHV .HHS 2XW &DPHUDV 3UHVHUYH 7KHLU 5LWH RI 3ULYDF\ :DVKLQJWRQ -RXUQDOLVP 5HYLHZ 1RYHPEHU f 0F&DOO *UHJRU\ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &ULPLQDO &RXUWURRP $ 6L[WK $PHQGPHQW $QDO\VLV &ROXPELD /DZ 5HYLHZ f 0F&RPEV 0D[ZHOO DQG 'RQDOG 6KDZ 7KH $JHQGD 6HWWLQJ )XQFWLRQ RI 0DVV 0HGLD 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 4XDUWHUO\ 6XPPHU f 0F*XUQ %DUUHWW 3XEOLF ,QIRUPDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6XSUHPH &RXUW $PHULFDQ %DU $VVRFLDWLRQ -RXUQDO -DQXDU\ f 0F/HRG -DFN DQG 6HDUOH +DZOH\ 3URIHVVLRQDOL]DWLRQ $PRQJ 1HZVPHQ -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ $XWXPQ f 0HLNOHMRKQ $OH[DQGHU 7KH )LUVW $PHQGPHQW LV DQ $EVROXWH 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW 5HYLHZ HG 3KLOLS .XUODQG &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV f

PAGE 308

0LGGOHWRQ .HQW DQG %LOO ) &KDPEHUOLQ 7KH 0HGLD DQG WKH -XGLFLDU\ ,Q 7KH /DZ RI 3XEOLF &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 309

3HTXLQRW 0DUJRW )URP (VWHV WR &KDQGOHU 6KLIWLQJ WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDO %XUGHQ RI &RXUWURRP &RYHUDJH WR WKH 6WDWHV )ORULGD 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ /DZ 5HYLHZ f 3KLOOLSV %DUEDUD $SSURDFKHV WR 2EMHFWLYLW\ -RXUQDOLVWLF 9HUVXV 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 3HUVSHFWLYHV ,Q 6WUDWHJLHV IRU &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK (GV 3DXO +LUVFK 3HWHU 0LOOHU DQG ) *HUDOG .OLQH %HYHUO\ +LOOV 6DJH 3LUDWLQJ RI 3UHVV 6HUYLFH 1HZV $GMXGJHG 8QIDLU &RPSHWLWLRQ %URDGFDVWLQJ -DQXDU\ 3UDWR /RX 2QH 2Q 2QH :LWK -XGJHV 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ &RPPXQLFDWRU 'HFHPEHU 3UHVV DW WKH %HQFK %URDGFDVWLQJ $SULO 3UHVV 'URSV &XGJHO (QGV 5DGLR )HXG %URDGFDVWLQJ 0D\ 3ULQJOH (GZDUG 7KH &DVH IRU &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 79 *XLGH 0DUFK 3URRI RI 3HUIRUPDQFH %URDGFDVWLQJ -XO\ 3XEOLVKHUV /LEHUDOL]H 3UHVV5DGLR 3ODQ %URDGFDVWVQJ 0D\ 5HHYHV 5LFKDUG 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW YV WKH 3UHVV 79 *XLGH 'HFHPEHU 5LHPHU &DURO\Q 7HOHYLVLRQ &RYHUDJH RI 7ULDOV &RQVWLWXWLRQDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JDLQVW $EVROXWH 'HQLDO RI $FFHVV LQ WKH $EVHQFH RI D &RPSHOOLQJ ,QWHUHVW 9LOODQRYD /DZ 5HYLHZ f 5LYDO 1HZV 6HUYLFHV $FTXLUH 0RUH &OLHQWV DW 1$% 6HVVLRQ %URDGFDVWLQJ -XO\ 5LYHUV :LOOLDP -XVWLFH 7DNHV WKH 9HLO 7KH 4XLOO -XQH f 5REHUWV 0LFKDHO DQG :LOOLDP *RRGPDQ 7KH 7HOHYLVHG 7ULDO $ 3HUVSHFWLYH &XPEHUODQG /DZ 5HYLHZ )DOO f

PAGE 310

5RELQVRQ 0LFKDHO $PHULFDQ 3ROLWLFDO /HJLWLPDF\ LQ DQ (UD RI (OHFWURQLF -RXUQDOLVP 5HIOHFWLRQV RQ WKH (YHQLQJ 1HZV ,Q 7HOHYLVLRQ DV D 6RFLDO )RUFH 1HZ $SSURDFKHV WR 79 &ULWLFLVP (G 'RXJODVV &DWHU DQG 5LFKDUG $GOHU 1HZ
PAGE 311

7KUHH 6XSUHPH &RXUW -XVWLFHV :DWFK (OHFWURQLF &RYHUDJH 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ ,QWHUFRP 'HFHPEHU 7LSWRQ /HRQDUG 5RJHU +DQH\ DQG -RKQ %DVHKHDUW 0HGLD $JHQGD 6HWWLQJ LQ &LW\ DQG 6WDWH (OHFWLRQ &DPSDLJQV -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ 6SULQJ OfO 7RQJXH 7KRPDV DQG 5REHUW /LQWRWW 7KH &DVH $JDLQVW 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP :LOOLDPHWWH /DZ 5HYLHZ f 7RUQTXLVW /HUR\ DQG .DUHQ *ULIDOO 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 'HYLO RU 6DLQW" :LOOLDPHWWH /DZ 5HYLHZ f 7RZQHQG 'DYLG &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP /HWnV *LYH 7KHP $QRWKHU 7U\ 7H[DV %DU -RXUQDO $SULO f 7XFKPDQ *D\H 7KH ([FHSWLRQ 3URYHV WKH 5XOH 7KH 6WXG\ RI 5RXWLQH 1HZV 3UDFWLFHV ,Q 6WUDWHJLHV IRU &RPPXQLFDWLRQ (GV 3DXO +LUVK 3HWHU 0LOOHU DQG ) *HUDOG .OLQH %HYHUO\ +LOOV 6DJH 83 DQG ,16 0D\ 6HOO 5DGLR 1HZV %URDGFDVWLQJ $SULO 86 -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH 9RWHV 2YHUZKHOPLQJO\ WR &RQWLQXH %DQ $JDLQVW 7HOHYLVLRQ DQG 5DGLR &RYHUDJH RI )HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV 613$ %XOOHWLQ 2FWREHU 9DOLG -XGJPHQW %URDGFDVWLQJ 2FWREHU 9DOLGLW\ 3URSULHW\ DQG (IIHFW RI $OORZLQJ RU 3URKLELWLQJ 0HGLDnV %URDGFDVWLQJ 5HFRUGLQJ RU 3KRWRJUDSKLQJ &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV $PHULFDQ /DZ 5HSRUWV WK 9RON 3DWULFLD 7KH 6WHLQEHUJ 7ULDO 6FHQHV )URP D 7UDJHG\ 1HZ
PAGE 312

:HLQWKDO 'RQDOG DQG *DUUHWW 2n.HHIH 3URIHVVLRQDOLVP $PRQJ %URDGFDVW 1HZVPHQ LQ DQ 8UEDQ $UHD -RXUQDO RI %URDGFDVWLQJ 6SULQJ f :HLVPDQ -RKQ 79 *RHV WR 7ULDO 79 *XLGH -DQXDU\ :KLWH 'DYLG 7KH n*DWHNHHSHUn $ &DVH 6WXG\ LQ WKH 6HOHFWLRQ RI 1HZVn -RXUQDOLVP 4XDUWHUO\ )DOO f :KLWH 'RQ )ORULGDnV %ROG ([SHULPHQW )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &HQWHU 5HSRUW 1R &ROXPELD 02 )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ &HQWHU -XQH :KLWH )UDQN &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 86 6XUYH\ -RXUQDOLVP 0RQRJUDSKV $SULO fO :LWW ( 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP (GXFDWLRQD 5HVHDUFK 5HSRUWV -DQXDU\ f :ROI 6WHSKHQ 7KH 5ROH RI WKH (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD LQ WKH &ULPLQDO -XVWLFH 6\VWHP &LQFLQQDWL 7DZ 5HYLHZ f =LPPHUPDQ 'LDQH 2YHUFRPLQJ )XWXUH 6KRFN (VWHV 5HYLVLWHG RU D 0RGHVW 3URSRVDO IRU WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQDO 3URWHFWLRQ RI WKH 1HZV*DWKHULQJ 3URFHVV 'XNH /DZ -RXUQDO 6HSWHPEHU f =RJOLQ 5LFKDUG $ :DON RQ WKH 6HDP\ 6L]H 1HZ 7DEORLG 6KRZV DUH 7KULYLQJ RQ 6H[ DQG 9LROHQW &ULPH 7LPH 2FWREHU /HJDO &LWDWLRQV %HOO Y 3DWWHUVRQ ) 6XSS f DIInG )G WK &LU UHKnJ GHQLHG 86 f ,Q 5H %3 )OD &LU &W WK -XG &LUf 0HG / 5SWU f %UDGOH\ Y 7H[DV )G f %UDQ]EXUJ Y +D\HV 86 f %ULGJHV Y &DOLIRUQLD 86 f %ULNORG Y 5LYNLQG 86 'LVW &W 6R 'LVW )ODf 0HG / 5SWU f

PAGE 313

%UXPILHOG Y )ORULGD 6R G f %XQG\ Y )ORULGD 6R G 6R G )OD f 3HRSOH Y %XQG\ 1R )OD &LU &W -XO\ f DSSHDO GRFNHWHG 1R )OD 6XS &W 6HSW f &DOODKDQ Y /DVK ) 6XSS f &KDQGOHU Y )ORULGD 86 f &ODUN Y )ORULGD 6R G f &RPELQHG &RPPXQLFDWLRQV .%79f Y )LQHVLOYHU )G f 0HG / 5SWU f &RQZD\ HW DO Y 86 3UHVVHU HW DO )G WK &LU f 0HG / 5SWU f &UDLJ Y +DUQH\ 86 f 'RUIPDQ Y 0HLV]QHU )G f 7KH (LJKWK -XGLFLDO &LUFXLW RI )ORULGD *HQHUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 2UGHU 3ODFHPHQW RI $XGLR DQG 9LVXDO (TXLSPHQW LQ &RXUWURRP $XJXVW *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD (VWHV Y 7H[DV 86 f )(' 5 &5,0 3 )ORULGD Y *DUFLD )OD &LU &W -XG &LUf 0HG / 5SWU f )ORULGD Y *UHHQ 6R G f 6R G f )ORULGD Y 3DOP %HDFK 1HZVSDSHUV 6R G 0HG / 5HSWU f )ORULGD Y 3U\RU )OD &LU &W -XG &LUf 0HG / 5SWU f )ORULGD Y 5XVVHOO )OD &LU &W -XG &LUf 0HG / 5SWU f )ORULGD )UHHGRP 1HZVSDSHUV Y 0F&UDU\ 6R G f *DQQHWW Y 'H3DVTXDOH 86 f

PAGE 314

*HRUJLD Y :LOOLDPV *D 6XS &Wf 0HG / 5SWU f *HRUJLD 79 :6%f Y *HRUJLD 6(G *D 0HG / 5SWU f *HRUJLD 79 :6%f Y 1DSLHU *D 6XS &W f 0HG / 5SWU f *RQ]DOHV Y &RORUDGR 3G &ROR f +DOVH\ Y %RQDU 6:G $UN 0HG / 5SWU f ,Q UH +HDULQJV &RQFHUQLQJ &DQRQ RI WKH &DQRQV RI -XGLFLDO (WKLFV 3G f +HUPDQ Y )ORULGD f 6R G 6R G f +RXFKLQV Y .4(' 86 f +XGVRQ Y *HRUJLD 6(G f +XWFKLQVRQ Y 0DUVKDOO 86 'LVW &W 6R 'LVW 2KLRf 0HG / 5SWU f ,UYLQ Y 'RZG 86 f .DQVDV Y *DUUHWW .DQVDV 'LVW &W -XG 'LVWf 0HG / 5SWU f .$5.79 Y /RIWRQ $UN 6XS &Wf 0HG / 5SWU f .LQJ Y )ORULGD 6R G f /DQJ Y 7DPSD 79 )OD &LU &LW WK -XG &LUf 0HG / 5SWU f /\OHV Y 2NODKRPD 3G f ,Q 5H 0DFN $G f 0DUVKDOO Y 86 86 f 0DVVDFKXVHWWV Y &RUGHLUR 1(G f ,Q 5H 0D]HWWL Y 86 )G f

PAGE 315

0XOWLPHGLD Y *D 6(G *D 0HG / 5SWU f 1HEUDVND 3UHVV $VVRFLDWLRQ Y 6WXDUW 86 f 1HZ -HUVH\ Y +DXSWPDQQ 1-/ $ FHUW GHQLHG 86 f 1HZ -HUVH\ Y 1HZVRPH $G 16XSHU &W 0HG / 5SWU f 1HZ 0H[LFR H[ UH -RXUQDO 3XEOLVKLQJ Y $OOHQ 10 6XS &Wf 0HG / 5SWU f 1HZ
PAGE 316

6FRSHV Y 7HQQHVVHH 7HQQ 6: 7HQQ 6: f 6HDWWOH 7LPHV Y 5KLQHKDUW 86 f 6H\PRXU Y 86 )G f 6KHSKHUG Y )ORULGD 86 6 &W 6R G f 6KHSSDUG Y 0D[ZHOO :DUGHQ 86 f ([ SDUWH VWXUP 0G $ &W $SS f 7ULEXQH 5HYLHZ Y 7KRPDV )G f 7ULQLGDG HW DO Y 6WHWWLQ HW DO 86 'LVW &W 6R )ODf 0HG / 5SWU f 86 9 $3 86 f 86 9 %XUU )HG &DV 1R J f 86 9 'LFNLQVRQ )G WK &LU f 86 Y (GZDUGV Y :LVH )G WK &LU f 86 Y +DVWLQJV )G UHK n J HQ EDQF GHQLHG ) G f FHUW GHQLHG 86 f VXE QRP 3RVW 1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV )OD ,QF Y 86 86 Y .HUOH\ )G 0HG / 5SWU f 86 Y 3URYLGHQFH -RXUQDO 86 f 86 Y
PAGE 317

=DPRUD Y &%6 $%& 1%& ) 6XSS f =DPRUD Y )ORULGD $ f 6R G f 1HZVSDSHU $UWLFOHV &DSODQ -RQDWKDQ &RXUW LQ WKH (\H RI WKH &DPHUD 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ &RWR -XDQ &DUORV &KDQQHO /HG 6SDQLVK/DQJXDJH 79 &RYHUDJH 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU $ 'XQQ 0DUYLQ :K\ WKH /R]DQR 7ULDO 6KRXOG EH 0RYHG 0LDPL +HUDOG 2FWREHU & (YDQV 5LFKDUG %DU &RPPLWWHH 6HH 1R 7KUHDW WR -XVWLFH )URP &DPHUDV 79 DQG 5DGLR 6KRXOG %URDGFDVW &RXUW &DVHV 6D\ /DZ\HUV 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ )ULHGPDQ 'DYLG &RXUW RI 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 1HZVGD\ 'HFHPEHU *HKUNH 'RQQD 7ULDO 2YHU %XW 2UGHDO &RQWLQXHV 79 ,QWR[LFDWLRQ 0XUGHU &DVH 6WLOO +DXQWV 3ULQFLSDOV 0LDPL +HUDOG 'HFHPEHU *ROGPDQ .HYLQ &RXUWURRPV n2Q 7ULDO1HZVGD\ $SULO *URYH 9DOHULH 2XW WR 2SHQ D :LQGRZ RQ WKH /DZ 7LPHV /RQGRQf 0D\ % *XWWHQSODQ '' *DXJLQJ (IIHFW RI 79 7ULDOV 1HZVGD\ -DQXDU\ +RWWHVW 7LFNHW LQ 7RZQ LV WR &RXUW 1HZVGD\ 'HFHPEHU -RKQVRQ .LUN 1HZ
PAGE 318

.HHS WKH -XVWLFH :LQGRZV 2SHQ 1HZ
PAGE 319

79 DQG WKH +LJK &RXUW 1HZ
PAGE 320

(LQVLHGHO (GQD 7HOHYLVLRQ LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $Q 2KLR ([SHULPHQW $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP 6HDWWOH )UDQ]D $5HSRUW RI WKH )ORULGD &RQIHUHQFH RI &LUFXLW -XGJHV LQ 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV )ORULGD ,QF IRU &KDQJH LQ &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW $OVR $SSHQGL[ WR ,Q 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW 1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV )ORULGD ,QF IRU &KDQJH LQ &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW 6R G f *DUYH\ 6RFLDO &RQWURO LQ WKH 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZVURRP 3K' GLVVHUWDWLRQ 6WDQIRUG 8QLYHUVLW\ +R\W -DPHV &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP )URP +DXSWPDQQ WR :LVFRQVLQ $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP 6HDWWOH $XJXVW 7KH -XGLFLDU\ DQG WKH 0HGLD 1HZ -HUVH\ 3XEOLF 7HOHYLVLRQ 0D\ YLGHRf .LHOERZLF] 5LFKDUG 7KH 0DNLQJ RI &DQRQ $ %ORZ WR 3UHVV%DU &RRSHUDWLRQ $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP +RXVWRQ .LJKWOLJQHU 'LDQH -XGJHV )LJKW 7ULDO 3XEOLFLW\ 2SHQ WKH &RXUWURRP %XW &ORVH 3DUWLFLSDQWVn 0RXWKV $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP DQG 0DVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 25 -XO\ /DQFDVWHU 'DOWRQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 6WXG\ RI 7ZR 7ULDOV ,QGLDQD 8QLYHUVLW\ %ORRPLQJWRQ 0LQQHVRWD $GYLVRU\ &RPPLVVLRQ RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP 5HSRUW RQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW -DQXDU\ f 0RXQWV 0DUYLQ 5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD 5H $XGLR9LVXDO 7ULDO &RYHUDJH 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6WDWH &RXUWV 6XPPDU\ RI 7HOHYLVLRQ &DPHUDV LQ WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV 1RYHPEHU f 2IILFH RI WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV $GPLQLVWUDWRU $ 6DPSOH 6XUYH\ RI WKH $WWLWXGHV RI ,QGLYLGXDOV $VVRFLDWHG :LWK 7ULDOV ,QYROYLQJ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD DQG 6WLOO 3KRWRJUDSK\ &RYHUDJH LQ 6HOHFWHG )ORULGD &RXUWV %HWZHHQ -XO\ DQG -XQH

PAGE 321

2VWURII 'DYLG 7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV DQG 3ROLWLFDO &DPSDLJQV $ 3DUWLFLSDQW 2EVHUYDWLRQ 6WXG\ RI &RYHUDJH RI WKH 2KLR *RYHUQRUn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t $XUDO &RYHUDJH RI )HGHUDO &RXUW 3URFHHGLQJV E\ WKH (OHFWURQLF t 3ULQW 3UHVV 0DUFK 5DGLR7HOHYLVLRQ 1HZV 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZV 0HGLD &RYHUDJH RI -XGLFLDO 3URFHHGLQJV :LWK &DPHUDV t 0LFURSKRQHV $ 6XUYH\ RI WKH 6WDWHV :DVKLQJWRQ '& 6XUYH\ RI &RXUWURRP $FFHVV :DVKLQJWRQ '& 5DNHU 5RE &DPHUDV DQG 5HFRUGHUV LQ $UL]RQDnV 7ULDO &RXUWV $Q (YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH ([SHULPHQW 5LPPHU 7RQ\ (OHFWURQLF 0HGLD LQ WKH &RXUWURRP /HJDO DQG 6RFLDO 6FLHQFH 3HUVSHFWLYHV $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (GXFDWLRQ LQ -RXUQDOLVP DQG 0DVV &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 25 -XO\ 6KROWV 7KRPDV 5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD 5H $XGLR 9LVXDO 7ULDO &RYHUDJH (UQHVW + 6KRUW t $VVRFLDWHV (YDOXDWLRQ RI &DOLIRUQLDnV ([SHULPHQW ZLWK ([WHQGHG 0HGLD &RYHUDJH RI &RXUWV

PAGE 322

$ 6WDWHPHQW )URP WKH &HQWUDO )ORULGD &KDSWHU 6RFLHW\ RI 3URIHVVLRQDO -RXUQDOLVWV6LJPD 'HOWD &KL ,Q 5H 3HWLWLRQ RI 3RVW 1HZVZHHN 6WDWLRQV IRU &KDQJH LQ &RGH RI -XGLFLDO &RQGXFW 2UODQGR 6WRFNWRQ (WKHO ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK DXWKRU 2FDOD )/ -XO\ 6WUDZQ 'DYLG 5D\PRQG %XFKDQDQ 0LODQ 0HVNH DQG %HUW 3U\RU 5HSRUW WR WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW RI )ORULGD LQ 5H &DVH 1R 6XPPDU\ RI 79 &DPHUDV LQ WKH 6WDWH &RXUWV 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU 6WDWH &RXUWV :LOOLDPVEXUJ 9$ 1RYHPEHU f 6XSHULRU &RXUW -XGJHVn $VVRFLDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RQ &RXUWV t &RPPXQLW\ &DPHUDV LQ WKH &RXUWURRP $ 7ZR
PAGE 323

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nV UHVHDUFK LQWHUHVWV LQFOXGH EURDGFDVW MRXUQDOLVP DQG PDVV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ODZ

PAGE 324

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

PAGE 325

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



"MISCHIEVOUS POTENTIALITIES":
A CASE STUDY OF COURTROOM CAMERA GUIDELINES,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, 1989
By
S.L. ALEXANDER
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1990
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. LiSRAP.IES

Copyright 1990
by
S.L. Alexander

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, my appreciation is extended to all those who
aided me in the field work (most of whom are named in Chapter
4 as those whose work is the subject of the study): members
of the media, particularly representatives of WCJB-TV (ABC),
WRUF-AM/FM (CBS), WUFT-FM (NPR), WUFT-TV (PBS), and the
Gainesville Sun; and the Honorable Chester Chance, Chief
Judge of Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit, as well as the
other judges, attorneys, court personnel and anonymous jurors
who were involved with the case study.
I wish to express special gratitude to the following at
the University of Florida: professors who served as
supervisory committee members (gentlemen and scholars) Drs.
David Ostroff (Chairman), Bill F. Chamberlin, Kermit Hall,
Albert Matheny, and John Wright; Dean Ralph Lowenstein
(College of Journalism and Communications), Assistant Dean
Kurt Kent (Graduate Studies), and Dean Jeff Lewis (College of
Law); librarians Rick Donnelly, Dolores Jenkins, and Rosalie
Sanderson; and copy editors Morgan Piazza and Barbara
Smerage.
I will remember with fondness the late Joseph L.
Brechner, who was the primary patron of my studies and a
warm, sincere supporter. My thanks also go to the William C.
iii

Steel Media Access Fund (and particularly Steel, Hector Davis
attorneys Dean Sandy D'Alemberte, Norm Davis, and Tom Julin).
Finally, my thanks are offered to the advisors who
rendered various types of personal assistance (a debt of
gratitude I can never repay): Dee, Beans, Richard, Charles,
Christopher, and Alexandra.
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Free Press/Fair Trial 2
The Curious History of Canon 35 6
The Supreme Court Decisions and Cameras in
State Courts 13
The Federal Courts 29
Hypotheses 38
Notes 43
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 54
General History 54
Law 61
Social Science 73
Notes 91
3 METHODS 104
Participant Observation 105
Refinement of Methodology 112
Limitations 120
Notes 122
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 125
Preliminary Study: Eighth Judicial Circuit 125
Florida v. Simmons 137
Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris 150
Florida v. Spikes 166
Florida v. Stanley 174
Notes 184
v

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 186
Case Study 186
Analysis 193
Conclusions and Recommendations 196
Suggestions for Further Research 203
Notes 207
APPENDICES
A STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TECHNOLOGY GOVERNING
ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHY COVERAGE
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ("GUIDELINES") 209
B COURTROOM PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE 211
C CONTENT ANALYSES 213
D SELECTED ARTICLES AND SCRIPTS 227
E JUROR EXIT POLL 280
BIBLIOGRAPHY 282
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 312
vi

LIST OF TABLES
page
1-1 CAMERA COVERAGE OF STATE COURTS 27
4-1 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Simmons 143
4-2 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. C. Harris &
P. Harris 155
4-3 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Spikes 170
4-4 CONTENT ANALYSIS: Florida v. Stanley 178
4-5 JUROR RESPONSE 183
4-6 JUROR RESPONSE: PERCENTAGES 184
Vll

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
"MISCHIEVOUS POTENTIALITIES":
A CASE STUDY OF COURTROOM CAMERA GUIDELINES,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, 1989
By
S.L. ALEXANDER
Chairman: Dr. David Ostroff
Major Department: Mass Communication
This study explored the problem of how closely broadcast
journalists follow state guidelines for behavior in courtrooms
during criminal trials, the impact of the guidelines on
coverage, and whether use of courtroom cameras results in
undistorted coverage without observable disruption to the
judicial process. The study focused on the process of
broadcast coverage of four criminal trials in Florida's Eighth
Judicial Circuit in 1989.
Four research questions were analyzed:
1. How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?
2. What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?
3. Do broadcast journalists present undistorted coverage
of criminal trial proceedings?
4. Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?
viii

The primary method of data collection was participant
observation. Interviews with trial participants were conducted
prior to the observation period and during each trial. Content
analysis of trial coverage presented by four broadcast stations
was also included.
The results indicate general satisfaction with media
behavior by courtroom participants. Juror exit polls (50%
response rate) appear to uphold these results: respondents
selected answers most favorable to the press 35% of the time,
answers neutral toward the press 58%, and answers least
favorable to the press 7% of the time.
It is concluded first, that the Florida Guidelines are
appropriate and should continue to be strictly adhered to. In
the interest of improved coverage, media policy makers might
work with courtroom personnel to permanently wire courtrooms to
accommodate broadcasters.
Second, rather than specific fact errors, the major cause
of perceived distortion is an intuition that brevity of
coverage might lead to misunderstanding. Media policy makers
might attempt fuller coverage of trials.
Finally, although no specific examples of disruption were
cited by participants or noted by the researcher, improved
education of broadcast journalists and "beat" coverage of
courtroom news might decrease the perceived potential for
disruption.
IX

The first full study of actual courtroom behavior is of
limited generalizability. However, future research should
validate its findings that traditional speculation as to
possible disruption to the judicial process by courtroom
cameras appears to be unwarranted.
x

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Permitting television in the courtroom undeniably has
mischievous potentialities for intruding upon the
detached atmosphere which should always surround the
judicial process. Forbidding this innovation, however,
would doubtless impinge upon one of the valued attributes
of our federalism by preventing the States from pursuing
a novel course of procedural experimentation.
Justice John Harlan, Estes v. Texas, 1965
This study explores how closely broadcast journalists
follow state guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during
criminal trials, the impact of the guidelines on coverage,
and whether the use of courtroom cameras results in
undistorted coverage without observable disruption to the
judicial process. The study focuses on the process of
broadcast coverage of four criminal trials in Florida's
Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1989.
Traditional objections to courtroom cameras have
revolved around their presumed impact on the process of the
trial. Legal scholars have discussed the Constitutional
aspects of coverage, and social scientific research has been
conducted in experimental settings to test apparent effects.
Now that news cameras are allowed in courtrooms, it is time
to examine their actual role in news media coverage of the
1

2
judicial process rather than the theoretical effects on
participants and public.
This study is an effort to conduct such an examination.
Through participant observation of news media behavior, and
through interviews with news and court personnel and trial
participants, as well as content analyses of news stories,
the researcher has gathered data which should contribute to a
better understanding of the actual role the television
cameras play, and, as necessary, to suggested refinements in
current practices. The development of courtroom cameras will
be described in detail after a brief introduction to Free
Press/Fair Trial issues.
Free Press/Eaic. Trial
The conflict between Free Press and Fair Trial (or, as
the legal community sees it, between Fair Trial and Free
Press) has been present at least since the controversy over
coverage of the 1807 treason trial of Aaron Burr.i Lofton2
has written a classic study of the relationship between the
press and the judiciary in the U.S.: he defends the press
against popular misconceptions but also chronicles a handful
of cases in which the behavior of the press contributed to a
miscarriage of justice. Friendly and Goldfarb3 similarly
conclude that although Free Press/Fair Trial problems are
minimal, some coverage of crime news is excessive, and the
press should institute self-restraint.

3
However, the decisions in a half dozen High Court cases
in more recent times may be briefly mentioned to highlight
such issues as prior restraint, "gag orders," and access to
courts--before turning to the specific question of courtroom
cameras—as the Court balances the rights of the press to
report court proceedings against the defendant's right to
receive a trial by an impartial jury.
Of particular relevance is Nebraska Press Assn. v.
Stuart (427 U.S. 539, 1976). In this case, in advance of a
trial of a Nebraska farmhand for the murders of all six
members of a family (for which the defendant was ultimately
convicted), the judge ordered all news media to refrain from
publishing any confessions or other facts "strongly
implicative" of the accused.
Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Warren
Burger held that the trial judge should have considered
alternative means of protecting the defendant's rights, such
as change of venue, continuance, strict voir dire.
admonitions, or sequestering of the jury, in preference to
the restraints on the press. According to Burger, "[P]rior
restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and
the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights"
(at 559) .
A second area in which the Court must balance First
Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights regards access to
courts: here, too, the Court generally tips the scale in

4
favor of free expression, although less absolutely than in
the case of prior restraints. The Court held in Craig v.
Harney (331 U.S. 367, 1974) that "[A] trial is a public
event. What transpires in the court room is public property.
. . . Those who see and hear what transpired can report it
with impunity" (at 374). Although in Gannett v. DePasquale
(443 U.S. 368, 1979) the Court held the press had no
constitutional right to attend pretrial hearings, in a later
case, Press-Enterprise v. Riverside Sup. Ct. (478 U.S. 1,
1986), the Court held the defendant must show openness would
cause "substantial probability" of danger to a free trial;
however, the court emphasized the qualified nature of the
presumption of openness.
A year after Gannett, the Court, switching from a Sixth
Amendment to a First Amendment approach, ruled that closing a
trial absent an overriding competing interest violated the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. Although Richmond
Newspapers v. Virginia (448 U.S. 555, 1980) did not overrule
Gannett--instead distinguishing on grounds of the difference
between a pretrial hearing and a trial--Richmond is generally
regarded as a landmark case in determining press rights of
access.
In Richmond, the Court held a defendant's request to
exclude the public from his trial should not have been
granted. Justice Warren Burger (joined by White and Stevens)
discussed the history of open trials: "People in an open

society do not demand infallibility from their institutions,
but it is difficult for them to accept what they are
prohibited from observing" (at 572), and he concluded,
"Plainly it would be difficult to single out any aspect of
government of higher concern and importance to the people
than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted" (at
575) .
Richmond did not create an absolute right of access to
trials, and the press is not guaranteed access to all aspects
of the judicial process. True, in Press-Enterprise, the
Court had ruled in favor of a qualified privilege of access
to pretrial hearings, absent a "substantial probability" of
endangering a free trial. However, in states such as
Florida, recent cases4 have gone against access to discovery
material, based on a unique civil case.5 Moreover, observers
have noted that as closing of courtrooms is no longer an
option to prevent prejudicial publicity, "gag orders"
limiting trial participants' statements outside the courtroom
(an alternative to closed courtrooms offered by Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 1966) may become more attractive to
judges.6 This apparent trend among judges, upon whom rests
the initial burden of balancing the rights of the press and
the rights of the defendant, is noteworthy.
Mention of closely related issues considered by the
High Court is relevant in any discussion of Free Press/Fair
Trial. For instance, regarding contempt: the Court has

6
limited the power of judges to punish for publication of
material obtained out of court (Bridges v. Ca, 314 U.S. 252,
1941). As for material obtained during the trial, the press
must follow the judge's orders even if they are later
determined unconstitutional (U.S. v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496,
5th Cir., 1972. But for a different interpretation, see U.S.
v. Providence Journal, 485 U.S. 673, 1988, dismissed on
procedural grounds: the appeals court had held that if the
publisher made a "good faith effort" to appeal a
"transparently unconstitutional" order and was denied a
hearing, he might go ahead and publish in the interim.)
However, it is in the final area of Free Press/Fair
Trial conflict, courtroom cameras, that the law is most
unsettled in the High Court's weighing First Amendment versus
Sixth Amendment rights. Even First Amendment absolutists
such as Justice William Douglas have decried cameras as an
"insidious" intrusion into the decorum of the court and the
judicial process.
The Curious History of Canon 35
Canon 35, the American Bar Association's prohibition
against courtroom cameras, stood virtually intact for nearly
50 years. Only recently, however, have the revisionists
brought one or two curious aspects of the issue to light.
For instance, it had generally been accepted that the
behavior of cameramen inside the courtroom at the trial of

7
Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnap and murder of the Lindbergh
baby inspired the ABA to pass the prohibition. However,
critics now point out that there were other factors which
contributed to the circus-like atmosphere of the Hauptmann
trial, and the development of Canon 35 should not be viewed
as a result solely of courtroom cameras as employed in 1935.7
Moreover, a close examination of the proceedings of the
ABA during the 1930s as Canon 35 developed provides an
alternative explanation for the ban. First, in the United
States during this time there was a "press-radio war" taking
place: print journalists were fighting the advent of
broadcasting, including radio and the nascent television
industry. Second, the traditional tension between press and
bar was reflected in the attempts of the members of the
committees on Free Press Fair Trial issues to work together
under the auspices of the American Bar Association. Finally,
the organizational politics of the ABA also affected the
development of Canon 35; in fact, in 1937 the ABA ignored the
guidelines for courtroom cameras recommended by one of its
committees specifically appointed to consider the issue and
favored the sudden adoption of the flat ban on courtroom
cameras proposed by another committee.
In 1935, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was tried for the 1932
kidnap and murder of the eighteen-month-old son of Charles
Lindbergh.8 The trial, in tiny Flemington, New Jersey, was
among the most widely publicized in history, with an

8
estimated 700 newsmen, including 120 cameramen, covering the
trial.9 The presiding judge, Thomas Trenchard, allowed
newsreel and still photographers in the courtroom with the
proviso that they follow his guidelines restricting
photographic coverage.10 Only when he discovered that one of
the newsreel companies had violated his order to keep the
cameras in the courtroom turned off during actual court
proceedings did the judge withdraw his permission for film
cameras inside the courtroom; still cameramen were allowed to
remain.11
Photographer Joseph Costa of the New York Morning
World, who covered the trial, recently said that although
some still photographs had been taken surreptitiously, the
idea that the cameramen inside the courtroom disrupted the
Hauptmann trial was a myth.12 Costa called the myth a
"falsehood" and a "total fabrication," which he said was
picked up by researchers and students writing dissertations.
Researcher Richard Kielbowicz was then one of the first to
present the revisionist interpretation of events.13
Hauptmann juror Ethel Stockton repeatedly has insisted
still and film photographers caused no problem in the
courtroom. She said, "I didn't even know they had cameras
there until I got home after the trial and saw the pictures
in the newspaper."14
Examination of contemporary press accounts of the
Hauptmann trial led Susannah Barber to conclude that the

9
traditional interpretations regarding the Hauptmann trial
were indeed incorrect. The "carnival atmosphere” in the
courtroom was not created primarily by photographers but by
"prejudicial press reports, contemptuous statements by the
trial attorneys and police, the rowdy behavior of the 150
spectators crammed inside the courtroom, by the too numerous
reporters who descended on the trial, and by the neglectful
judge. "15
The ABA appointed a Special Committee on Publicity in
Criminal Trials, headed by Judge Oscar Hallam, to study the
problems caused by press coverage of the Hauptmann trial, and
Hallam's Report of the Special Committee on Publicity in
Criminal Trials cited four specific reasons for the
committee's objections to courtroom cameras: sound
reproduction did not allow for deletion of offensive matter;
cameras included inadmissible and prejudicial material;
cameras dramatized court proceedings, and the use of cameras
(i.e., radio) brought "the revolting details of a murder
trial, its crime story and its sensational matter to children
of all ages."16 Hallam and his committee's strong objection
to coverage may have been the most influential aspect of the
events which ultimately led to the flat ban on courtroom
cameras, Canon 35.
The ABA's Special Committee on Press, Radio, and Bar,
chaired by Newton Baker, succeeded Hallam's committee in
1936. There were seven representatives of the American

10
Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) on the new committee
and five who represented the American Society of Newspaper
Editors (ASNE). The Report cautioned that although jury
members could be shielded from newspaper coverage of trials,
headlines, and especially photographs, might catch the eye of
, a juror. Even worse, according to the Report, was radio
coverage and its concomitant "evil of the trial in the air."17
It was not surprising that a committee in which the
sole press representatives were executives of newspapers
would be unanimous in its wariness toward broadcast coverage
of courtrooms. In fact, during the 1930s, a "press-radio
war" was being fought. Newspapermen resented the upstart
medium, viewed as a threat to their advertising income, and
employed such tactics as threatening to boycott wire services
which supplied broadcasters with stories.18
Thus, the Baker Report, written by a committee of
newspaper men and lawyers during the "press-radio war,"
emphasized special caution in broadcasting courtroom
proceedings. The Report noted that suggestions had been made
from the start that representatives of radio should be added
to the Committee but that members felt the current committee
"adequately represented those most directly concerned."19
The one issue about which the members of the Baker
Committee did not agree was the consent requirement regarding
cameras in the courtroom.20 Thus, the divisive issue was how

11
to implement courtroom coverage--not whether courtroom
coverage should be allowed.
On September 27, 1937, the ABA convention delegates
voted to accept the Baker Committee recommendations and to
extend the Baker Committee for another year so that the final
issue of conflict--specifics of control of courtroom cameras--
could be resolved. Then, just three days after the Baker
Report was accepted, the same delegates, at the same ABA
convention, voted without discussion to accept a package of
recommendations from the Standing Committee on Professional
Ethics. This package included a flat ban on courtroom
cameras, Canon 35:
Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings
Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting
dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the
courtroom during sessions of the court or recesses
between sessions, and the broadcasting of such
proceedings are calculated to detract from the essential
dignity of the proceedings, degrade the court and create
misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the
public and should not be permitted.21
Why did the ABA pass Canon 35 three days after voting
to accept the Baker Committee Report which called for another
year to work out specifics of courtroom coverage? Why would
an organization ignore two years' work by one committee,
specifically appointed to work out Free Press/Fair Trial
guidelines, and adopt a conflicting recommendation from a
standing committee? One potential explanation lies in the
politics of the ABA.

12
The principal ABA member on the Special Committee--the
one who (ironically) was selected actually to deliver the
Baker Report to the ABA convention—was Judge Oscar Hallam.
Hallam had written the earlier study on coverage of the
Hauptmann trial and had released part of it to the ABA
delegates and to the press despite objections from others
involved. Hallam, one might infer, may have had some concern
that his own report, which had called for a flat ban on
courtroom cameras, had been suppressed in favor of a report
which called for developing guidelines to implement camera
coverage.
The events surrounding the adoption of Canon 35 were
symptomatic of continued bickering among ABA factions. Thus,
self-criticism by the Bar of the manner in which the ABA had
adopted Canon 35 was a long time coming. ABA member Albert
Blashfield, representing those then concerned with revising
Canon 35, wrote in the 1962 Bar Journal of the genesis of
Canon 35 "with the hope that the story will serve to
encourage a more responsible and objective approach to the
proposed revision." Blashfield pointed out that in 1937
there had been no reference to the Baker Report when Canon 35
was adopted, no discussion of the Canon, no dissenting vote.22
One other ABA member, Elisha Hanson, representing a
1958 coalition of press groups hoping to revise Canon 35, had
also gone on record noting the "curious history" of Canon 35:

13
Entirely without reference, to the work of the Special
Committee on Cooperation with the Media, the Committee on
Professional Ethics and Grievances proposed the adoption
of a new canon—the present Canon 35. Its motion was
carried without discussion. Canon 35 was not only drastic
but punitive in effect—the very antithesis of what the
Committee on Cooperation was striving for. Its adoption
was a rebuff not only to the Special Committee, but to the
media committees as well. Its adoption pointed up not
only a deep-seated conflict within this Association, but
an equally deep-seated resentment by some members of this
Association against the media.23
The Supreme Court Decisions and Cameras in State Courts
Canon 35 remained in effect for more than 40 years.
The ABA Committee on Ethics handed down a handful of opinions
regarding the Canon.24 There was only one significant
revision: television was specifically added to the
prohibition in 1952.25 Although there was continued debate
about revising or even revoking Canon 35, and some coverage
was permitted in such state courts as Kansas, by 1965 state
bar associations everywhere but in Colorado and Texas had
adopted bans on courtroom cameras.26
Moreover, from 1959 through 1966, the U.S. Supreme
Court had overturned convictions in five cases due to lack of
due process caused by pretrial publicity or press coverage of
trials.27 Two of these cases, Estes v. Texas and Sheppard v.
Maxwell, to different degrees had involved television
cameras.
Estes v. Texas (381 U.S. 532, 1965) is considered the
first of two landmark courtroom camera cases (the second
being Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 1981). The court

14
overturned the swindling conviction of Billie Sol Estes based
on denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment,
mainly because of courtroom coverage. A pretrial hearing had
been carried live on television and radio, and, although live
broadcasting was forbidden during the trial itself, silent
cameras operated intermittently, and excerpts were shown on
news programs each night.
The decision was split 4-1-4. Justice Tom Clark,
speaking for the plurality, held television might improperly
influence jurors, impair the testimony of witnesses, distract
judges, and burden defendants (at 554-550). Chief Justice
Warren (joined by Justices Douglas and Goldberg) concurred,
citing the "inherent prejudice" of televised trials (at 552).
Justice Harlan limited his concurrence: he wanted to
encourage experimentation despite television's "mischievous
potentialities" (at 587-601). Justice Stewart (joined by
Black, Brennan and White) dissented, saying, "The idea of
imposing upon any medium of communication the burden of
justifying its presence is contrary to where I had always
thought the presumption must lie in the area of First
Amendment freedoms" (at 615). Justices White and Brennan
also added separate dissents, with Justice Brennan's pointing
out the limitations of Harlan's vote and insisting the
decision was not a blanket constitutional prohibition (at
617). However, Justice Brennan's caveat notwithstanding, the
case was regarded as such.

15
Although the 1966 decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell dealt
with pretrial publicity, it reinforced for many the idea that
courtroom cameras interfere with the judicial process.
Sheppard represents perhaps the most egregious reported
example of press interference with due process.28 Dr. Sam
Sheppard had been tried for murder of his wife in 1954. A
five-hour, three-day inquest was televised live; a prisoner's
claims she had borne Sheppard's child were widely publicized;
during the trial a debate on the case was broadcast live.
The Court held 8-1 (Justice Black dissenting without comment)
that due process had been denied, and the conviction was
overturned.
Often overlooked in discussion of the case is the
Court's holding that the blame lay less with the press than
with the trial judge for failing to take proper precautions
such as continuance and change of venue. In fact, Justice
Clark, speaking for the Court, held "A responsible press has
always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial
administration, especially in the criminal field." Moreover,
the press "guards against the miscarriage of justice by
subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to
extensive public scrutiny and criticism" (at 350).
The Court suggested alternatives, including regulating
conduct of the press in the courtroom, insulating the
witnesses, and controlling the behavior of trial
participants. These suggestions were incorporated into the

16
ABA's 1969 "Reardon Report," The Rights of Fair Trial and
Free Press, which made recommendations as to how to avoid
future due process problems which had resulted in overturned
convictions.29
After Estes and Sheppard, the ABA strengthened its
position on Canon 35. In 1972, the organization revised its
Code of Professional Responsibility, and Canon 35 became
Canon 3A(7). The revised canon allowed cameras for use by
the court for educational purposes only; in essence, the ban
remained. Finally, after the Chandler decision and the
increase in use of courtroom cameras in the states, at the
1982 ABA convention the delegates voted 162-112 to revise
Cannon 3A(7) to allow for broadcast news coverage at the
discretion of each state's high court:
Canon 3A(7)
A judge should prohibit broadcasting, televising,
recording or photographing in courtrooms and areas
immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court, or
recesses between sessions, except that under rules
prescribed by supervising appellate court or other
appropriate authority, a judge may authorize broadcasting,
televising, recording, and photographing of judicial
proceedings in the courtrooms and areas immediately
adjacent thereto consistent with the right of the parties
to a fair trial and subject to express conditions,
limitations, and guidelines which allow such coverage in a
manner that will be unobtrusive, will not distract the
trial participants, and will not otherwise interfere with
the administration of justice.30
The issue of courtroom cameras as it developed in
Florida, which eventually led to the landmark Supreme Court
decision Chandler v. Florida, may have influenced the

17
attitude of the ABA. In 1975, the Post-Newsweek television
stations in Florida petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to
revise the state's Canon 3A(7) to allow cameras in courts.
After a successful mock trial by a cooperative group of
lawyers and journalists,31 the Court agreed to a one-year
experiment, provided all participants in a case would agree.
When no willing participants had been found after a year, the
Court revised the experiment, authorizing coverage as long as
the presiding judge agreed. The experiment lasted from July,
1977, through June, 1978. In April, 1979, the Court ruled in
favor of the Post-Newsweek petition.
Florida Justice Alan Sundberg wrote the decision in the
case, providing a response to six traditional objections to
courtroom cameras.32 He said technological advances had
solved most of the problems of physical disruptions. As far
as psychological effects, Sundberg concluded although they
might be a problem, no one had substantiated these fears.
Regarding the charge of exploitation of the courts by
commercial media, Sundberg saw no difference between
electronic and print media. He found no evidence an accurate
electronic transcription would enhance potential for
prejudice of witnesses and jurors; guidelines would determine
whether certain sensitive witnesses would be exempt from
coverage. Finally, regarding the charge that cameras invade
privacy, Sundberg concluded, " [T]here is no constitutionally

18
recognized right of privacy in the context of a judicial
proceeding" (at 774-779).
During the Post-Newsweek experiment, the first trial to
be televised involved a 15-year-old Miami Beach boy, Ronny
Zamora, accused of killing his elderly neighbor.33 The
novelty of courtroom cameras, as well as the novel defense—
Zamora's attorney argued the boy was the victim of too much
TV watching—led the local public television station WPBT to
provide gavel-to-gavel coverage of the case in Miami, and
stations around the country carried excerpts. With dozens of
reporters from around the world covering the case, the
potential for a repeat of Estes or Sheppard existed.
However, the case was extensively studied, and the general
conclusion among researchers and legal commentators was the
coverage did not affect Zamora’s Sixth or Fourteenth
Amendment rights.34
In the second landmark camera case, 1981's Chandler v.
Florida, two policemen in Miami Beach appealed their
convictions for burglary on the grounds they had not had a
fair trial due to the presence of cameras in the courtroom;
their trial had also taken place during Florida's year-long
experiment with courtroom cameras which allowed coverage
despite the defendants' objections.35 Less than three minutes
of the trial had been broadcast, all of it from the
prosecution's case. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered
the 8-0 opinion of the court, which upheld the convictions on

19
the grounds the mere presence of cameras did not violate the
defendants' right to a fair trial.
After presenting a history of courtroom cameras,
Justice Burger described the changing technology of broadcast
equipment since Estes. He said that although Estes had been
interpreted by some as a per se ban on cameras, the
defendants in this particular case had not proved a lack of
due process caused by the mere presence of cameras. Although
he found "dangers lurk in this as in most experiments," he
said that unless television coverage under all conditions
were prohibited by the Constitution, states must be free to
experiment, and the Court should neither endorse nor
invalidate a state's experiment with courtroom cameras (at
582) .
Justices Stewart and White each wrote separate
concurrences, saying they felt it necessary to overturn Estes
(at 583-586). But the decision did not overturn Estes and,
in fact, suggested under similar circumstances a conviction
might again be overturned. It did not suggest broadcasters
had a constitutional right of access for courtroom coverage.
It did not mention federal courts, but limited the holding to
state courts, and, in fact, suggested the concept of
federalism in support of the decision. What it did do was to
emphasize the need for stringent guidelines regarding
courtroom coverage and call for more research on the effects
of coverage on defendants' rights.

20
Since Florida's experimental period, observers contend
the state may have televised more trials than any other.38
Although many of these case have involved sensational
murders, such as the trials of Mark Herman in Palm Beach in
1978,37 and the trials of serial murderer Ted Bundy in 1979, 38
the general consensus among journalists covering the trials
has been the defendants received a fair trial.
In fact, Florida courts historically have upheld the
right of the electronic media to enter the courtroom despite
motions to exclude them. Even prior to Chandler, the state
constitutionality of the new camera rules had survived
challenges (Briklod v. Rivkind, 2 Med. L. Rptr. 2258, 1977;
Trinidad v. Stettin, 5 Med. L. Rptr. 1171, 1979). After
Chandler, in
three cases (Florida
v. Russell,
8 Med.
L. Rptr
2176, 1982;
Florida v. Pryor, 10
Med. L.
. Rptr,
. 1902,
198 4;
and Florida
v. Garcia, 12 Med. L.
Rptr.
1750,
1986),
the
courts denied petitions to exclude cameras on grounds of
failure to meet the "qualitative differential test," i.e.,
the suggestion in Post-Newsweek that the burden would be on
the defendant to show electronic coverage would have a
significantly different impact from print coverage, a
difference which would affect due process rights.
In two sensitive cases, one involving a juvenile
charged with killing his parents (In Re B.P., 9 Med. L. Rptr.
1151, 1983) and one involving a defendant charged with rape
(Lang v. Tampa TV, 11 Med. L. Rptr. 1150, 1984), television

21
cameras were permitted (although showing the juvenile in the
former and the victim in the latter were prohibited). Also,
in Florida v. Palm Beach Newspapers (395 So. 2d 544, 1981),
the court held that although it might have granted a request
to exclude cameras when prisoner witnesses at a convict's
murder trial refused to testify with cameras present ("The
electronic media's presence in Florida's courtrooms is
desirable, but it is not indispensible," at 549), in this
specific case the exclusionary hearing had been faulty (and
the issue was moot, in any case).
Likewise, Florida courts rarely overturn convictions
where cameras are alleged to have interfered with due
process. One exceptional case was Florida v. Green (395 So.
2d 532, 1981), in which the exclusion of cameras from a
lawyer's grand larceny case had been denied, even though the
defendant's psychologist had testified coverage would render
her client incompetent to stand trial; the court remanded for
a new trial.
But at least three other attempts to have murder
convictions in Florida courts overturned on grounds including
presence of courtroom cameras were denied on grounds of
failure to show interference with due process: Clark v.
Florida (379 So. 2d 97, 1979); King v. Florida (390 So. 2d
315, 1980); and the aforementioned Herman v. Florida (396 So.
2d 222, 1981, sentencing partially reversed on other
grounds).

22
As Florida and the other states have continued to
experiment with courtroom cameras, two modest trends among
reported cases might be noted. The first is toward more
generally allowing cameras into the courts, absent
exceptional circumstances. For instance, in only a handful
of reported cases have cameras been denied entry. Before
Chandler, Tribune Review v. Thomas (254 F.2d 883, 1958)
upheld the Pennsylvania ban; after Chandler, KARK-TV v.
Lofton (9 Med. L. Rptr. 1016, 1982) upheld the Arkansas
provision allowing exclusion of cameras upon the defendant's
request. In Georgia, a ban was upheld in the sensational
child-murder case of Wayne Williams (Georgia v. Williams, 7
Med. L. Rptr. 1849, 1981) after testimony that psychological
harm might be inflicted on child viewers. A second ban in
Georgia was upheld in the case of a retrial of a defendant
whose prior conviction had been vacated due to extensive
pretrial publicity (Georgia TV v. Georgia 363 S.E.2d 528,
1988). And in New York, in two recent sensational trials--
the "Howard Beach" murder trial {New York v. Kern, 137 A.D.
862, 1988) and the "Preppy Murder" trial {New York Times v.
Bell, 135 A.D.2d 182, 1988)--due to the sensitive nature of
the crimes, both were considered by respective trial judges
as unsuitable for coverage during the New York experiment
with courtroom cameras.
In contrast, in at least a dozen other cases, the
electronic media have been allowed in the courtroom even over

23
the defendant's objections. For instance, there have been
three cases in Ohio: Ex Rel Grinnell Communications v. Love,
406 N.E.2d 809, 1980; Ohio Ex Rel Miami Valley Broadcasting
v. Kessler, 413 N.E.2d 1203, 1980; and Ohio Ex Rel Cosmos
Broadcasting v. Brown, 471 N.E.2d 874, 1984 (decision based
on First Amendment grounds--"[U]nless there is an overriding
consideration to the contrary . . . representatives of the
electronic news media must be allowed to bring their
technology with them into the courtroom," at 883).
Thus, the media have successfully survived challenges
to entry to the courtroom. Further examples include cases in
New Mexico (New Mexico ex rel Journal Publishing v. Allen, 8
Med. L. Rptr. 1320, 1984--although the issue was moot); in
Wisconsin (Wisconsin v. Koput, 10 Med. L. Rptr. 1932, 1984);
in two cases in Georgia (Multimedia v. Georgia, 353 S.E.2d
173, 1987--although the issue was moot, and Georgia TV v.
Napper, 14 Med. L. Rptr. 2382, 1988—allowing coverage of
hearings on allegations of drug use by former State Senator
Julian Bond); in Kansas (Kansas v. Garrett, 11 Med. L. Rptr.
2385, 1985--although coverage of the defendant was
prohibited); and in New York (New York v. Torres, 529 N.Y.S.
954, 1988--coverage of sentencing in the case of a defendant
convicted of killing a nun was allowed with limitations).
Even more significant, however, is the upholding of
convictions despite defendants' claims of denial of due
process due to the presence of courtroom coverage, including

24
camera usage. True, a few convictions were overturned: for
instance, in one early Illinois case, People v. Munday (117
N.E. 286, 1917), the conviction was overturned on several
grounds, including actual interruption of the proceedings by
photographers. And the flurry of reversals in the Warren
Court years of the 1960s (although none but Estes
significantly involved courtroom cameras) has already been
noted.39 Likewise, a conviction was overturned in Hudson v.
Georgia (132 S.E.2d 508, 1963): in that case a radio
microphone had been placed within five feet of the defense
table. In Callahan v. Lash (381 F. Supp. 827, 1974,
involving a conviction for murder of a police officer) , a new
trial was ordered on due process grounds, including the
presence of four cameras inside an "excessively cluttered"
courtroom.
However, with the exception of the aforementioned
Florida v. Green, it appears no convictions have been
overturned due to courtroom cameras since Chandler. And even
back in 1951 in California, in People v. Stroble (226 P.2d
330, 1951), the court had held that although at that time
courtroom cameras were "improper," there was "no indication
that the jury's verdict was influenced by the taking of the
pictures or the televising of courtroom scenes" (at 334), and
the conviction had been upheld.
A similar decision was reached in Oklahoma in 1958
(Lyles v. Oklahoma, 330 P.2d 734). The court held that the

25
bans were recommendations, not law, and that "Basically there
is no sound reason why photographers and television
representatives should not be entitled to the same privileges
of the courtroom as other members of the press" (at 741).
In several other cases the courts have upheld
convictions despite due process challenges including
reference to courtroom cameras. Examples include Gonzales v.
Colorado (438 P.2d 686, 1968), Oregon v. Wampler (569 P.2d
146, 1977), New Jersey v. Newsome (426 A.2d 68, 1980),
Washington v. Wixon (631 P.2d 1033, 1981), and Halsey v.
Bonar (683 S.W.2d 898, 1985) .
Most dramatically, in Massachusetts v. Cordeiro (519
N.E.2d, 1328, 1988), the convictions of the defendants in the
"Big Dan Rape Case" were upheld, despite their charges of
denial of due process. The defendants contended that the
judge's decision allowing broadcast coverage of the trial,
but excluding coverage of the alleged victim, prejudiced the
jurors against them; the court held it was within the
discretion of the trial judge to control coverage.
Moreover, there seem to be fewer instances of the
courts' upholding contempt convictions of those who violate
the bans. One of the first contempt cases, In Re Mack (126
A.2d 679, 1956), involved photographers, supported by
newspaper publishers, who responded to a court's suggestion
that they challenge the court ban by violating it—and their
subsequent citations for contempt were upheld by the appeals

26
court. Appeals Court Judge Michael Musmanno—who had been a
judge at the Nuremberg trials, which he pointed out had been
televised—wrote a lengthy "dissent to the ultimate" in
which he said the journalists had been double-crossed by the
court. In Brumfield v. Fla. (108 So. 2d 33, 1959), the
contempt citations for photographers who violated a ban
against photos of a prisoner on his way to arraignment were
also upheld. However, few examples of upholding of contempt
by the court in recent years turn up in the case reporters.40
At any rate, as of 1980, 45 states (all but Indiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and South Dakota—
along with the District of Columbia)—permitted some type of
courtroom coverage. (Texas allows audio coverage only in
appellate courts.) States allowing cameras have adopted
guidelines governing such issues as coverage of cases
involving juveniles as well as testimony of certain
witnesses.41 New York's experiment with cameras in trial
courts received extensive press coverage, particularly the
child-abuse trial of Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum.42
However, despite the 1982 revision of Canon 3A(7) and the
activity in state courts, there are still no cameras allowed
in federal courts. (See Table 1-1, Camera Coverage of State
Courts.)

27
TABLE 1-1
CAMERA COVERAGE OF STATE COURTS
States with Permanent Rules
Effective Date Courts
Experimental Permanent Level Division
Alabama***
02/01/76
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal*
Arizona
05/31/79
07/01/83
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Arkansas**
01/01/81
03/08/82
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
California
06/01/80
07/01/84
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Colorado
02/27/56
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal*
Connecticut
1982
10/01/84
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Florida
07/05/77
05/01/79
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Georgia
05/12/77
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal*
Hawaii
01/01/84
12/07/87
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Idaho
12/04/78
08/27/79
Supreme
Court in
Boise
Idaho
10/09/79
10/01/80
Supreme
Court on
Circuit
Illinois
01/01/84
01/22/85
Appellate
Iowa
01/01/80
01/01/82
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Kansas
09/14/81
09/01/88
Trial &
Appellate
Kentucky
07/01/81
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Louisiana****
07/13/79
04/30/85
Appellate
Maine
04/02/82
03/13/84
Supreme
Court
Maryland
01/01/81
07/01/82
Appellate
Maryland* *
01/01/81
07/01/84
Trial
Civil
Massachusetts
04/01/80
01/01/83
Appellate
Massachusetts
06/01/80
01/01/83
Trial
Civil
&
Criminal
Michigan
02/01/88
01/13/89
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Minnesota
01/27/78
04/20/83
Appellate
Montana
04/01/78
04/18/80
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Nebraska
10/01/82
10/01/83
Supreme
Court
New Hampshire
01/01/78
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
New Jersey
05/01/79
10/08/80
Appellate
New Jersey
05/01/79
06/09/81
Trial
Civil
&
Criminal
New Mexico
07/01/80
01/01/83
Dist. &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
New York
01/01/81
Appellate
North Dakota
02/01/79
07/01/80
Supreme
Court
Ohio***
06/01/79
01/01/82
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Oklahoma***
01/01/79
02/22/82
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal*
Tennessee***
02/27/79
Trial Sc
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal*
Vermont
07/01/84
09/01/88
Supreme
Court
Washington***
09/20/76
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
West Virginia
01/01/79
05/28/81
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Wisconsin
04/01/78
07/01/79
Trial &
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal

28
Table 1-1—Continued.
States with
Experimental Rules
Effective
Period
Level
Division
Date
Alaska
08/24/78
To 1/15/90,
then permanent
Trial & Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Delaware
05/01/82
Extended
Indefinitely
Supreme Court
Civil
Idaho
01/04/82
Extended
Indefinitely
Court of Appeals
Minnesota**
04/18/83
Unofficially
Extended
Trial
Civil
&
Criminal
Nevada
04/01/80
Unofficially
Extended
Trial & Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
New Jersey
01/03/84
Indefinite
Municipal Courts
Civil
&
Criminal
New York
12/01/87
Extended to
Selected Trial
Civil
&
Criminal
05/31/91
Courts
North
10/18/82
Extended to
Trial & Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Carolina
6/30/90
Oregon
06/01/83
Indefinite
Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Pennsylvania
**10/01/79
Extended
Trial, nonjury
Civil,
Superior
Indefinitely
Court
Rhode Island
10/01/81
Extended
Indefinitely
Trial & Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Utah*
01/01/88
Completed,
awaiting
decision
Supreme Court
Civil
&
Criminal
Virginia
07/01/87
Extended to
6/30/90
Trial & Appellate
Civil
&
Criminal
Wyoming
08/14/81
Extended
Supreme Court
Indefinitely
* Consent of accused required in criminal trials.
** Consent of parties and witness required.
*** No coverage of individuals who object.
**** Subject to approval of the individual court.
# Still photography only in trial courts.
Used with permission of National Center for State Courts, 300
Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187 (November, 1989).

29
The Federal Courts
Cameras have been banned from federal courts since the
1946 adoption of Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.43 In 1962, the Judicial Conference adopted a
resolution prohibiting cameras in any federal courts, thus
including civil proceedings, and, in 1972, the Judicial
Conference incorporated the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 3A(7),44 As discussion of courtroom coverage in federal
courts generally has centered on the possibility of coverage
in the U.S. Supreme Court, a description of the development
of broadcast coverage of the High Court is appropriate at
this time.
The press corps covering the Supreme Court has grown
from fewer than half a dozen reporters in the 1930s to more
than 50 today,45 including correspondents from all three major
television networks and Cable News Network (CNN).46 Many
reporters, including those for the television networks
(beginning with NBC's Carl Stern in 1967 followed by CBS'
Fred Graham in 1972 and ABC's Tim O'Brien in 1977), have law
degrees.47
In 1983, researcher Ethan Katsh studied the extent to
which the three television networks covered the Supreme
Court.48 He reported that from 1967-1981, each network had
covered approximately one out of five decisions handed down,
with one out of ten of the decisions analyzed by the
network's legal correspondent.49

30
In 1987, researcher Richard Davis included CBS News
coverage (along with that of two newspapers) in a study of
media portrayal of the U.S. Supreme Court.50 Of a random
sample of 32 CBS Evening News broadcasts, Davis found only
one included a story on the Supreme Court.51
There is general agreement that the institution of the
Supreme Court itself is a major impediment to more coverage
by television. As Congressional Quarterly explains, "[T]he
Court, almost by definition, is a rigid, tradition-bound, and
intensely secretive institution, while the press is, by
necessity, adaptive, exploratory, and devoted as a matter of
principle to the elimination of secrecy."52 Paletz and Entman
point out the two main strategies of the Supreme Court in
dealing with the media: "[A]ccentuate the majesty of the
Court, and minimize access to its inner workings."53
The Court makes minimal accommodation to the press and
at one time considered closing the press work room.54 Until
1965, decisions were announced only on Mondays; since 1971
the practice has been when hearing arguments (October through
April), the Court announces opinions only on Tuesdays and
Wednesdays, then, in May and June, on Mondays along with the
orders.55 There is no prior announcement as to when cases
will be handed down.56 Since 1971, the Justices announce most
opinions, many of them complex and confusing even for members
of the legal profession, in two to four minutes, stating only
the result of each case.

31
As Katsh points out, announcing the decisions in
clusters on one or two days makes it less likely any single
decision will be covered, as does the practice of announcing
more than one third of the decisions in June.57 ABC's Tim
O'Brien says that Katsh’s study of the Evening News leaves
out the other 90 percent of news and public affairs
programming such as ABC's "Nightline" which explores issues
confronting the Supreme Court. However, O'Brien does cite
the networks' 22-minute limit for the Evening News combined
with the Court's tendency to announce the preponderance of
its decisions in June as an "annual, unyielding nightmare."58
Furthermore, the veil of secrecy surrounding the
activities of the members of the High Court is well
documented (most dramatically in Woodward and Armstrong's
1979 The Brethren),59 At times when reporters penetrate the
shield of secrecy surrounding the Justices or the Court (as
NPR's Nina Totenberg did in 1977 and ABC's O'Brien did in
1979),60 the Court responds by limiting access even more.61
As Tim O'Brien once described it, "Most Justices avoid
reporters like lepers."62
Researcher Davis suggests certain constitutional and
political weaknesses of the Court--for instance, the need to
exercise caution in defining its own role in the national
government—have necessitated a norm of institutional
loyalty, with individual Justices' avoiding actions
detrimental to the Court.63 However, the norm

32
notwithstanding, some individual Justices have recently
allowed reporters, including broadcast journalists, to
interview them, such as Justice Brennan on NBC's "Today Show"
in April 1986,64 and Justice Blackmun on the syndicated
"Superior Court" in February of 1987,65 and Justice Brennan on
NPR's "All Things Considered," also in February of 1987.66 in
1987-1988, in honor of the Bicentennial of the U.S.
Constitution, the Justices participated in several
educational programs. The most elaborate was a two-part
documentary on the High Court which included unprecedented
behind-the-scenes footage; it was aired on PBS stations in
May, 1988.67
There have been some recent attempts to open federal
courts to cameras. For instance, in 1982, an attempt to
televise hearings on a lawsuit concerning a congressional
redistricting plan--hearings which were held in the federal
courthouse in Denver—was unsuccessful: in Combined
Communications v. Finesilver (672 F.2d, 818, 1982), the court
held the local rule banning electronic media in the federal
courthouse applied, and the question of application of the
Colorado Open Meetings Law was "irrelevant."
In 1983, then U.S. District Judge Alcee Hastings of
Miami unsuccessfully sued to allow cameras into his trial for
allegedly conspiring to solicit a bribe. Although his
request was denied and the denial upheld on appeal, a
concurring judge in the appeals case said the issue of camera

33
coverage of federal courts is "ripe for reconsideration by
the appropriate rulemaking authority."68
A petition by CBS to televise the libel trial--in which
the network news department was the defendant—brought by
General William Westmoreland was denied (Westmoreland v. CBS
in re Waiver, 752 F.2d 16, 1984): the appeals court held that
although it acknowledged that such coverage would provide a
public service, "[U]ntil the First Amendment expands to
include television access to the courtroom as a protected
interest, television coverage of federal trials is a right
created by consent of the judiciary ... a consent which the
federal courts . . . have not given" (at 24 ) , 69 Also in 1984,
a newspaper reporter's request to bring a tape recorder into
a courtroom in a civil trial was denied: in U.S. v. Yonkers
Board of Education (747 F.2d 111), the court held that the
local rule banning electronic equipment in a courtroom was a
reasonable "time, place, and manner" regulation.
In U.S. v. Kerley (753 F.2d 617, 1985), the defendant
(indicted for failure to register for the draft) petitioned
the court to be allowed to videotape his own proceedings:
citing Hastings, the court held Rule 53 was not
unconstitutional. Journalists wishing to televise coverage
of the federal fraud and racketeering trial of Louisiana
Governor Edwin Edwards were likewise unsuccessful (U.S. v.
Edwards v. Wise, 785 F.2d 1293, 5th Cir., 1986), as were
those attempting to cover electronically the racketeering

34
trial of union officials (Conway v. U.S., Presser, 852 F.2d
187, 6th Cir., 1988).
However, in at least one case (Dorfman v. Meiszner, 430
F.2d 558, 1970), the court held that the local rule
forbidding broadcasting in a Chicago courthouse/federal
office building went beyond the scope of the First Amendment,
and parts of the building were opened to the electronic
media. And in 1983 in Hutchinson v. Marshall (9 Med. L.
Rptr. 2443), the federal district court dismissed the
petition of a state prisoner who complained about a four-
month delay in his trial while television stations challenged
bans on broadcast coverage. (The Ohio state case was
discussed earlier, Ex Rel Miami Valley Broadcasting.)
Moreover, as in the state courts, most attempts to have
convictions overturned on courtroom-camera/due-process
grounds have generally failed in the federal courts. For
instance, in Bell v. Patterson (279 F. Supp. 760, 1968), the
court upheld a murder conviction on various grounds, despite
charges of disruption by photographers (still and television,
allowed in the courtroom only for the verdict). In Texas
(which allowed cameras in courts until 1974),70 in Bradley v.
Texas (470 F.2d 785, 1972), an aiding and abetting murder
conviction was upheld despite complaints including camera
coverage. In Iowa, the conviction for murder of a police
officer in Zaehringer v. Brewer (635 F.2d 734, 1980) was
upheld. In Zaehringer, the court held that televising of the

35
sentencing hearing "deprived the petitioner of his right of
due process"—both the trial judge and the prosecuting
attorney were candidates for reelection a month after the
hearings and figured prominently in the coverage. However,
the conviction was upheld due to lack of evidence that the
sentence itself was prejudiced by the cameras.
In at least two cases, contempt citations for
photographers violating camera bans in federal courts were
upheld on due process grounds. In Seymour v. U.S. (373 F.2d
629, 1967), a television news photographer in Texas
photographed a defendant in the hallway outside the
courtroom. And in Kansas in 1975, a newspaper photographer
was cited for contempt for taking pictures of federal
prisoners in prohibited areas of the federal courthouse: in
In re Mazzetti v. U.S. (518 F.2d 781), the bans were found to
be a reasonable implementation of due process safeguards.
However, despite the record in the federal courts,
proponents of federal courtroom camera coverage see some
signs of possible change in developments outside the court.
For instance, in April of 1986, the cable television network
C-SPAN produced a five-hour segment of its series "America
and the Courts" entitled "A Focus on the Federal Judiciary."71
The program included interviews "live" from inside the U.S.
Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, as well as recorded
interviews such as one with then D.C. Circuit Judge Antonin
Scalia.72 The same week, then Chief Justice Warren Burger

36
told the American Society of Newspaper Editors he might
consider allowing C-SPAN to cover arguments in the Supreme
Court if the cable channel could guarantee full presentation
of the proceedings, without editing—and prevent excerpts of
coverage by other broadcasters:73 C-SPAN did commit to
coverage of all 160 hours of oral argument each year.74
When Justice Potter Stewart retired, he held a press
conference in which he suggested camera coverage of the High
Court would be most appropriate: "Our courtroom is an open
courtroom. The public and the press are there routinely, and
since today television is part of the press, I have a hard
time seeing why it should not be there too as long as it is
not a disruptive influence."75
However, the High Court turned down a request for live
radio coverage of arguments on the constitutionality of the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in 1986. But three of the
Justices--Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens—announced they
would have granted the request.76 Also in 1986, then dean of
the College of Law at the Florida State University, Talbot
(Sandy) D'Alemberte—a longtime supporter of courtroom
cameras77--sent Chief Justice William Rehnquist a proposal for
implementation of camera coverage under the auspices of FSU
and the American Judicature Society; D'Alemberte suggested
implementation of a modification of the Florida Guidelines.78
Justice Antonin Scalia, who might represent a vote for
courtroom cameras, indicated to members of the Federal

37
Communications Bar Association that if broadcasters would air
arguments in their entirety, he would not object to cameras.79
And Justice Brennan stated in an NPR interview in 1987, "I
don't understand why two or three hundred people can sit in
our courtroom when [radio and television] could expand that
audience to millions."80
Thus, the time is ripe for a study of courtroom
cameras. In September, 1988, the Judicial Conference
approved an experimental program permitting use of video
cameras to create the official court record of proceedings in
a designated federal court.81 In November, 1988, three of the
Supreme Court Justices--Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who
had promised to give the issue "sympathetic consideration")
and Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy--witnessed a
courtroom camera demonstration conducted by CBS News and 12
other media organizations.82 In February, 1989, the Court of
Military Appeals, the three-member high court in all military
cases, allowed ABC News to film oral arguments in two cases
involving drug testing. It was the first time a legal
argument had ever been filmed in a federal courtroom.83
Although in September, 1989, a special committee to consider
the issue recommended to the Judicial Conference that the
flat ban on cameras in federal courts continue, one of the
five members of the committee voted to end the ban, and the
committee did suggest judges should continue to monitor state
court coverage with an eye to future change.84

38
Finally, other countries—including Australia, Canada,
France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain--have
experimented with courtroom cameras.85 After more than 60
years, in 1989, even Britain considered revising its ban
(part of the Criminal Justice Act of 1925, Section 41).
After visiting courtrooms in New York and Florida in 1989,
the members of the bar committee considering the question
unanimously recommended rescinding the ban in England.86
Evidence in the U.S. also points to a reconsideration of the
question of the "mischievous potentialities" of courtroom
cameras .87
Hypotheses
The preceding discussion describes the development of
the law regarding the use of news cameras in courtrooms,
along with descriptions of the growing use of cameras in
state courts since 1981 and the possibility of overturning of
the ban on cameras in federal courts, particularly in the
U.S. Supreme Court. The literature review (Chapter 2) will
discuss in depth three areas in which speculation has been
presented regarding possible effects of courtroom cameras:
general history, law, and social science.
Briefly, in the area of general history, there have
been frequent debates speculating on the merits of and
drawbacks to camera coverage. Also, the process of news
production has changed, with various news media becoming

39
increasingly similar in electronic means of assimilation.
Thus, there has been a growing body of literature on the
resultant "convergence of modes," i.e., the blurring of lines
between print and electronic media, and the appropriateness
of continued differential treatment of newspaper and
broadcast journalists in light of this technological advance.
Legal scholars have discussed the constitutional
dimensions of the right of access to courtrooms as well as
speculated on the possible impact of cameras on courtroom
participants. As already touched upon, the case law,
including the landmark Supreme Court decisions, speculates on
effects of cameras and calls for empirical research.
Finally, due to the recency of most of the camera
implementation, as well as to the traditional conservative
approach regarding social science in the courts, there has
been little gathering of empirical data regarding actual
behavior of broadcast journalists employing courtroom
cameras. Studies of the role of the journalist, the
adversarial relationship between the press and the
government, and the political aspects of televised coverage
put the issue into perspective. Surveys of those involved in
experimental camera coverage as well as a handful of
(noncourtroom) experiments with cameras fuel the speculation.
Therefore, the question of whether broadcast
journalists actually do disrupt judicial proceedings, until
now only a matter of speculation, would be an important

40
subject of study. However, as discussed more fully in the
methodology section (Chapter 3), rather than starting off
with a priori formal hypotheses, a pioneering researcher
would more appropriately select a theory-generating method of
study. Field research, specifically participant observation,
is one such approach.
One of the major differences between a quantitative
study and one involving such methods as participant
observation is the lesser emphasis on construction of formal
theories and hypotheses by the field researcher. The
participant observer would not approach the study with
precisely-defined hypotheses to be tested but would rather
alternate deduction and induction during the course of the
study to continuously modify the research design.
Thus, participant observation is considered a theory¬
generating process. According to Earl Babbie, the author of
The Practice of Social Research. "To the field researcher,
the formulation of theoretical propositions, the observation
of empirical events, and the evaluation of theory are
typically all part of the same ongoing process."88
Moreover, Clifford Christians and James Carey,
describing "The Logic and Aims of Qualitative Research" in
Research Methods in Mass Communication, state it is not
necessary for qualitative social science research to be so
closely modeled on the hard sciences as quantitative social
science research may be. The contribution of the qualitative

41
researcher may be in adding to dialogue rather than in
theoretical generalizations.89
Thus, rather than stating formal hypotheses, the
appropriate method in this case study involves setting out
research questions. Analysis of the issues studied should
yield data eventually leading to theoretical propositions,
the basis for more formal quantitative research in the
future.
Accordingly, four questions regarding courtroom cameras
were asked in advance of the study.
Q1: How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?
Broadcast journalists refer to reporters,
photographers, producers, or other employees of broadcast
stations (both radio and television) assigned to present news
coverage of trials.
State guidelines are the rules such as those included
in the Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing
Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage of Judicial
Proceedings, codified in the Florida Rules as Code of
Judicial Conduct 3A(7) and hereafter called "Guidelines."
(See Appendix A.)
Criminal Trials refer to trials of defendants indicted
on such charges as murder or aggravated assault (excluding
sexual battery and lewd assaults) or other felonious charges,
limited to such cases heard in the judicial circuit studied

42
during the period of observation (and excluding subsequent
related appellate court action).
Q2: What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?
Impact refers to effect on methods of gathering news
and broadcast presentation of courtroom coverage, as may be
apparent to the observer in the courtroom, as may be
described by media personnel and trial participants, and as
may be evident in the work product of the broadcast
journalists covering the trial.
Q3: Do broadcast journalists present undistorted
coverage of criminal trial proceedings?
Undistorted coverage refers to a high degree of
correspondence between events (as perceived by the
researcher, described by print journalists, and evaluated by
trial participants) with the work product of the broadcast
journalists covering the same criminal trial (taking into
account assumed stylistic differences).
Q4: Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?
Observably disrupt the judicial process refers to
incidents which might be noted by the researcher or by
members of the print media and/or any trial participants
regarding behavior of broadcast journalists. It can also
refer to formal motions for and/or possible granting of
mistrial due to behavior of broadcast journalists during the
period of observation.

43
In the following chapter, a review of litérature
related to this study will be presented. Chapter 3 will
include a description of the methodology employed, while the
results and conclusions will be presented in Chapters 4 and
5, respectively.
Notes
lU.S. v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 49 No. 14692g, 1807. For
general discussion of basic Free Press/Fair Trial issues,
see, e.g., Henry Abraham, "Press Freedom and Fair Trial and
Prior Restraint," in Freedom and the Court; Civil Rights and
Liberties in the United States. 4th ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1982), 160-162; Jerome Barron & C. Thomas
Dienes, "Free Press and Fair Trial," in Handbook of Free
Speech and Free Press (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1979),
531-608; T. Barton Carter, Marc Franklin, & Jay Wright,
"Restrictions on Cameras and Other Equipment," in The First-
Amendment and the Fifth Estate (Mineóla, NY: Foundation
Press, 1986), 551-557; Marc Franklin, "Discrimination Among
Media," in Cases and Materials on Mass Media Law. 3rd ed.
(Mineóla, NY: Foundation Press, 1987, 639-645; Warren
Freedman, Press & Media Access to the Criminal Courtroom (New
York: Quorum Books, 1988), 41-68; Donald Gillmor & Jerome
Barron, "Access to the Judicial Process: Free Press and Fair
Trial," in Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment. 4th ed.
(St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1984), 485-557; Yale Kamisar,
Wayne LaFave, & Jerold Israel, "Trial by Newspaper—and
Television," in Modern Criminal Procedure. 6th ed. (St. Paul:
West Publishing, 1986), 1298-1331; Kent Middleton and Bill F.
Chamberlin, "The Media and the Judiciary," in The Law of
Public Communication (New York: Longman, 1988), 385-434;
Harold Nelson & Dwight Teeter, "Publicity During Trial:
Cameras in the Courtroom," in Law of Mass Communications. 4th
ed. (Mineóla, NY: Foundation Press, 1982), 432-444; Wayne
Overbeck & Rick Pullen, "Fair Trial/Free Press Conflicts," in
Major Principles of Media Law. 2d ed. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1985), 176-200; Don Pember, "Cameras in
the Courtroom," in Mass Media Law. 4th ed. (Dubuque: Wm. C.
Brown, 1987), 401-405. For specific overviews, see, e.g.,
American Bar Association, The Rights of Fair Trial and Free
Press (Chicago, 1981); American Society of Newspaper Editors/
American Newspaper Publishers Association, Free Press and
Fair Trial (Washington, DC, 1982); Chilton Bush, ed., Free
Press and Fair Trial; Some Dimensions of the Problem (Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 1970); Alfred Friendly & Ronald

44
Goldfarb, Crime and Publicity: The Impact of News on the
Administration of Justice (New York: Vintage Books, 1967); J.
Edward Gerald, News of Crime: Court and Press in Conflict
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983); Donald Gillmor, Free
Press and Fair Trial (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press,
1966); Peter Kane, Murder. Courts and the Press: Issues in
Free Press/Fair Trial (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1986); John Lofton, Justice and the Press
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966); Paul Reardon & Clifton Daniel,
Fair Trial and Free Press (Washington, DC: American
Enterprises Institute for Public Policy Research, 1968) .
2Lofton, Ibid.
3Friendly and Goldfarb.
4See, e.g., Palm Beach Newspapers v. Burk, 504 So. 2d
378 (1987); Florida Freedom Newspapers v. McCrary, 520 So.
2d 32 (1988) .
5Seattle Times v. Rinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 1984.
6See, e.g., Diane Kightligner, "Judges Fight Trial
Publicity: Open the Courtroom But Close Participants'
Mouths," Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Portland OR, July 1988.
7For history of the ABA, including canons, see, e.g.,
American Bar Association, ABA Project on Minimum..Standa.jrcls
for Criminal Justice (New York: Institute of Judicial
Administration, 1968); Edson Sunderland, History of the
American Bar Association and Its Work (Ann Arbor: R. Heber
Smith, 1953); Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of
Judicial Conduct (Chicago, 1973) . For discussion of typical
state standards, see, e.g., Special Committee on Radio,
Television, and the Administration of Justice of the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Radio.
Television, and the Administration of Justice (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1965) , and Freedom of the Press
and Fair Trial (1967). For revisionist history of Canon 35,
see, e.g., Susanna Barber, Chapter Two, "A History of Cameras
in the Courtroom: A Social Scientific Evaluation," Ph.D.
dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1981; Joseph
Costa, "Cameras in Courtrooms: A Position Paper," Muncie, IN,
1980; Richard Kielbowicz, "The Making of Canon 35: A Blow to
Press-Bar Cooperation," Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Houston, 1979; and "The
Story Behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras,"
Judicature 63:1 (June-July 1979):14-23. Also, S.L.
Alexander, "Curious History: The ABA Code of Judicial Ethics

45
Canon 35," Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Portland, OR, 1988.
&New Jersey v. Hauptmann, 115 N.J.L. 412, 180 A. 809,
cert, denied, 296 U.S. 649 (1935) .
9Discussion here based on accounts of the trial in
Alexander, Barber, Costa, & Kielbowicz; and Oscar Hallam,
"Some Object Lessons on Publicity in Criminal Trials,"
Minnesota Law Review 24:4 (March 1940):453-477, and Appendix:
"Report of Special Committee on Publicity in Criminal Trials"
(1935):477-508.
10Kielbowicz ("Story," 19) points out that the cameras
could run without the judge's knowledge, which seems to
contradict traditional speculation that film equipment 50
years ago was too crude to allow cameras in courts without
distraction.
^Throughout the 1920s, cameras were allowed in some
courtrooms and banned in others. For example, Judge J.
Raultson allowed them at the "monkey trial." (Scopes v.
Tennessee, 152 Tenn. 424, 1925); Judge Eugene O'Dunne
prohibited them and cited photographers who defied his orders
for contempt at a murder trial in Baltimore (Ex parte sturm,
152 Md. 114, 136 A. 312, Ct. App. 1927): "The liberty of the
press does not include the privilege of taking advantage of
the incarceration of a person accused of crime to photograph
his face and figure against his will," at 314.) The ABA
Ethics Committee recommended condemnation of broadcasting in
1932 (Formal Opinion 67, 57 ABA Reports. 147). However, the
practice continued: e.g., a Chicago traffic court judge, upon
finding 90% of tickets were "fixed," began broadcasting
proceedings in 1934. See Mitchell Dawson, "Broadcast Trials?
Yes," The Lawyer. March 1938, 8-10.
i2Costa •
13Kielbowicz.
14Author's interview with Ethel Stockton, Ocala, FL
(July 31, 1989).
iSBarber, 11-12.
16Hallam, 493-494. A sidelight reflective of the times
is the agreement of all the gentlemen on the Committee of the
need to show concern for certain trial participants: "Women
and children whose presence at a trial is compelled are often
humiliated by the thought that they are accidentally
associated with the sordid details of a criminal trial. It

46
seems an unjustifiable addition to their distress that they
should be photographed against their will, pictured in the
Press, and their personal appearance and clothes made the
subject of gossiping comment."
17 62 ABA Reports. 1937, 860.
18Se.e Christopher Sterling and John Kittross, Stay
Tuned; A Concise History of American Broadcasting (Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, 1978), 122-123. Also Broadcasting,
specifically "UP and INS May Sell Radio News," April 15,
1935, 11; "Publishers Liberalize Press-Radio Plan," May 1,
1935, 7; "Rival News Services Acquire More Clients at NAB
Session," July 15, 1935, 15; "Pirating of Press Service News
Adjudged Unfair Competition," Jan. 1, 1936, 12; "Exclusion of
Press Services From Radio to be Proposed at Publishers
Session," Feb. 15, 1936, 16; "Press Drops Cudgel, Ends Radio
Feud," May 1, 1936, 9; "News ’Piracy,'" Jan. 1, 1937, 44.
1961 ABA Reports. 1936, 801.
2062 ABA Reports. 1937, 852.
2i Ibid, 1134-1135.
22"The Case of the Controversial Canon," ABA Journal
May 1962, 431.
2383 ABA Reports. 1958, 660.
24See ABA: Opinions of the Committee on Professional
Ethics and Grievances, Chicago, 1967; Standing Committee on
Professional Ethics: Informal Opinions. Vols. I & II,
Chicago, 1969; Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility: Formal and Informal Ethics Opinions. Chicago,
1985; Recent Ethics Opinions. 1985.
2577 ABA Reports. 1952, 607-611.
28Frank White, "Cameras in the Courtroom: A U.S.
Survey," Journalism Monographs 60 (April 1979) 3.
21 Marshall v. U.S., 360 U.S. 310 (1959); Irvin v. Dowd,
366 U.S. 717 (1961); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723
(1963); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). See Kent Middleton and Bill F.
Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication (New York:
Longman, 1988), 394.
28See also Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50; 71 S. Ct.
549 (1951), in which a rape conviction was overturned on

47
grounds "prejudicial influences outside the courtroom . . .
were brought to bear on this jury with such force that the
conclusion is inescapable that these defendants were
prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to
register a verdict already dictated by the press and the
public opinion which it generates" (at 51).
29Broadcaster Joseph Brechner wrote a response to the
Reardon Report in which he claimed the media was a scapegoat.
"News Media & the Courts," Fol Report No. 004. Columbia, MO,
June 1967.
30107 ABA Reports, 1982, 729. The 1984 Lawyers Manual
on Professional Conduct (Chicago) presents the 1982 revision
and is quoted here.
3iA Statement from the Central Florida Chapter SDX/SPJ,
In Re Case No. 46835," Orlando, 1978.
32 In Re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations, 370 So. 2d
764 (1979) .
33 Zamora v. Fla., 372 So. 2d 472 (1979) . See also
Zamora v. CBS, ABC, NBC, 480 F. Supp. 199 (1979): complaint
against the TV networks for negligence dismissed on First
Amendment grounds: "The importance of the First Amendment to
our freedoms as a whole cannot be overemphasized" (at 203).
34See, e.g., Martin Bass, "Cameras in the Courtroom:
The Florida Experience," Television Quarterly 17:2 (Summer
1980):13-17; Raymond Buchanan, Bert Pryor, Milan Meske, &
David Strawn, "The Florida Experiment," Trial 15:4 (April
1979):34-36; "Courtroom Cameras Face Crucial Test," Editor &
Publisher, October 8, 1977, 11; R. Stephen Craig, "Cameras in
Courtrooms in Florida," Journalism Quarterly 56 (1979): 703-
710; "Florida Trial of 'TV Addict' Goes on the Air,"
Broadcasting. October 3, 1977, 31; Terry Knopf, "The State of
Florida v. Ronny Zamora: Camera Coverage on Trial," The Quill
65:10 (1977) :21-23 + ; Judith Kreeger, "Cameras in the
Courtroom," The Florida Bar Journal 52:6 (1978):450-52;
"Valid Judgment," Broadcasting. October 3, 1977, 82.
However, John Hanchette points out that at one point the
jurors did ask the judge if they could see themselves on
television; the judge denied the request. ("Courtroom is
Laboratory for Photography Experiment," Gannetteer. December
1977, 14). See also, "TV on Trial," a two-hour documentary
aired on PBS May 23, 1978. For a recent update on the Zamora
trial, see Donna Gehrke, "Trial Over But Ordeal Continues: TV
Intoxication Murder Case Still Haunts Principles," Miami
Herald. 3 December 1989, 1 G+.

48
35For coverage of the case, see, e.g., Jean Chance,
"Cameras in Court: Is Presence Prejudicial?" Florida Freedom
of Information Clearing House Newsletter. 4:8 (September-
October 1980) 5; "A David Among Goliaths on the Chandler
Case," The Quill, September 1980, 9.
36See, e.g., Norman Davis, "Courtroom Television on
Trial: It's Here, It Works," Television Quarterly 18:3 (1981)
85-86.
31 Herman v. Florida, (77-1236, 1978); 402 So. 2d 610
(1981) .
33Bundy v. Florida, 362 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1978) . For
press coverage, see, e.g., "The Cameras Were Rolling at
Murder Trial in Florida," The Quill 67:8 (September 1979):7;
"Defendant 'Stars' in Televised Trial," Editor & Publisher,
August 18, 1979, 54; "Proof of Performance," Broadcasting.
July 23, 1979, 74.
39See Note 27.
40 It should be noted that most contempt trials are on
the state trial court level and thus would remain unreported.
Moreover, the prime supplementary data base--Media Law
Reporter--relies on self-reported cases, so the lack of
contempt citations might not accurately reflect the
situation.
41"Summary of TV Cameras in the State Courts," November
22, 1989, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts;
"Five States, DC Ban Cameras From Courtrooms," Society of
ErQ.fessional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi Freedom of
Information Report 1988-89. Washington, DC, 1989, 3-5.
42See, e.g., "Audio-Visual Coverage on Trial in
States," The News Media & the Law 13:1 (Winter 1988):48-50;
"Cameras Barred From New York, Alaska Murder Trials Despite
Coverage Rules," The News Media & the Law 13:2 (Spring 1988):
46-48; "Cameras Put Followers of Steinberg Case in
Courtroom," Broadcasting. December 18, 1988, 65-66; David
Friedman, "Court of Public Opinion," Newsday. 6 December
1988, 11:5; "Gauging Effect of TV Trials," Newsday. 29
January 1989, 5; D. Guttenplan, "Hottest Ticket in Town is to
Court," Newsday, 6 December 1988, 31; Kirk Johnson, "New York
Courts Allowing Cameras for First Time in 50 Years," New York
Times, 18 December 1987, 16 Y; David Kaplan, "TV View: The
Camera is Proving Its Case in the Courtroom," New York Times.
18 December 1988, 11:37; "Keep the Justice Windows Open," New
York Times. 28 March 1989, 22; "Light from Courtroom
Cameras," New York Times. 6 December 1988, 18 Y; Sam Roberts,

49
"TV in the Court: Titillation or Education?, New York Times.
27 November 1987, B:l; Albert Scardino, "Court TV is a
Fixture Even as New York is Deciding," New York Times. 22
January 1989, 7 E; Patricia Volk, "The Steinberg Trial:
Scenes from a Tragedy," New York Times Magazine, January 15,
1989, 21-25. Also, in 1988-89, a syndicated television
program, "On Trial," presented condensed coverage of actual
trials from states which allow cameras. See Kevin Goldman,
"Courtrooms 'On Trial,'" Newsday. 4 April 1988; Richard
Mahler, "'On Trial' Raises Questions of Cameras in
Courtrooms," Electronic Media. January 1989, 96+; Richard
Zoglin, "A Walk on the Seamy Side: New Tabloid Shows Are
Thriving on Sex & Violent Crime," Time. October 31, 1988, 78.
«FED R. CRIM. P. 53.
44See, e.g., Richard Lindsey, "An Assessment of the Use
of Cameras in State and Federal Courts," Georgia Law Review
18:3 (Spring 1984):389-424; and Diane Kiesel, "Will There
Ever Be Cameras in the Federal Courtrooms?" Communications
Lawyer 1:4 (1983):1+.
45Elder Witt, Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the
U.S. Supreme Court. 1990, Washington, DC, 713. For how it
used to be, see David Grey, The Supreme Court and The News
Media (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968).
46David O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in
American Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 82.
47Richard Reeves, "The Supreme Court vs. the Press," TV
Guide. December 1, 1979, 8.
48"The Supreme Court Beat: How Television Covers the
U.S. Supreme Court," Judicature 67:1 (June-July 1983) 1.
Ibid., 8.
50"Lifting the Shroud: News Media Portrayal of the U.S.
Supreme Court," Communications and the Law 9 (October
1987) : 43 .
51 Ibid. , 44-45.
52Congressional Quarterly. 712.
53David Paletz & Robert Entman, "The Supreme Court," in
Media. Power. Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1981), 101.
54Congressional Quarterly. 713. However, in this
revised edition, Elder Witt points out the Court has taken

50
some steps to make it easier on the press, including use of
headnotes on decisions, making available a preview of Supreme
Court cases (published by the ABA and the ANPA) and
attempting to limit the number of decisions handed down in a
given day (747) .
55 Ibid., 737. According to former public information
officer for the Supreme Court Barrett McGurn, despite efforts
to improve, "The Court's order list is impossible for an
unprepared reporter to understand." ("Public Information at
the United States Supreme Court," American Bar Association
Journal 69 (January 1983):42.)
56David O'Brien.
57Ethan Katsh, 11.
58Tim O'Brien, "Yes, but . . . ," Judicature 67:1 (June-
July 1983) :12.
59The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1979).
60Congressional Quarterly. 715 & 749.
61William Rivers, "Justice Takes the Veil," The Quill
70:6 (June 1982):33.
62Cited by Katsh, "Why We're Not Getting the Full Story
on the Supreme Court," TV Guide. March 3, 1984, 9.
63Richard Davis, 47.
64 Ibid. , 46.
65Reported by Associated Press, "Supreme Court Justice
Blackmun to Discuss His Views on 'Superior Court, '"
Gainesville Sun. January, 1987.
66"Brennan Says He Doesn't Think Rehnquist is Opposed
to Electronic Coverage of Supreme Court Proceedings," Radio-
Television News Directors Association Intercom. February
1987, 1.
67"This Honorable Court," (Press Release), WETA-TV,
Washington, DC, 1988. See also Tony Mauro, "Clearer Signals?
TV Milestone: Justices at Work & Play," Legal Times. 18
January 1988, 18.

51
68 [7. S. v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir.); reh'g en
banc denied, 704 F.2d 559 (1983). For news coverage of the
issue, see, e.g., "Judge Strikes Blow in TV Trial Coverage,"
Broadcasting. December 6, 1982, 69; "Judicial Conference
Blocks Broadcast Media Access to Federal Courts,"
Broadcasting. September 24, 1984, 36; Thomas Julin, "Federal
Electronic Media Ban Challenged," Florida Freedom of
Information Clearing House Newsletter. 7:4 (May 1983):4;
"Supreme Court Declines to Review Cameras in Court Case,"
Broadcasting. May 23, 1983, 38; "U.S. Judicial Conference
Votes Overwhelmingly to Continue Ban Against Television and
Radio Coverage of Federal Court Proceedings," SNPA Bulletin.
October 17, 1984.
69For news coverage of the case, see, e.g., "Judge
Denies CNN Request to Televise CBS/Westmoreland Libel Trial, "
Broadcasting. September 24, 1984, 80.
70Frank White, 47.
71"Press at the Bench," Broadcasting. April 14, 1986,
150 .
i* Ibid.
73"A11 or Nothing at All," Broadcasting. April 14,
1986, 204; Gilbert Cranberg, "Warren Burger's Flimsy Case,"
Columbia Journalism Review. July-August 1986, 19-20.
7 Today. 28 June 1988, 10 A.
75"Justice Stewart Retires," American Bar Association
Journal 67 (August 1981):954.
76"High Court Rejects Radio Coverage," Radio Television
News Directors Association Bulletin, May 1986, 1. See also,
Susan Lamontagne, "Cameras in the Supreme Court?" C-SPAN
Update. January 11, 1986, It; "Supreme Court Still Says No,
But Some Justices Favor Broadcast Coverage," Broadcasting.
April 28, 1986, 65. (Senator Jeremiah Denton (R-AL), who
proposed federal courtroom camera guidelines, was defeated by
Richard C. Shelby in 1986.); "No Cameras in Burger's Court,"
Broadcasting, November 19, 1984, 71; and Steve Caminis,
"Analysis: Miami Herald Interview with U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice Warren Burger," Radio-Television News Directors
Association Communicator. July 1985, 149-150.
77See, for example, D'Alemberte, "Cameras in the
Courtroom," Litigation (Fall 1982) 20-23; "Let the Sunshine
In," in Mass Media and the Supreme Court: The Legacy of the

52
Warren Years, ed. Kenneth Devol, 2d ed. (New York: Hastings
House, 1976), 433-436. (Dean D'Alemberte was counsel for
Post-Newsweek in 1979; he returned to private practice from
FSU in 1989.)
78Letter from Dean D'Alemberte to Justice Rehnquist,
September 30, 1986.
79"Supreme Court May Allow Cameras," National Newspaper
Publishers Association News Media Update. May 25, 1987, 3.
However, the newest justice, Anthony Kennedy, reportedly said
he opposes cameras in part because a sketch artist once
disrupted his courtroom by dropping pencils. See Tony Mauro,
"Throw Doors Open, Let Public In," USA Today. 28 June 1988,
10 A. See also, Charles Firestone, "It's Time to Open the
Supreme Court to Cameras," Broadcasting. October 3, 1988, 23;
James Kilpatrick, "Televising the High Court? Of Course!"
(syndicated column), Tallahassee Democrat. 26 November 1988,
11 A.
so"Brennan Says."
81Some Federal Court Video-Taping Approved," Florida
Press Association Bulletin. 'October 1988, 6-7; "Official
Cameras in U.S. Courts?" The News Media & the Law 12:4 (Fall
1988) : 52-53.
82"Cameras in the Supreme Court: A Dry Run for the
Justices," Broadcasting. November 28, 1988, 57-58; "Decision
Time," Broadcasting. December 5, 1988, 98; Richard Kleeman,
"Is the High Court Still Camera Shy?" The Quill 77:1 (January
1989) :8-9; "3 Justices Show Interest in Camera
Demonstration," The News Media and the Law 13:1 (Winter
1989):23-24; "Three Supreme Court Justices Watch Electronic
Coverage Demo," Radio Television News Directors Association
Intercom. December 1988, 4; "TV and the High Court," New York
Times. 22 November 1988, 10.
83"A Lens in the Door," New York Times. 28 February
1989, 12 Y; "Military Court Allows Cameras in Courtroom,"
(AP) Gainesville Sun. 26 February 1989; "Military Court of
Appeals Lets ABC Tape Argument," The News Media & the Law
13:2 (Spring 1989):38-39.
84"Bartlett: High Court Perpetuates 'Medieval
Atmosphere of Mystery,'" Radio Television News Directors
Association Intercom. November 3, 1989, 1 + ; Lyle Denniston,
"Judges, Jurors, & Videotape," Washington Journalism Review
11:10 (December 1989) :9; "Judges Keep Court Clear of
Cameras," (AP) Gainesville Sun. 22 September 1989, 4 A.

53
85See, e.g., Jonathan Caplan, "Court in the Eye of the
Camera," Times (London), 23 May 1989, 34.
"Ibid. See also, e.g., "Electronic Courtroom Coverage
to be Studied in Great Britain," Radio-Television News
Directors Association Intercom. August 1988, 1; Richard
Evans, "Bar Committee Sees No Threat to Justice From Cameras:
TV and Radio Should Broadcast Court Cases, Say Lawyers,"
Times (London) 23 May 1989, 6; Valerie Grove, "Out to Open a
Window on the Law," Times (London), 28 May 1989, B 5; Robert
Rice, "Bar Wants Courts to be Televised," Financial Times
(London), 23 May 1989, 11; Terence Shaw, "Allow the Courts to
be Televised, Says Bar Council, " Daily Telegraph (London) , 23
May 1989, 3.
87See, e.g., S.L. Alexander, "Courtroom Cameras:
Florida at Center Stage," The Brechner Report. 13:5 (May
1989) : 4 .
88Earl Babbie, "Field Research," in The Practice of
Social Research. 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986) 254.
"Clifford Christians & James Carey, ed. Guido Stempel
& Bruce Westley (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1981)
342-362 .

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature on Free Press/Fair Trial issues is
fairly extensive, including general commentary on the history
and status of courtroom cameras as well as discussions of
constitutional aspects of coverage. However, the suggestions
of the need for more data by Justice White in Estes and
Justice Burger in Chandler notwithstanding, a survey of the
literature shows there have been few empirical studies;
particularly lacking are field studies involving broadcast
journalists' coverage of actual trials. Therefore, as
discussed in Chapter 1, the literature review will look at
three areas in which speculation has been presented regarding
possible effects of courtroom cameras: general history, law,
and social science. In the area of social science in
particular, discussion of tangential studies of theories
regarding behavior of journalists, surveys of those involved
in experimental courtroom coverage, as well as description of
the handful of noncourtroom experiments with cameras will put
the issue into perspective.
General History
Perhaps the definitive survey of the literature is
found in Susanna Barber's 1987 News Cameras in the Courtroom:
54

55
A Free Press-Fair Trial Debate.1 An outgrowth of her 1981
doctoral dissertation2 and much earlier writing on the
subject,3 the study is the first comprehensive look at the
issue, including sections on the development of the ban, the
constitutional issues involved, the research to date, and
what she sees as a shift of the focus of discussion from the
courtroom to the audience.4
ABA members Elisha Hanson in 19585 and Albert
Blashfield in 1962,6 each representing media interests
determined to revise or revoke Canon 35, should be credited
as the first two to point out the internal ABA politics
involved in the 1937 ban, which Hanson described as the
result of "curious history." Their work stands in contrast
to Judge Oscar Hallam's nonrepentant apologia for the major
role he played in the development of the ban, "Some Object
Lessons on Publicity in Criminal Trials," published in 1940.7
Another with first-hand knowledge of the development of
Canon 35, photographer Joseph Costa, who covered the
Hauptmann trial, published his version of the story in 1980.8
Costa said the traditional interpretation, that the behavior
of the cameramen caused the "carnival atmosphere" which led
to the ban, was a "myth" which persisted, picked up time and
again by researchers. One doctoral student, Richard
Kielbowicz, supported Costa's viewpoint in his writings, and,
like Barber, presented the revisionist interpretation that it
was the behavior of the press and the public, both inside and

56
outside the courtroom, which had distracted from due process—
not the cameras.9
As the state began to experiment with courtroom
coverage during the 1970s, researchers studied the
developments in individual states and even individual trials.
Perhaps the most comprehensive look at the events in the
keynote state of Florida is R.S. Craig's 1979 "Cameras in
Courtrooms in Florida."10 Craig discussed the major studies
during the experimental years, the Zamora and Hermann trials,
and the bench-press guidelines for coverage. He concluded
current technology allows for coverage without disruption.
Martin Bass11 and Don White12 similarly described Florida's
success with courtroom cameras.
Others in Florida discussed the issue. In addition to
writing numerous stories in the popular press, reporters such
as the Miami Herald's Terry Knopf wrote "The State of Florida
v. Ronny Zamora: Camera Coverage on Trial" for the Society of
Professional Journalists/SDX's Quill in 1977.13 Then-Post-
Newsweek News Vice President Norm Davis debated Baltimore Sun
reporter Curt Matthews about the merits of courtroom cameras
as implemented in Florida in the pages of the Washington
Journalism, Review.14
Others described experimental coverage in various
states.15 General discussions on courtroom cameras include
those of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Edward Pringle
(former chairman of the Conference of Chief Justices) in

57
1979; Pringle and six other state supreme court justices also
discussed courtroom cameras in a one-hour documentary on
PBS.16 Witt wrote an excellent pre-Chandler summary.17
As far as the development of courtroom coverage in the
states, several researchers have produced state-by-state
surveys. Frank White published an extensive survey in 1979.18
The National Center for State Courts publishes an annual in-
depth survey which includes state-by-state guidelines.19 The
Radio-Television News Directors Association publishes a
"Survey of Courtroom Access" every six months (and an
excellent source of information is the organization's
periodic "News Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings," with
references to statutes and case cites as well as various
compilations),20 while the Society of Professional Journalists
publishes an annual roundup.21 Others who have gathered
surveys include James Hoyt,22 David Graves,23 and Lyle
Denniston .24
Denniston has also written frequently on courtroom
cameras in Quill and Washington Journalism Review.25 Others
who have written generally on the issue include Martin Bass,26
Talbot D'Alemberte,27 Edward Estlow,28 and John Weisman,29 as
well as the authors of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors/American Newspaper Publisher's Association "Free
Press and Fair Trial."30
CBS newsman (and attorney) Fred Graham debated the
merits of camera coverage with California Superior Court

58
Judge Donald Fretz.31 Judith Lindahl, one of the defense
attorneys for the widely publicized rape trial in New
Bedford, Massachusetts (Massachusetts v. Corderiro) , later
wrote a critical piece in which she suggested cameras have
negative impact on the judicial process: at the least, she
says, a seven-second delay device on live coverage would have
avoided the accidental broadcast of the victim's name as
occurred in this case.32
Regarding the general question of cameras in federal
courts, helpful background material on the issue is found in
Congressional Quarterly.33 in David O'Brien's Storm Center:
The Supreme Court in American Politics.34 and in Grey's The
Supreme Court and the News Media.33
William L. Rivers describes why the Supreme Court is so
reluctant to allow coverage,36 as do Richard Reeves37 and
Ethan Katsh.38 Diane Kiesel answers her question "Will There
Ever Be Cameras in the Federal Courtrooms?" with a "yes, and
maybe soon."39 Mauro recently suggested a range of political
reasons why the High Court remains reluctant to implement
coverage, including the highly televised political demise of
nominee Robert Bork in 1987 and the advanced age of many of
the Justices who might be embarrassed if cameras recorded
their actions. He cites the president of the Radio-
Television News Directors Association, Ernie Schultz, who
says, "You would think the justices would look at the
evidence--that's what courts are supposed to do—and see the

59
reality of what the states have done, but they completely
ignore it."40 (As Lou Prato, describing the efforts of the
Radio-TV News Directors Association to work with the National
Judicial College, claims, "No group is more adversarial in
its relationship with the news media than judges.")41
In addition to the discussion of the historical
development of courtroom cameras, there is a small but
growing body of literature on the related issue of the
continued appropriateness of broadcast regulation in general
as well as of the differential treatment of traditional
"print" and "broadcast" media under the First Amendment—the
differential which allows for restrictions on courtroom
cameras despite the First Amendment. The traditional
rationale for broadcast regulation has been the concept of
limitation of access due to technological scarcity. However,
today, due to the process referred to as "convergence of
modes," there is a blurring of lines between different media,
including print, broadcast, cable, teletext, and videotex.
Smith42 points out the perplexing problem of
determining whether new media should be considered as mere
extensions of newspapers and thus should be unregulated, or
whether it would be better to treat computer-controlled
information systems differently, as sovereignty over text
moves from the message creator to the message receiver.
Wicklein43 suggests the backbone of the new
communication system be treated as a common carrier, to avoid

60
governmental control of content as evolved in broadcasting.
He cites Oettinger on the danger to First Amendment rights of
a regulated press: "The fiction that newspapers are distinct
from television and cable television, is just that--a
fiction. If rights, First Amendment rights, either of
publishers or broadcasters or of the public are abrogated in
the broadcast medium . . . they will sooner or later
disappear in the print media."44
Fowler and Brenner45 propose that the trusteeship model
of broadcast regulation be replaced by a deregulated
marketplace approach. The authors point out the flaw of the
scarcity rationale and suggest the legal basis for the
marketplace approach, emphasizing the First Amendment rights
of the broadcaster rather than those of the audience.
Finally, de Sola Pool considers the current electronic
revolution as significant as the development of writing and
later of printing: he says the justification for regulation
of electronic media in contrast to First Amendment
protections offered the print media is no longer appropriate.
Regarding the specific area of courtroom cameras, de Sola
Pool suggests one cause of judicial reluctance to implement
the new technology: "Technical laymen, such as judges,
perceive the new technology in early clumsy form, which then
becomes their image of its nature, possibilities and use.
This perception is an incubus on later understanding."46

61
Thus, based on an examination of the literature, the
revisionists' interpretations of the development of the
courtroom camera ban lead to the conclusion that at the
least, the ban was politically motivated; moreover, with the
development of the new technology, the flat ban against
cameras in federal courtrooms may no longer be appropriate.
Law
The constitutional dimensions of the right to access
might begin with a discussion of Blasi,47 who, building on
Meiklejohn,48 suggests the First Amendment is an absolute in
the coverage of issues which lead to an informed electorate,
with the press to serve as a watchdog for possible government
abuse.
The "Triangle of Information Theory" developed by
Emerson,49 and elaborated upon by Kuriyama,50 further adds
support to the suggestion that the camera ban, distinguishing
between print and electronic media, is unconstitutional. In
brief, Emerson discerned a "triangle" involving
newsgathering, dissemination of news, and the right to
receive news, with all three elements of the triangle under
the umbrella of the First Amendment.
Following Emerson, Kuriyama's interpretation of Justice
Potter Stewart's concurrence in Houchins v. KQED (438 U.S. 1,
1978) leads to what he calls a "First Amendment pathway to
the courthouse" for electronic journalists, along with the

62
tools of their trade, under the newsgathering element of the
triangle. According to Kuriyama, Justice Stewart implies
that if the public is allowed access, the electronic media
must be allowed to bring in cameras for analogous "effective
access." Then, as Branzburg v. Hayes (408 U.S. 665, 1972)
supports a newsgathering right for the press, and as Richmond
implies parity between the public and the press, electronic
media and print media, both with rights equivalent to those
accorded to the general public, have equivalent rights of
full access.
Regarding the second leg of the triangle, citing U.S.
v. A.P. (326 U.S. 1, 1945), Kuriyama suggests it would
likewise be "constitutional folly" to deny an electronic
journalist the right to disseminate information he has
recorded. Finally, regarding the third leg of the triangle,
Emerson says the public has a right to receive information,
and since most people today receive most of their news from
the electronic media, according to Kuriyama's interpretation,
the public has a right to full coverage by the electronic
media.
Some of the best summaries of the law regarding
courtroom cameras are to be found in case law itself. For
instance, the Colorado Supreme Court, per curiam, adopted a
report rejecting Canon 35 in 1956 (In Re Hearings Concerning
Canon 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, 296 P.2d 465) .
Citing the lack of disruption caused by extensive use of

63
photographic equipment, Justice Otto Moore noted he was not
even aware of when equipment was being operated in his
courtroom and held there was no need for the ban: "We are
concerned with realities, and not conjecture" (at 468). The
court also held that the educational value of courtroom
coverage was crucial: "Generally only idle people pursing
idle curiosity have time to visit court rooms in person. . .
. That which is carried out with dignity will not become
undignified because more people may be permitted to see and
hear" (at 469).
Included in the Appendix to Justice Harlan's opinion in
Estes (at 596-601) is an amicus curiae brief of the ABA with
a complete legal history of Canon 35. Similarly, the
decision in Florida's landmark Post-Newsweek case includes,
in addition to results of surveys undertaken during the
experimental period, a legal history including a state-by¬
state survey prepared by the National Center for State Courts
and relevant material relating to the Code of Judicial
Conduct (at Appendix 2). "Validity, Propriety, and Effect of
Allowing or Prohibiting Media Broadcasting, Recording, or
Photographing Court Proceedings," published by American Law
Reports, presents a thorough background of the issue.51
Back in 1938, "Distinguished American Lawyer Mitchell
Dawson" and British MP Robert Bernays debated the pros and
cons of cameras in courts.52 Dawson suggested that although
the use of cameras might shock lawyers and judges, not only

64
would use extend the public's right to known, but it would
also serve to "counteract the perversions of the press."53
Bernays, however, insisted "Crime is something shameful, and
it is highly dangerous to advertise criminals as if they were
as interesting as Presidents or Prime Ministers or film stars
or professional footballers."54
The author of a 1958 Iowa Note, "Television and
Newsreel Coverage of a Trial,"55 opted for retention of the
ban absent a reliable standard for determining whether-
coverage would interfere with due process. However, the same
year in Florida, Hodges and Staggs made a legal case in favor
of courtroom cameras, on the grounds that the Colorado
solution--in which the judge has the responsibility of
assuring decorum--is the "most sensible" solution to the
problem of balancing constitutional rights.56
In 1976, Roberts and Goodman,57 and, in 1978, Wolf58
presented general perspectives on courtroom cameras. In
1978, California Superior Court Judge Donald Fretz, then-
chairman of the ABA Committee on Criminal Justice and the
Media, called for a national clearing house on courtroom
camera data.59 The same year, Judith Kreeger, then-chairman
of the Florida Bar Media Relations Committee, described the
state's pilot program with courtroom cameras.60 In Georgia,
Stone and Edlin described the "demanding challenge" presented
by courtroom cameras,61 while in Kansas, Loewen insisted the
press had matured enough to handle cameras in the courtroom.62

65
A thorough look at the issue was taken by federal Judge
Paul Goldman of Nevada and Richard Larson in 1978 in "News
Cameras in the Courtroom during State v. Solorzano: End to
the Estes Mandate?"63 Goldman had been chief judge of the
district at the time of the Solorzano attempted-murder case
and had authorized the videotaped coverage. After an
extensive discussion of the development of Canon 35, the
writers described the production details of coverage,
including a diagram of equipment placement during the 35
hours of the trial. All but the jury deliberations were
taped. After a year of post-production, five hours of
coverage was broadcast in 1976.
The writers found that, in general, none of the
"detrimental behavior modification" predicted in Estes, such
as witness intimidation or playing to the camera, took place.
The only point at which the predictions were borne out was
that the trial participants, at least initially, seemed aware
of the presence of the cameras. However, the writers
concluded the effect was the opposite of what had been
predicted in Estes: the presence of the cameras actually had
a benign, if not beneficial, influence, acting as a "catalyst
to heighten individual performances." The writers include a
look at post-Solorzano cases in other jurisdictions where
camera coverage subsequently developed (including Alabama,
Washington, Georgia, and Florida) and closed with a
prediction that "Traditional hostility toward the presence of

66
the in-court news camera will diminish as the nation's state
courts become increasingly familiar with the new video
technology. ”64
Tongue and Lintotte make "The Case Against Television
in the Courtroom"65 by arguing that the news media's coverage
of mostly sensational trials "warps the public understanding
of courtroom proceedings."66 They suggest that it is
unrealistic to expect witnesses to admit their testimony
might have been different but for the cameras and that jurors
may enter the courtroom remembering incorrect "facts" from
earlier television hearings or trials. They conclude that
courtroom cameras violate privacy of witnesses and jurors,
have a negative impact on public opinion, and are an added
burden on the trial judge and court administration.
At the same time, Nevas makes "The Case for Cameras in
the Courtroom, ”67 arguing their presence is required by the
tradition of open courts. Nevas emphasizes the need for
research, primarily to see whether the effects of print
coverage are any different from those of modern electronic
media, research which he says should take into account the
novelty of current courtroom coverage. Townend68 similarly
suggests "Cameras in the Courtroom: Let's Give Them Another
Try," arguing that cameras would help the electorate access
judicial candidates (the very notion of which might
contribute to judicial reluctance to courtroom cameras).

67
Zimmerman69 presents what she calls a "modest proposal"
for the constitutional protection of courtroom cameras; as
did Kuriyama,70 Zimmerman cites Stewart's dissent in Houchins
and suggests absolute bans cannot be justified. After
describing the "parade of horribles" often associated with
courtroom cameras, she suggests any controls over courtroom
cameras must involve the least restrictive means possible,
and thus she concludes her "modest proposal" that the High
Court recognize a constitutional right of technological
access.
"Television in the Courtroom Devil or Saint?" ask
Tornquist and Grifall--and the answer seems to be neither.71
Discussing the possibility of a camera experiment in Oregon,
the authors suggest the court maintain control over
production of the tapes and allow the tapes to become part of
the court record (and this unique approach was, in fact,
taken by the state in its experiment).
Naturally, the implications of the Chandler decision in
1981 were the subject of legal discussion. Ares72 argues that
the court reached the right result but failed to justify the
decision in a persuasive way. Ares suggests that exclusion
of television--the most "important" source of information
about the courts--absent compelling reason, cannot be squared
with the First Amendment, and he concludes that "[I]t is hard
to see how the Court, once it directly faces the question,
can hold that properly controlled television reporters do not

68
have the same constitutional right of access to the courts as
do other news people."73
Beisman74 discusses the impact of the Chandler decision
and suggests television stations wishing to cover trials
should petition a panel—made up of the trial judge, both
attorneys, and the media representative--outlining procedures
to be followed. Beisman also suggests the broadcaster sign a
statement promising to maintain decorum—and, if covering a
sensational criminal trial, a promise to cover a civil trial.
(The last would surely be the immediate subject of a First
Amendment challenge should any court employ such a
restriction.)
Pequignot75 says the Chandler decision is consistent
with the Burger Court's pattern of subordinating all rights
of criminal defendants (and, when they coincide, the rights
of the press) to the rights of the state. Rather than the
Post-Newsweek "qualitative difference test" to determine
worthiness of coverage, Pequinot proposes a checklist of
questions the court might ask to determine merits of
exclusion, including how crucial the movant's testimony is to
the case, whether the witness is fearful of reprisals for
specific testimony, and whether the press can present a
viable alternative to excluding cameras which would protect
the witness from reprisals.
Tajgiman76 suggests an analytical approach analogizing
the court arguments in Estes and Chandler to the paradigm of

69
Herbert Packer, who contrasted a "due process model" and a
"crime control model" of law enforcement. Tajgiman insists
”[T]he television reporter, without his camera, cannot cover
the trial proceedings with analogous comprehensiveness."77
A year after Chandler, writing about the significance
of the case in removing "the cloud of Estes," Robert Hughes78
pointed out that the Court in Chandler emphasized a lack of
reliable data; Hughes urged researchers to heed the call of
the Court for more research. Similarly, Jeremy Cohen79
analyzed Chandler and suggested the Court's repeated
invitations for more empirical research may indicate "not
only a desire for fairness but an uneasiness with its current
decision."
A year later, Cohen80 again wrote on the issue; he
discussed cameras in Washington and Florida and supported the
Post-Newsweek "qualitative difference test"--i.e.,
determination of whether cameras will have a substantial
effect different from traditional coverage. Cohen says such
a test must take into account both First Amendment and Sixth
Amendment rights, must be practical, and must be
understandable. He concludes more social science research on
effects of courtroom cameras is needed.
Julin81 discusses the 1983 request of indicted federal
judge (now former judge) Alcee Hastings to allow broadcast of
his trial on bribery charges (U.S. v. Hastings, 695 F.2d
1278); Julin was among the counsel for the 28 media

70
organizations who subsequently petitioned the court to extend
broadcast coverage to the federal courts. Julin says
absolute legislative bans are inappropriate for access
questions concerning the judicial system and concludes the
issue is not longer whether electronic media will be granted
access to federal courts, but when. (The petition itself83 is
a wonderful compendium of information on courtroom cameras.)
Richard Lindsey presented an in-depth study, "An
Assessment of the Use of Cameras in State and Federal Courts"
in 1984.83 Lindsey discusses the Constitutional implications
of the issue including First and Sixth Amendment aspects of
concern as well as problems with due process considerations,
which he argues are caused primarily by the failure of
Chandler to override Estes. As did Goldman and Larson,
Lindsey includes a state-by-state survey. Lindsey suggests a
strong state interest for occasional denial of access: for
instance, compelling desire for confidentiality or for
protection of minors involved in the juvenile justice system
might override First Amendment rights of coverage. Moreover,
Lindsey finds a weak First Amendment interest in
indiscriminate photographing of a jury. However, Lindsey
concludes that jurisdictions which condition coverage upon
consent give too much power to participants to deny access
and suggests the most sound policy is one allowing coverage
on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the judge.

71
McCall84 also posits a procedure for determining when
it is appropriate to sustain objections to the presence of
cameras. McCall's approach draws on the recent line of cases
establishing the defendant's right to evidence under the
Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause. McCall suggests
that when exclusion of cameras is requested, the court should
determine whether the presence of cameras would cause a
defendant to lose evidence that might be relevant, material,
and vital to the defense.
In a footnote-heavy piece,85 Riemer calls for
constitutional protection against absolute bans on cameras
absent a compelling government interest. Riemer says (Kerley
and Hastings notwithstanding) absolute bans are not "time,
place, and manner" regulations and are unconstitutional. Her
suggested test for whether cameras might be excluded requires
the government to show a compelling interest, narrowly drawn,
before exclusion should be allowed.
Dyer and Hauserman86 present a comprehensive look at
the issue of courtroom cameras. They recommend coverage be
permitted in all cases, with exceptions based on coverage of
participants. Rather than the Post-Newsweek "qualified
differential" test, they suggest mere "good cause" suffice
for exclusion, with recommended exemptions for victims of
rape, child abuse, and "other violent crimes" (the last the
most likely cases the media would choose to televise).

72
Gardner87 describes the need for uniform state
guidelines for courtroom coverage and presents a model which
includes automatic exemptions of camera coverage of victims
of sex crimes, juveniles, and undercover agents--which is
already the case in many states--as well as automatic
exemptions for any witness who objects to coverage—which
would be problematic in many states such as Florida. She
also suggests all broadcasters would have to keep all
equipment and personnel in the courtroom throughout the
entire trial, which might make it impossible for all but
private production companies to cover most trials. (Her
suggested requirement that all broadcasters must present
balanced coverage of the prosecution and defense might be
found unconstitutional, particularly in light of the recent
FCC abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine—assuming Congress
does not reinstate it.)
Douglas P. Killian also discusses "The Propriety of
Restrictive Guidelines for Cameras in the Court."88 Killian
supports the broadcasters' position that party consent should
not be a precondition to coverage. Joining the bandwagon
decrying the paucity of reliable empirical data, Killian says
flawed methodology notwithstanding, the few studies available
have failed to confirm feared negative impact of coverage on
trial participants, and he concludes the time is ripe for
full courtroom coverage.

73
Thus, although opinions differ, there is a good deal of
support for the constitutionality of courtroom cameras.
Moreover, with few exceptions, legal scholars support the
concept of courtroom cameras, differing mostly regarding the
best test for determining the details of coverage.
Social Science
The field of social science has been strangely lacking
in the gathering of empirical data regarding the question of
courtroom cameras. Therefore, a brief description of the
literature on the values of journalists, particularly those
affecting the relationship of the press and the judiciary in
regard to broadcast coverage of courts, will be followed by a
general discussion of the approach of social scientists to
the specific question of courtroom cameras, followed by an
examination of the handful of empirical studies on the
subject.
Although researchers have found differences in the
effect on the audience depending on the dominant source of
news (print or broadcast),89 in general those who gather,
prepare, and present the news share the same basic values and
attitudes. Weaver and Wilhoit90 updated the classic Johnstone
study91 to present a picture of the typical journalist.
Becker92 reanalyzed Johnstone's data and found similar
results, with the major differences between print and
broadcast journalists including the increased likelihood the

broadcasters would deal with conflict since they are more
likely to seek contrasting viewpoints in preparing coverage.
(This would have potentially important consequences for the
way a trial is presented by broadcast journalists compared to
print journalists.)
Paul Weaver93 studied differences between print and
broadcast journalists and concluded broadcasters are more
likely to organize "stories" with a beginning, a middle, and
an end, leading to charges broadcast coverage is
"simplistic." Weaver also suggested the broadcaster's
personality intrudes into the story, since he cannot maintain
a print journalist's impersonal narrative voice. Moreover,
television's need for visuals vitiates the interpretive
capabilities of the television news story and reinforces the
image of television coverage as superficial and melodramatic.
Fico94 surveyed broadcast and print reporters covering
a session of the Indiana legislature and found the broadcast
reporters relied slightly more on establishment sources of
news. However, Fico stresses the tentative nature of his
findings and suggests that sweeping generalizations about the
performance of broadcast reporters may be unwarranted.
Sheldon et al.95 recently completed a study of Bench-
Bar-Press guidelines in Washington state. The authors
surveyed members of the press, the judiciary, and the bar
regarding three areas: free press, fair trial, and privacy
protection for trial participants. Regarding press adherence

75
to the guidelines, although more than half of the broadcast
journalists felt they consistently followed the guidelines,
only a third of the other respondents agreed; print reporters
felt they followed the guidelines 85% of the time; only 42%
of the others agreed. In other words, all the respondents
gave print journalists higher marks for consistency with the
guidelines than they gave broadcast journalists—and none of
the respondents was nearly so confident in any of the
journalists as the journalists were in themselves. In the
area of trial coverage accuracy and bias, more than two-
thirds of the broadcast journalists felt their coverage was
accurate and unbiased; only one-third of the others agreed;
print reporters gave their own work high marks 90% of the
time while only 38% of the others agreed. In other words,
once again, all the respondents gave print journalists higher
marks for accuracy and lack of bias than they gave broadcast
journalists--and again, none of the respondents was nearly so
positive about the journalists as the journalists were about
themselves.
Weinthal and O'Keefe96 surveyed broadcast journalists
in Denver. Their findings supported a profile of broadcast
journalists similar to that of print journalists, with the
only differences including broadcasters' higher desire for
freedom from close supervision and for excitement and variety
as well as for working with congenial colleagues.

76
A field of study of broadcast journalists at all three
network affiliates in each of six television markets in
Wisconsin led Idsvoog & Hoyt97 to conclude market size did not
affect level of professionalism (measured on the McLeod &
Hawley scale), and, as predicted, professional journalists
perform with more skill on the job than less professional
journalists.
Epstein,98 Altheide," and Gans100 conducted expansive
studies of values of broadcast journalists; presumably,
broadcast journalists in courtrooms might share this set of
values. For instance, Epstein spent four months at NBC,
backed up with interviews and material from ABC and CBS; in
all, he interviewed nearly 100 broadcast journalists. He
concluded organizational imperatives of news organizations
shape the news, imperatives which include the budget of the
news department, the need to maintain an audience flow due to
network dependence on ratings, the nationalization of news
due to the network affiliate systems, and external factors
such as the FCC's fairness rules and other governmental
requirements.
Altheide spent four months in a network affiliate's
newsroom, along with nearly a year off and on at a second and
three days at a network owned-and-operated station in a third
market, backed up with a colleague's research. He found that
the "news perspective" of the journalist creates a "bias."
Factors affecting this perspective include commercialism and

77
ratings, competition with other stations, and community
context.
Sociologist Gans used the method of content analysis
along with participant observation to study CBS Evening News,
NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Gans concluded the
news is shaped by the power of official sources, the need for
efficiency in organizations, and journalistic news values,
particularly such "enduring values" as ethnocentrism,
altruistic democracy, responsible capitalism, small-town
pastoralism, individualism, and moderatism.
Bantz, McCorkle, and Baade101 presented an analogue of
the local television newsroom as a factory. They suggested
the organizational consequences of this include lack of
flexibility, lack of personal investment in the product,
evaluation of newswork in production terms, and goal
incongruence between the newsworker's job expectations and
job reality.
Breed102 had interviewed more than 120 newspapermen in
an attempt to discover why they followed the publishers'
policies regarding orientation of editorials and news. He
had described six characteristics of what he called a system
of "social control": institutional authority and sanctions,
feelings of obligation and esteem for superiors, mobility
aspirations, absence of conflicting group allegiance, the
pleasant nature of the activity, and news as a value.

78
Garvey103 later replicated Breed's work in broadcast newsrooms
with similar results.
Phillips' study104 of the differences between
journalistic versus social science perspectives included
unobtrusive measures and surveys as well as participant
observation at a newspaper, two commercial radio stations,
and a commercial TV station. Phillips concluded that the
journalist's perspective was based on direct sense experience
rather than on theoretical, abstract reflection.
In addition to conducting interviews, Tuchman105 was a
participant observer at a newspaper, a city hall press room,
and a major market noncommercial television station. Tuchman
described the routine processing of news events and explained
how even "exceptional" stories were forced into
routinization.
White,106 building on the work of sociologist Kurt
Lewin, had spent a week with a wire editor at a daily and had
described the "gatekeeping" process by which editors made
selection decisions. White questioned "Mr. Gates" on the
influence of the categories of news, his personal prejudices,
his concept of the audience and of the subject matter of the
story on his choices. Dimmick107 expanded on White's theory,
suggesting journalists seek validation of their choices, thus
leading to charges of "pack journalism."
Buckalew108 applied gatekeeping theory to broadcasting.
He first sat through the production of newscasts with 12

79
television news editors and found only slight variety in
selection of stories, variety which he said was related to
the size of the community: smaller markets were more
concerned with proximity of stories, larger with timeliness.
Buckalew also studied gatekeeping methods at 29 radio
stations. He found seven of the stations took most of their
news directly from the wire services ("rip 'n' read"), two
rewrote wire copy, and the rest used the wire copy as impetus
for following up stories.109
Harless110 presented what he called a "quasi¬
replication" of the original White study, only this time in a
broadcast newsroom. His gatekeeper, "Mr. Collins," seemed to
show a slight bias for business and civic news, and Harless
concluded the television gatekeeper was more creative than
"Mr. Gates" and more medium-oriented than subjective or
prejudiced.
Drew111 suggested role expectation theory plays a part
in gatekeeping. Studying three city hall beat reporters at
three television stations in a medium-sized Midwest market,
Drew found Reporter A based his choices on his own idea of
what the audience expected in the news, Reporter B based his
choices on what Breed had described as the "social control"
of the newsroom, and Reporter C on his own ideas of his role
as a news producer.
Finally, most recently, Wickham112 did a content
analysis of a week’s newscasts at the three network

80
affiliates in Memphis. She suggested the role of the
television reporter in the overall gatekeeping process is not
as isolated as that of the newspaper reporter, and the
television reporter is also more affected by technical
limitations than his counterpart.
Thus, the typical journalist holds certain values and
follows certain norms, some of which, such as the intrusion
of the broadcast journalist's personality into his coverage
of a process which holds to an ideal of objectivity and
neutrality ("blind justice"), have the potential to
contribute to judicial reluctance regarding cameras in court.
These theoretical suggestions have been borne out by judicial
response to actual broadcast coverage of courts, as evidenced
by surveys of judges and judges' reports on cases, which will
be discussed shortly.
First, however, brief mention of several other general
issues studied by the social scientists is also appropriate
to the discussion of courtroom cameras. For instance, the
"mediated reality" of political news in the U.S.--from the
possible unwitting bias produced by news coverage of
political events to the underlying "adversary model," the
assumption of varying degrees of conflict of interest between
journalists and government and political figures113—has been
described by researchers such as Lang and Lang,114 Blumler and
Gurevitch,115 Ostroff,116 Paletz and Entman,117 Ranney,118 and
Rivers.119 Members of the judiciary might assume an analogous

81
possible bias and adversarial relationship underlie press
coverage in the courts.
The catalogue of objections to the televising of
Congress, ranging from predictions of "undignified behavior"
to potential political abuse, might also affect the
judiciary. i20 Although canons of judicial decorum preclude
public discussion of the political aspects of a judge's
career, trial judges in most jurisdictions today are subject
to the electorate (and the political nature of the appellate
judiciary, particularly the High Court, has already been
mentioned.)121 Barber most directly refers to this possible
"hidden agenda": "Judges may be worried that television
exposure will make them more accountable to the public for
their rulings and courtroom behavior. "122
Thus, even a brief discussion of news values of
broadcast journalists, the traditional adversarial
relationship between the press and government, and the
political aspects of televised coverage, puts the issue into
perspective for the social scientist concerned with
researching courtroom cameras.
Turning to the specific question of social science
research on the topic of courtroom cameras, just prior to
Chandler, George Gerbner wrote "Trial by Television: Are We
at the Point of No Return?"121 According to Gerbner, the
social functions of television and of the courts are at cross
purposes, and in the absence of conclusive research, he

82
suggested restriction of courtroom coverage. Gerbner said
the purpose of trials is to protect the defendant, not to
entertain or to educate, and he called for more research
based on actual court studies.
During the experiment with cameras in Florida in 1978-
78, several studies were conducted, some of which became part
of the court record in Post-Newsweek.124 Reports of five
judges as well as results of four surveys will be briefly
discussed.
Judge Paul Baker presided over the most spectacular of
the cases, Zamora v. Florida (372 So. 2d 473, 1979; 77-25123-
A, 11/30/77), covered gavel-to-gavel by Miami's WPBT (PBS).
Despite the massive publicity and complex logistics
necessitated by the trial, Judge Baker came out in favor of
cameras. He made several recommendations for future cases,
including sequestering of jurors in some case, admonishing of
witnesses, and providing a separate room for the media in
major cases .125
Judge Edward P. Cowart, Chief Justice of Florida's 11th
Circuit (and later presiding judge in the trial of serial
murderer Ted Bundy) joined two other judges in a report
supporting the pilot program: "We think it is just another
extension of the first amendment through a different medium.
The disorder, disarray, and carnival atmosphere of the past
trials are not here today."126

83
Justice Dorothy Pate,127 who presided over four trials
during the experiment, could find few specific ill effects;
however, in her report she was generally negative toward
courtroom cameras. Similarly, Judge Marvin Mounts,128 who
presided over a murder trial, said the cameras made him
nervous, and his reading of Marshall McLuhan on the enormous
impact of television led him to a cautious approach toward
courtroom coverage.
Finally, the most negative opinion was that of Judge
Thomas Sholts,129 who had presided over the Mark Herman murder
case. Sholts conceded current technology allowed for
coverage without distraction, and the experiment worked out
much better than he had predicted. However, Sholts objected
on general grounds that use of television does not contribute
to the objective of ascertaining truth and has the potential
to cause burdens on the judge and extra expense as well as
possible grounds for appeal.
The first of the four surveys regarding courtroom
cameras in Florida was conducted by the Office of the State
Court Administrator.130 A total of 2,660 jurors, witnesses,
attorneys, and court personnel involved in cases of courtroom
coverage were questioned, with a 62% response rate. Although
methodological flaws led to conclusions considered
statistically insignificant, the court administrator found
the survey in general indicated little or no effect of
courtroom cameras.

84
A second survey was conducted by Judge Arthur Franza,
then-Chairman of the Public Information Press Relations
Committee of the Florida Circuit Judges.131 Judge Franza
polled the 286 circuit judges (with a 54% response rate).
Most of the judges either favored cameras or were neutral
toward courtroom cameras.
A third survey was conducted by Judge David Strawn and
three researchers from Florida Technological University.132
Participants in five of the trials which took place during
the experiment were surveyed, including two of the presiding
judges. Questionnaires were then sent to the 286 state
circuit judges (with a 45% return rate) and 181 county judges
(with a 56% return rate). The results of the survey
indicated that although judges were prejudiced against
cameras in general, once they had some actual experience with
cameras in their own courtrooms, they tended to become more
inclined to favor courtroom cameras.
A fourth brief study was conducted by Jean Chance at
the University of Florida.133 Her 18 questions went to news
directors, managing editors, and 20 presiding circuit judges
(with a 60% return rate for the judges before the experiment,
20% return rate a year later). Although the response rate
was too low for significant conclusions, the judges who
returned the second questionnaire tended to be those who had
negative feelings toward courtroom cameras.

85
The Justices in Estes and Chandler and writers such as
Hughes, Cohen, and Gerbner lamented the lack of empirical
research, particularly case studies of media behavior in
actual courtrooms. Indeed, few such field studies turn up in
the literature survey.
Barber,134 who has gathered a definitive bibliography on
the subject of courtroom cameras, could find only 19 direct
studies of the question, with 15 of these case studies and/or
surveys commissioned by various bench/bar committees or state
courts (such as those Florida studies discussed) studying the
possibility of implementation of courtroom cameras. (The
sixteenth study is the aforementioned case study by Goldman
and Larson.)135 Only three empirical studies were discussed.
The first, Hoyt's 1979 experiment,136 involved 36
volunteers in a media class in Madison, Wisconsin. The
students were shown a film and questioned afterward: half
were in a room in which a video cameraman very obviously was
taping their answers; half were in a room in which the camera
was not actually in sight, although they were told it was
there. Hoyt reported no significant difference in
respondents' verbal behavior and concluded cameras might
actually lead to fairer trials with witnesses giving more
complete answers.
The second study, Netteburg's 1980 survey,137 involved
300 people selected at random from telephone directories in
two Wisconsin cities. Netteburg asked respondents about a

86
recently-televised trial in which the defendant had been
tried for murder and arson and had been found guilty of the
former, innocent of the latter. According to Netteburg,
although many subjects recognized the defendant's name--and
mistakenly thought she had been convicted of both crimes—
most were not aware of either her name or of the outcome of
the case. Netteburg concluded that the data contradict the
proposition that television can destroy an accused's case.
The final study cited by Barber is Short's 1981 survey
and experiment.138 Part of this study involved observer
evaluations of participant behavior in experiment versus
control conditions; another part of the study gathered data
via survey questionnaires. Short found little negative
impact of courtroom cameras, with little negative disposition
toward the cameras, and what there was, primarily among
defense attorneys. The study also suggested other potential
sources of distraction—including conventional media, court
personnel, trial participants, and audience—were
approximately equal to the cameras in causing distraction.
After a detailed analysis of the Short study, along
with the earlier research, Barber concluded
It seems fairly striking that 19 pieces of independent
research, conducted in 11 states over a span of over 8
years, reached similar conclusions about the relative
lack of behavioral prejudice caused by news cameras in
courtrooms. . . . This is not to say that many trial
participants do not have mixed or negative attitudes
toward courtroom coverage, only that the bulk of
empirical research conducted to date shows little
correlation between the presence of cameras at trials

87
and perceived prejudicial behavior on the part of
jurors, witnesses, judges, or attorneys.139
Several other studies, although not included in
Barber's survey, seem on point with the present discussion.
For instance, Einsiedel140 did not actually attend the murder
trial she studied, but she did interview some participants
after the trial, mostly by telephone. She reported a
generally positive response to courtroom coverage with
unobtrusive cameras.
Underwritten in part by the Scripps-Howard Foundation,
Lancaster141 made a comparative study of two trials for the
same $6 million robbery and murder: the trial of one
defendant involved courtroom coverage, the other did not.
Lancaster found the public claimed to learn more about the
trials and the criminal justice system in general when
cameras were allowed, and the majority of those questioned--
including the jurors--did not believe the cameras jeopardized
the defendant's right to a fair trial. Lancaster found it
was the "celebrity factor" of the presence of television
reporters rather than the cameras which signalled
participants that the trial rated the attention of the media.
Three recent studies also involved experimental (non¬
courtroom) studies of the impact of courtroom cameras.
Pasternack142 asked whether, if juror's identities became
known through televising of trials, they would become more
susceptible to community pressure to convict. In a

88
laboratory setting, he handed subjects news stories (some of
which included an extra paragraph expressing community
interest in convicting criminals), showed them a videotape,
and had them fill out a questionnaire. He found subjects
exposed to more pressure (i.e., reading the doctored story)
were more likely to deliver a guilty verdict, and he
recommended states might prohibit televising of the jury.
However, Pasternack himself points out some of the obvious
limitations of the study—the artificiality of the
experiment, the subject awareness of the project, the
expectation of the test's possibly leading to more diligent
viewing of the tape, the lack of external validity. Even
more significant, however, is an additional limitation that
might be noted by a critic: the leap Pasternack makes in
assuming, first, that jurors are "unknown" if untelevised (an
actual trial takes place in an open courtroom; if a TV camera
is present, it is likely print journalists will also be
covering the trial, and with all eyes on the jurors,
particularly during voir dire, they are hardly "unknown").
And there is a second leap in logic in assuming that exposure
of jurors' identities is the most relevant factor in making a
juror feel more subject to community pressure to convict.
Finally, the responses of college students, many of whom do
not register to vote and would not be called to jury duty in
many states, may not be representative of an actual jury
pool.

89
A second study, by Paddon,343 described the differences
between trial coverage using video versus those using
sketches from the courtroom. Building on information
processing theory, this study involved exposing subjects to
one of four treatments in a half-hour newscast followed by a
questionnaire. Paddon found cameras appeared to enhance a
viewer's information about the trial but led to no attitude
changes which might threaten justice. She points out some of
the obvious limitations of the study--for instance, the
artificiality of the experimental situation where one brief
exposure to news of a crime is not representative of the real
world, where newspaper coverage would reinforce exposure.
Finally, Kassin144 showed 51 "mock jurors" a videotape
of a civil trial either in the presence of or absence of a
camera; they then were questioned about the trial. He
concluded the impact of cameras at a trial would be minimal,
could be mitigated with pretrial warnings, and generally
would have no effect on the outcome of a trial. Major
limitations of the study which Kassin points out include its
lack of concern with the indirect effects of cameras on the
jury compared with those of print coverage, as well as the
fact that different types of cases might affect the degree of
impact of cameras.
Rimmer343 recently presented a study of the status of
research regarding courtroom cameras. He suggested that from
a legal perspective, it appears there is little support for a

90
ban on electronic media access, and from a social science
perspective, evidence suggests access does not appear to
produce the effects its critics assert. However, he notes
that much of the evidence available has not really focused on
whether access actually causes the effects claimed for it.
Rimmer cites Boggs' review14^ of 72 empirically based studies
of state court experience with television coverage which
found in 20 of the studies basic methodological flaws which
mar the reliability and validity of the findings. In short,
Rimmer concludes, studies of effects attributed to electronic
media access to the court were often "generalized beyond
their data."
Thus, it is apparent that, as Rimmer says, ”[T]here is
a dearth of valid, reliable, and generalizadle social science
evidence" regarding courtroom cameras.147 Rimmer suggests,
first, there is a need to gain access to actual courtrooms so
data can be gathered in real time/space conditions rather
than in courtroom simulations; second, concerns about the
longer term impact of electronic media access suggest
research designs which measure impact over time. Among the
subjects Rimmer suggests for further research include
replication of case studies and surveys with better controls;
a study of the differences between effects associated with
routine trials and sensational trials; examination of impact
of cameras inside the courtroom vis-a-vis the courthouse
environs; and the nature of possible long-term effects.

91
Barber148 similarly makes suggestions for further
research, ranging from an examination of such issues as
educational versus entertainment qualities of televised
trials, to the reaction of defendants to televised trials, to
whether a qualified differential between print and broadcast
media is justified or whether prejudicial influences are
operative regardless of the introduction of cameras,
attributable to the nature of the trial process in general.149
It is this last suggestion that served as inspiration
for the proposed study. For much of the research to date--
including historic, legal, and social science research—
suggests it is no longer appropriate to regulate electronic
media differently from print media in the matter of courtroom
access, particularly if this differential is based merely on
speculated impact of coverage.
Thus, the current study, following the tack suggested
by the literature, examined the behavior of both print and
electronic journalists in an actual courtroom. The next
chapter describes how the study was carried out.
Notes
-¡(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.)
2Cameras in the Courtroom: A Social Scientific
Evaluation" (Bowling Green University, OH).
3See, e.g., "The Big Dan's Rape Trial: An Embarrassment
for First Amendment Advocates and the Courts," Communications
and the Law 7:2 (April 1985):3-21; Chandler v. Florida: The
Supreme Court's Reluctance to Endorse Televised Trials,"
Southern Speech Communication Journal 48:4 (Summer 1983):323-

92
339; "Coverage Fares Poorly After Chandler," News
Photographer (March 1982):21-22; "The Problem of Prejudice: A
New Approach to Assessing the Impact of Courtroom Cameras,"
Judicature, 66:6 (December-January 1983):248-255; "Williams
Trial Judge Offers New Reasons for Camera Ban," Journa1ism
Quarterly 60:2 (Summer 1983) : 335-338.
4See James Hoyt, (Review) in Journalism Quarterly 64:4
(Winter 1987) :888-889; Dan Slater (Review) in Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31:4 (Fall 1987):479-480.
5Elisha Hanson, 83 ABA Reports. 1958, 660-662.
6Albert Blashfield, "The Case of the Controversial
Canon," ABA Journal 48 (May 1962) : 429-434.
7Oscar Hallam, Minnesota Law Review 24:4 (March
1940) :4 53-508.
8Joseph Costa, "Cameras in Courtrooms: A Position
Paper," Muncie, IN: Ball State University Journalism/Public
Relations Research Center, 1980.
9Richard Kielbowicz, "The Story Behind the Adoption of
the Ban on Courtroom Cameras," Judicature 63:1 (June-July
1979) : 14-23. See also, "The Making of Canon 35: A Blow to
Press-Bar Cooperation," Association for Education in
Journalism, Houston, 1979.
10R. Stephen Craig, Journalism Quarterly 56 (Winter
1979) : 703-710.
nMartin Bass, "Cameras in the Courtroom: The Florida
Experience," Television Quarterly 17:2 (Summer 1980):13-17.
12Don White, "Florida's Bold Experiment," Fol Center
Report No. 422. Columbia, MO, June 1980.
13Terry Knopf, November 1977, 21-23+.
14Norman Davis, "Cameras in the Courtroom: Put Out the
Welcome Mat/Thanks But No Thanks," 34 (May 1981) : 18-20. See
also, Current 234 (July-August 1981):33-38; "Courtroom
Television on Trial: It's Here, It works!" Televis ion
Quarterly 18:3 (1981) :85-86; "Television in Our Courts: The
Proven Advantages, the Unproven Dangers," Judicature 64:2
(August 1980):85-92.
15See, e.g., J.P. Morgan, "Electronic Media in the
Courtroom," Fol Center Report No. 385. Columbia, MO, February
1978 .

93
i6Edward Pringle, "The Case for Cameras in the
Courtroom," TV Guide. March 3, 1979, 4-8. See also, "The
Judiciary & the Media," New Jersey Public Television, May 19,
1978, (video) 58:00.
17E. Witt, "Television in the Courtroom," Educational
Research Reports 1:2 (January 16, 1981):19-36.
18Frank White, "Cameras in the Courtroom: A U.S.
Survey," Journalism Monographs 60, April 1979.
19"Summary of TV Cameras in the State Courts,"
Williamsburg, VA, November 1989.
2°Washington, DC, 1989. See also, "News Media Coverage
of Judicial Proceedings with Cameras and Microphones: A
Survey of the States," Washington, DC, 1989.
21E.g., "Five States, DC Ban Cameras From Courtrooms,"
Society of Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi Freedom
of Information Report 1988-89. Washington, DC, 1989, 3-5.
22James Hoyt, "Cameras in the Courtroom: From Hauptmann
to Wisconsin," The Association for Education in Journalism,
Seattle, August 1978.
23David Graves, "Cameras in the Courts: The Situation
Today," Judicature 63:1 (June-July 1979):24-27.
24Lyle Denniston, "Cameras in the Courtroom 1982," The
Quill 70:3 (March 1982):22-25.
25See, e.g., Lyle Denniston, "Photo Finish: The Latest
Word on Cameras in the Courtroom," The Quill 69:3 (March
1981) : 20-22.
26See, e.g., Martin Bass, "Television's Day in Court,"
New York Times Magazine. February 15, 1981, 36-38+.
27See, e.g., Talbot D'Alemberte, "Cameras in the
Courtroom," Litigation. Fall 1982, 20-23.
28See, e.g., Edward Estlow, "A Case for Courtroom
Cameras," Editor and Publisher. June 2, 1984, 48+.
29See, e.g., John Weisman, "TV Goes on Trial," TV
Guide. January 14, 1978, 6-11.
30(Washington, DC, 1982) .

94
31Fred Graham & Donald Fretz, "Cameras in the
Courtroom: A Dialogue: Yes, Bring Them In; No, or At Least a
Cautious 'Only If,"’ American Bar Association Journal 64
(April 1978):545-550.
32Judith Lindahl, "Television in the Courtroom: The
Debate Continues," Television Quarterly 21:3 (Fall 1985):21-
23
33Elder Witt, Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the
U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC, 1990.
34David O'Brien (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986).
35David Grey (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1968).
36William Rivers, "Justice Takes the Veil," The Quill
70:6 (June 1982):33-36.
37Richard Reeves, "The Supreme Court vs. the Press," TV
Guide. December 1, 1979, 6-10.
38Ethan Katsh, "Why We're Not Getting the Full Story on
the Supreme Court," TV Guide. March 3, 1984, 36-38.
39Diane Kiesel, Communications Lawyer 1:4 (1983):1+.
40Tony Mauro, "The Nine No-See'Ems; Justices Keep Out
Cameras, Preserve Their Rite of Privacy," Washington
Journalism Review 10:9 (November 1988):22.
41Lou Prato, "One On One With Judges," Radio Television
News Directors Association Communicator. December 1988, 56-
59+.
42Anthony Smith, Goodbye. Gutenberg: The Newspaper
Revolution of the 1980s (New York: Oxford University Press,
1980).
43John Wicklein, Electronic Nightmare: The New
Communications and Freedom (New York: Viking Press, 1981).
44Anthony Oettinger, "Merging Media and the First
Amendment," Nieman Reports. Cambridge, MA, 1974. Cited by
Wicklein, ibid., 135.
45Mark Fowler & Daniel Brenner, "A Marketplace Approach
to Broadcast Regulation," Texas Law Review. 60 (1982):207-
257. (While he was chairman of the FCC, Fowler saw

implementation of many of the deregulatory suggestions
discussed here.)
95
46ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies of Freedom
(Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1983).
47Vincent Blasi, "The Checking Value in First Amendment
Theory," American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1977):521-
649 .
48Alexander Meiklejohn, "The First Amendment is an
Absolute," The Supreme Court Review, ed. Philip Kurland
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 245-266.
^Thomas Emerson, "Legal Foundations of the Right to
Know," Washington University Law Quarterly (1976):l-24.
5°David Kuriyama, "The 'Right of Information Triangle':
A First Amendment Basis for Televising Judicial Proceedings,"
University of Hawaii Law Review (1982) :85-138. However, for
a completely different interpretation of the implications of
the differential treatment of the print and electronic media,
see Lee Bollinger, "Freedom of the Press and Public Access:
Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media,"
Michigan Law Review 75:1 (1976):l-42.
5114 American Law Reports 4th, 1982, 121-161.
52Mitchell Dawson & Robert Bernays, "Broadcast Trials?"
The Lawyer. 1938, 8-12.
53 Ibid., 10.
54 Ibid., 11.
55Television and Newsreel Coverage of a Trial," Iowa
Law Review 43 (1958): 616-625.
56William Hodges & C. Lawrence Staggs, University of
Florida.Law Review ll (1958):87-98.
57Michael Roberts & William Goodman, "The Televised
Trial: A Perspective," Cumberland Law Review 7:2 (Fall
1976) : 323-342.
58Stephen Wolf, "The Role of the Electronic Media in
the Criminal Justice System," Cincinnati Law Review 47
(1978) : 417-430.
59Donald Fretz, "Cameras in the Courtroom," Trial 14:9
(September 1978):28-29+.

96
60Judith Kreeger, "Cameras in the Courtroom," The
Florida Bar Journal 52:6 (June 1978) : 450-452.
61Ward Stone & Shiel Edlin, "T.V. or Not T.V.:
Televised and Photographic Coverage of Trials," Mercer Law
Review 29 (1978) : 1119-1135.
62Ronald Loewen, "Cameras in the Courtroom: A
Reconsideration," Washburn Law Journal 17:3 (Spring 1978):504-
514 .
63Paul Goldman & Richard Larson, Southwestern-Nevada
Law Review 10 (1978) :2001-2061.
64 Ibid., 2059.
65Thomas Tongue & Robert Lintott, Williamette Law
Review (1980):777-801.
66 Ibid. , 7 85 .
67Stephen Nevas, Judges Journal. Winter 1981, 22-24+.
68David Townend, Texas Bar Journal 44 (April 1981):374-
381.
69Diane Zimmerman, "Overcoming Future Shock: Estes
Revisited, or a Modest Proposal for the Constitutional
Protection of the Newsgathering Process," Duke Law Journal
64:4 (September 1980):641-708.
70Kuriyama .
71Leroy Tornquist & Karen Grifall, "Television in the
Courtroom: Devil or Saint?" Williamette Law Review 17
(1981) : 345-370.
72Charles Ares, "Chandler v. Florida: Television,
Criminal Trials, and Due Process," The Supreme Court Review,
eds. Philip Kurland et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981) 157-192.
73 Ibid., 18 9.
74Mickey Beisman, "In the Wake of Chandler v. Florida:
A Comprehensive Approach to the Implementation of Cameras in
the Courtroom," Federal Communications Commission Law Journal
33 (Winter 1981):117-147.

97
75Margot Pequinot, "From Estes to Chandler: Shifting
the Constitutional Burden of Courtroom Cameras to the
States," Florida State University Law Review 9 (1981):315-
350.
76David Tajgiman, "From Estes to Chandler: The
Distinction Between Television and Newspaper Trial Coverage,"
Comm/Ent Law Journal 3 (Spring 1981) : 503-541 .
77 Ibid., 517.
78Robert Hughes, "Chandler v. Florida: Cameras Get
Probation in Courtroom," Journal of Broadcasting 26:1 (Winter
1982) : 431-444.
79Jeremy Cohen, "Chandler v. Florida: Unfinished Script
for Cameras in the Courtroom," Association for Education in
Journalism, East Lansing, MI, August 1981.
80Jeremy Cohen, "Cameras in the Courtroom and Due
Process: A Proposal for a Qualitative Difference Test,"
Washington..Law Review 57 (1982) :277-291.
81Thomas Julin, Detroit College of Law Review 4
(1983) : 1303-1310.
82 "Petition to the Judicial Conference of the United
States Concerning Visual and Aural Coverage of Federal Court
Proceedings by the Electronic and Print Press," March 1983.
83Richard Lindsey, Georgia Law Review 18:3 (Spring
1984) : 389-424.
8<5Gregory McCall, "Cameras in the Criminal Courtroom: A
Sixth Amendment Analysis," Columbia Law Review 85 (1985):1546-
1572 .
85Carolyn Riemer, "Television Coverage of Trials:
Constitutional Protection Against Absolute Denial of Access
in the Absence of a Compelling Interest," Villanova Law
Review 30 (1985):1267-1308.
86Carolyn Dyer & Nancy Hauserman, "Electronic Coverage
of the Courts: Exceptions to Exposure," The Georgetown Law
Journal 75 (1987) : 1633-1700.
87Nancy Gardner, "Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines
for State Criminal Trials," Michigan Law Review 84 (December
1985):475-516.

98
88Douglas Killian, Communications and the Law 9 (April
1987):27-43.
"For media dependency studies, see, e.g., Lee Becker,
& D. Charles Whitney, "Effects of Media Dependencies:
Audience Assessment of Government," Communication Research
7:1 (January 1980):95-120; Michael Robinson, "American
Political Legitimacy in an Era of Electronic Journalism:
Reflections on the Evening News," in Television as a Social
Force: New Approaches to TV Criticism, eds. Douglass Cater &
Richard Adler (New York: Praeger, 1975), 97-139. For agenda¬
setting studies, see, e.g., Bernard Cohen, The Press and
Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963);
G. Ray Funkhouser, "The Issues of the Sixties: An Exploratory
Case Study in the Dynamics of Public Opinion," Public Opinion
Quarterly 37 (Spring 1973):62-75; Walter Lippmann, Public
Opinion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Co., 1922); Maxwell
McCombs & Donald Shaw, "The Agenda Setting Function of Mass
Media," Eublic..Opinion Quarterly 36:2 (1972) :176-187; Leonard
Tipton, Roger Haney, & John Baseheart, "Media Agenda-Setting
in City and State Election Campaigns," Journalism Quarterly
32:1 (Spring 1975):15-22. For credibility studies, see,
e.g., John Abel & Michael Wirth, "Newspaper vs. TV
Credibility for Local News," Journalism Quarterly 54:2
(Summer 1977) :371-375 .
90David Weaver & G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American
Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986). Also (with
Dan Drew), "U.S. Television, Radio and Daily Newspaper
Journalists," Journalism Quarterly 63:4 (Winter 1986):683-
692 .
91John Johnstone, Edward Slawski, & William Bowman, The
News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists
and Their Work (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976).
92Lee Becker, "Print or Broadcast: How the Medium
Influences the Reporter," in Individuals in Mass Media
Organizations: Creativity and Constraint, eds. James Ettema &
D. Charles Whitney (Beverely Hills: Sage Publications, 1982),
145-161.
93Paul Weaver, "Newspaper News and Television News," in
Douglass Cater & Richard Adler, 81-94.
94Frederick Fico, "Statehouse Broadcast & Print
Reporters: A Comparative Analysis," Journal of Broadcasting
28:4 (Fall 1984) : 477-483.

99
"Charles Sheldon, Nicholas Lovrich, Val Limburg, &
Erik Wasmann, "The Effect of Voluntary Bench-Bar-Press
Guidelines on Professional Attitudes Towards Free Press,
Privacy and Fair Trial Values," Judicature. 72:2 August-
September 1988:114-121. See also, Limburg et al., "How Print
& Broadcast Journalists Perceive Performance of Reporters in
Courtroom," Journalism Quarterly 65 (Fall 1988):621-626.
"Donald Weinthal & Garrett O'Keefe, "Professionalism
Among Broadcast Newsmen in an Urban Area," Journal of
Broadcastina 18:1 (Spring 1974):193-209.
"Karl Idsvoog & James Hoyt, "Professionalism &
Performance of Television Journalists," Journal of
Broadcastina 21:1 (Winter 1977):97-109. See also, Jack
McLeod & Searle Hawley, "Professionalization Among Newsmen,"
Journalism Quarterly 41:4 (Autumn 1964):529-538.
98Edward Jay Epstein, News From Nowhere: Television and
the News (New York: Random House, 1973).
"David Altheide, Creating Reality: How TV News
Distorts Events (Beverely Hills: Sage Publications, 1976).
100Herbert Gans, Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS
Evening News. NBC Nightly News. Newsweek, and Time (New York:
Random House, 1979).
101Charles Bantz, Suzanne McCorkle, & Roberta Baade,
"The News Factory," Commuai£aLion...Re^£a.r.Q]l, January 1980, 45-
68.
102Warren Breed, "Social Control in the Newsroom: A
Functional Analysis," Social Forces 33 (1955):326-335.
103D. Garvey, "Social Control in the Television
Newsroom," (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1971).
104Barbara Phillips, "Approaches to Objectivity:
Journalistic Versus Social Science Perspectives," in
Strategies for Communication Research, eds. Paul Hirsch, et
al. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977), 63-77.
105Gaye Tuchman, "The Exception Proves the Rule: The
Study of Routine News Practices," Ibid., 43-62.
io6David White, "The 'Gatekeeper': A Case Study in the
Selection of News," Journalism Quarterly 27:4 (Fall 1950):383-
390 .

100
107John Dimmick, "The Gatekeeper: An Uncertainty
Theory," Journalism Monographs 37, 1974.
108James Buckalew, "News Elements & Selection by
Television News Editors," Journal of Broadcasting 14 (Winter
1969-70):47-54.
io9»The Radio News Gatekeeper & His Sources," Journalism
Quarterly 51:4 (Winter 1974):602-606.
110James Harless, "Mail Call: A Case Study of a
Broadcast News Gatekeeper," Journalism Quarterly (Spring
1974):87-90.
inDan Drew, "Roles & Decision Making of Three
Television Beat Reporters," Journal of Broadcasting 16:2
(Spring 1972):165-173.
112Kathleen Wickham, "The Generation of Story Ideas: An
Exploratory Study of Gatekeeping in Local Television News,"
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Washington, DC, August 1989.
113In addition to sources cited here, see, e.g., Ithiel
de Sola Pool, "Newsmen & Statesmen: Adversaries or Cronies?"
in Aspen Notebook of Government and the Media, ed. William
Rivers & Michael Nyhan (New York: Praeger, 1974); William
Small, To Kill a Messenger: TV News and the Real World (New
York: Hastings House, 1970). For a description of the events
of 1968-1972 which led to an attack on the press by the Nixon
administration, see, e.g., Marilyn Lashner, The Chilling
Effect in TV News: Intimidation by the Nixon White House (New
York: Praeger, 1984). Also, S.L. Alexander, "CBS News &
Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 1971-1987," Communications and the Law
10:4 (August 1988):3-16.
114Gladys Lang & Kurt Lang, "The Inferential Structure
of Political Communications: A Study in Unwitting Bias,"
Public Opinion Quarterly 19:2 (Summer 1955):168-183.
115Jay Blumler & Michael Gurevitch, "Politicians & the
Press: An Essay on Role Relationships," in Handbook of
Political Communication, ed. Dan Nimmo & Keith Sanders
(Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981), 467-491.
116David Ostroff, "Television News and Political
Campaigns: A Participant Observation Study of Coverage of the
1978 Ohio Governor's Race in Columbus, Ohio," (Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio University, 1979). Also, "A Participant
Observation Study of TV Campaign Coverage," Journalism
Quarterly 57:3 (Autumn 1980) : 415-419; (with Karin Sandell),

101
"Do Changes in Television Journalism Mean Changes in Campaign
Coverage? Columbus, Ohio, 1978-1986," Speech Communication
Association, 1988.
n7David Paletz & Robert Entman, Media. Power. Politics
(New York: Free Press, 1981).
118Austin Ranney, Channels of Power: The Impact of
Television on American Politics (New York: Basic Books,
1983).
nswilliam Rivers, The Adversaries: Politics and the
Press (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970).
120See, e.g., Television and Radio Coverage of the
House. Hearings Before the Committee on Rules. House of
Representatives. Ninety-Fourth Congress Second Session (March
24. 1976) . Washington, DC; Ronald Garay, Congressional
Television: A Legislative History (Westport, Ct: Greenwood
Press, 1984), and "Implementing Televised Coverage of
Sessions of the U.S. Congress, Journalism Quarterly 55:3
(Autumn 1978) : 527-539; Robert Denton & Gary Woodward,
"Broadcasting from Congress: The Continuing Debate,"
Political Communication in America (New York: Praeger, 1985),
313-323. For recent controversy over televised hearings, see
John King, "Pearce Won't Let Cameras in Room During
Testimony," (AP), Gainesville Sun. 23 September 1989; "House
vs. Courts Battle Brewing?" Broadcasting. October 16, 1989,
33; "Judge Tells Networks 'No,'" Broadcasting. 30 October
1989, 34.
121Mauro, "Nine No-See ' Ems . "
122Barber, News Cameras, 87.
123George Gerbner, Judicature 63:9 (1980):416-426.
124The results of the OSCA survey are found in Post-
Newsweek at 767-769. The results of the Florida Conference
of Judges survey are discussed at 769-770. (Both to be
discussed infra.)
125"Report to the Supreme Court in Florida Re Conduct of
Audio Visual Trial Coverage," 1978. See also, "Florida Judge
Evaluates Cameras Coverage of Trial," Editor & Publisher.
January 7, 1978, 22+.
126Cowart,W., George Tedder, & Arthur Franza, "Report to
the Supreme Court of the State of Florida In Re Petition of
Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. for Change in Code of
Judicial Conduct, Case No. 46,835," 1978.

102
i27»Report In Re: Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations,
Florida, Inc., Case No. 46,835," 1978.
i28"Report to the Supreme Court of Florida Re Conduct of
Audio Visual Trial Coverage," 1978.
i29»Report to the Supreme Court of Florida Re Audio
Visual Trial Coverage," 1978.
130Office of the State Courts Administration, "A Sample
Survey of the Attitudes of Individuals Associated With Trials
Involving Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage in
Selected Florida Courts Between July 5, 1977, and June 30,
1978," 1978.
131A.J. Franza, "Report of the Florida Conference of
Circuit Judges In Re Petition of Post-Newsweek Stations,
Florida, Inc., for Change in Code of Judicial Conduct," 1978.
(Also Appendix to Post-Newsweek, 370 So. 2d 764, 1979).
132D. Strawn et al., "Report to the Supreme Court of
Florida in Re Case No. 46, 835." See also, Ray Buchanan et
al., "The Florida Experiment," Trial. April 1979, 34-36.
133Jean Chance, "Cameras in Courtroom Go On Trial, "
Florida Fol Clearing House Newsletter 1:1 (October 1977) :4;
"Cameras in Court; Is Presence Prejudicial?" 4:8 (September-
October 1980):5; "Views Change Toward Courtroom Cameras," 2:8
(September-October 1978) :4. See also, "Cameras in Court:
Camera's Eye and Justice's Blindness," Communications in
Balance Workshop, Ft. Myers, FL, March 1979.
134Barber, News Cameras. 68-94.
135Goldman & Larson.
136James Hoyt, "Courtroom Coverage: The Effects of Being
Televised," Journal of Broadcasting 21:4 (Fall 1977):487-495.
137Kermit Netteburg, "Does Research Support the Estes
Ban on Cameras in the Courtroom?" Judicature 63 (1980):466-
475 .
138Ernest Short & Associates, "Evaluation of
California's Experiment With Extended Media Coverage of
Courts," 1981. See also, e.g., Advisory Commission on
Cameras in the Courtroom, "Final Statistical Report: Cameras
in the Courtroom in Nevada," May 7, 1981; Minnesota Advisory
Commission on Cameras in the Courtroom, "Report on Cameras in
the Courtroom to the Supreme Court," January 11, 1982; Rob
Raker, "Cameras and Recorders in Arizona's Trial Courts: An

103
Evaluation of the Experiment," 1983, Washington State
Superior Court Judges' Association Committee on Courts and
Community, "Cameras in the Courtroom--A Two-Year Review in
the State of Washington," 1978.
i39Barber, News Cameras.
i4°Edna Einsiedel, "Television in the Courtroom: An Ohio
Experiment," Association for Education in Journalism,
Seattle, 1978.
141Dalton Lancaster, "Cameras in the Courtroom: A Study
of Two Trials," Indiana University, Bloomington, 1984.
142Steve Pasternack, "The Effects of Perceived Community
Pressure on Simulated Juror Guilt Attributions: An
Experimental Study" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Tennessee, 1982).
143Anna Paddon, "Television Coverage of Criminal Trials
with Cameras and Microphones: A Laboratory Experiment of
Audience Effects" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Tennessee, 1985).
144Saul Kassin, "TV Cameras, Public Self-Consciousness,
and Mock Juror Performance," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 20 (1984) :336-349.
145Tony Rimmer, "Electronic Media in the Courtroom:
Legal and Social Science Perspectives," American Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Portland
OR, July 1988.
146C. Boggs, "Television Cameras in the Courtroom: An
Examination of Studies and Their Value to Court Policy-
Making" (M.A. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1981) .
147Rimmer.
148Barber, News Cameras.
149For a discussion of the likelihood (projected at 1 in
10,000) that press coverage prejudices trials, see Ralph
Frasca, "Estimating the Occurrence of Trials Prejudiced by
Press Coverage," Judicature 72:3 (October-November 1988) :162-
169.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
In the first chapter, four research questions regarding
broadcast cameras in courtrooms were presented:
Q1: How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?
Q2: What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?
Q3: Do broadcast journalists present undistorted
coverage of criminal trial proceedings?
Q4: Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?
Although the primary method of data collection was
participant observation, three supplementary methods were
also employed: content analyses, interviews, and surveys.
(As is clear from the literature, case studies involving the
researcher's participant observation of camera coverage of
criminal trials remains unreported, i.e., do not appear
despite a diligent literature search.) A discussion of the
theoretical strengths and weaknesses of the methodology of
participant observation will be followed by a description of
the specific project undertaken--including presentation of
the rationale for the choice of methodology based on the
scope of the research—and a brief description of refinement
104

105
of the methodology. The chapter will conclude with a
description of the general limitations of the study.
Participant Observation
The prime methodology selected for the study is the
style of field research referred to as "participant
observation." Friedrichs and Ludtke define the method as the
"recording of facts, perceptible to the senses, on the basis
of a set plan in which the researcher maintains a receptive
position in confrontation with the research object."1 Gold's
positions on the continuum of types of participant
observation2 range from the complete participant, who does not
let people see him as an observer, to the complete observer,
who takes no part in the behavior studied.
Field research is considered appropriate for study of
areas which defy simple quantification and those in which
attitudes and behaviors can best be understood in their
natural settings. Lofland and Lofland3 suggest appropriate
focuses for field research include meanings and practices
(norms, behaviors): episodes and encounters; roles and
relationships; and groups, organizations, and settlements.
Lofland suggests the technique is particularly useful in
studying a social process over a period of time.
Friedrichs and Ludtke (along with Babbie,4 Douglas,5
Spradley,6 Webb et al.,7 and Yin8) discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of the method of participant observation. For

106
instance, the technique allows the researcher to gain
information in areas where a survey question itself might
evoke attitudes affecting the answers or where access to the
information desired might require a series of interviews or
content analyses.
Participant observation also allows the researcher to
avoid many of the pitfalls of survey research, such as a
possible discrepancy between a subject's verbal behavior
(what he says he -would do) and his actual behavior.
Moreover, the technique does not depend upon the verbal
capabilities of the interviewee—nor upon the instrument
design and implementation talents of the researcher.
Theorists also point out that for some questions, the
inductive method leads to better understanding, due to the
observer's ability to place behavior in context. The
researcher might observe behaviors which escape the subject's
notice, either due to selective perception by the subject or
to inability or unwillingness on the part of the subject to
discuss certain issues.
Finally, participant observation is a flexible method
of research. It may lead to a strong understanding of a
specific situation, and in fact at times it may be the only
way to study a research question.
On the other hand, the same researchers point out
several disadvantages of participant observation. For
instance, one danger is the effect the observer's own

107
selective perception may have on the study. Moreover, the
subject's awareness of being observed (the "Hawthorne
effect") may affect his behavior in subtle ways not obvious
to the researcher. Along the same lines, the subject might
be misinformed, might unconsciously practice self-deception,
or might present a deliberate "front" while being observed.
The observer might not be aware of certain taken-for-
granted attitudes and motivations not readily apparent during
the observation period. And finally, the observer might find
it emotionally overdemanding to look at others as research
objects--particularly if the researcher takes any position
other than that of complete observer, since he would be
simultaneously interacting with the subjects while conducting
the research.
The researcher would need to combine several
observations for a comprehensive examination of the question
across time and/or space. Rather than employ the probability
sampling--with emphasis on statistical significance--of
quantitative research, it is likely the researcher would
select a sample of observations based solely on such factors
as the intuitive feel for the subject, the availability of
situations and subjects to be studied, and pragmatic and
logistical considerations.
According to McCall and Simmons,9 several types of
sampling are appropriate to field researchers, including the
"quota" sample, the "snowball" sample, and the study of

108
"deviant cases." The quota sample involves selection of a
representative unit of study. For instance, in a study of
courtroom coverage, the unit might include observation of a
representative selection of trials or of a representative
selection of trial participants.
The snowball sample is one in which the units of study
are derived during the course of conducting the study itself.
For instance, in a study of courtroom coverage, the initial
study might involve a specific trial, and as the course of
judicial administration proceeds, the researcher might follow
the appeals process of the trial to its ultimate conclusion.
The deviant cases approach is one in which the
researcher deliberately selects cases which do not fit into
the normal pattern. For instance, in a study of courtroom
coverage, the researcher might select a highly-publicized
case which would draw an unusually large number of
journalists to the courtroom.
Glaser and Strauss10 suggest the researcher minimize
differences among comparison groups in order to enhance
development of an emerging theory. According to this
philosophy, minimizing differences increases the possibility
that the researcher will collect much similar data in a given
category and thus immediately recognize any important
differences. Minimizing differences in units studied also
helps establish a set of conditions under which the

109
researcher might establish a probability for theoretical
prediction.
A major drawback to the flexibility of participant
observation is that the researcher might be influenced by
observations which strongly support his initial theoretical
conclusions, contributing to the risk of "selective
perception" mentioned earlier. Theorists suggest several
means by which the researcher might attempt to ameliorate
this danger.
First, the observer might augment the qualitative
observations with quantitative data. For instance, in a
study of courtroom coverage, the researcher might include
surveys of and interviews with trial participants and
journalists as well as content analyses of coverage in the
study.11
Second, the observer might attempt some inter¬
subjectivity by working with another observer. In a study of
courtroom coverage, the observer might request a colleague
attend some court sessions and describe his observations or
rely on observations of others in the courtroom.
Finally, the observer might continuously reevaluate his
position to attempt to avoid the pitfalls resulting from
selective perception as well as from logical fallacies (hasty
conclusions, cause and effect). For a study of courtroom
coverage, the observer would need to remain particularly
aware that the apparent behavior in the courtroom during the

110
process of the trial is modified by that which occurs during
bench conferences, during in camera sessions, and even
outside the courtroom.
Regarding the development of theories based on data
gathered during participant observation, one of the strengths
of the method is in the area of internal validity. However,
participant observation is considered weak in reliability,
and particularly in external validity, or generalizability.
However, Feeley, who conducted a case study of the
lower court in New Haven, suggests that rather than validity
and reliability, other factors are crucial. The important
questions regarding a case study according to Feeley are
whether the analysis focuses on a substantial problem,
whether the inquiry is cast in general, theoretically
intriguing terms, and whether generic problems are central to'
the analysis.12
The prime methodology selected for the research was
participant observation (role of complete observer). The
rationale for this choice constitutes the remainder of this
discussion.
First, the courtroom is an appropriate locale for field
research according to the Loflands1 criteria and in fact was
the locale of observation such as that of Feeley. And the
behavior of electronic journalists can best be understood in
the setting in which it occurs.

Ill
Next, most of the benefits discussed above would apply
to participant observation of the behavior of journalists
providing trial coverage. For instance, a significant
discrepancy between what the journalists say they do, what
trial participants speculate their behavior to be—and their
actual behavior--may exist. Participant observation would
provide data which would tend either to support or to
contradict the speculation. And the observer might note
behaviors which subjects are unaware of or which participants
are too distracted to notice.
Some amelioration of the disadvantages associated with
participant observation are intrinsic to the specific
personnel involved. For instance, the researcher has
specific training and professional experience as a journalist
covering the courts, as well as some background in the study
of law and judicial administration, and thus she might be
more likely to be aware of taken-for-granted attitudes and
motivations of both the press and the judiciary, behaviors
which might not be readily apparent during the observation
period. Furthermore, the researcher's professional
experience makes the treatment of people as research objects
less problematic.
For pragmatic reasons (following a single sensational
trial through exhaustion of appeals might take many years),
the approach selected for the sample was the quota sample, in
particular a representative selection of trials held in a

112
specific jurisdiction during a specified period of time.
Following Glaser and Strauss, every attempt was made to
minimize differences.
A selection of all trials involving charges of first-
degree murder, discussed chronologically as they arose on the
criminal docket in Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit over a
one-year period, was deemed appropriate. The choice of
crimes was made due to the intuitive feeling there would be
the likelihood of press coverage of such trials; moreover, a
concomitant development of heavy press coverage of a case
might bear an inverse relationship to the likelihood of a
negotiated settlement.13 The choice of states was made due to
Florida's leading role in the evolution of courtroom cameras
(one of the reasons the researcher elected to attend the
University of Florida),14 while that of the specific circuit
in Florida was made due to pragmatic considerations such as
proximity.
Refinement of Methodology
Prior to the actual 1989 observation period, in order
to refine the methodology, in 1988 the researcher observed
three representative Eighth Judicial Circuit trials in their
entirety: a criminal trial with a jury, a civil trial without
a jury, and a civil trial in the appropriate federal district
court (the last, in which cameras are forbidden, for
comparison purposes). A brief description of the

113
observations will be followed by the details of the
methodology actually followed in the case study.
In the state court, the observer researched the
backgrounds of both cases, assembled a full complement of
news clips and broadcast scripts of coverage of the cases,
observed the cases and the coverage in their entireties, and
spoke with many of the trial participants, including
attorneys, judges, the jury foreman in the criminal case, and
all members of the media assigned to cover the case. In the
federal court, the researcher assembled primary news clips,
observed most of the testimony, and spoke with the attorneys
and the members of the media covering the case.15
The criminal case was heard April 4-26 in the Alachua
County Courthouse. The defendant had been convicted of three
counts of first-degree murder and had spent six years on
Death Row before his convictions were overturned. A second
trial had ended in a mistrial, and this third trial was the
result of a change of venue: it would also end in a
conviction.
The newspaper reporter from the defendant's hometown
asked the judge if he could use a small 35mm camera to take a
photograph of the defendant; the judge pointed out the camera
had a flash, which violated the Guidelines. The local daily
published a dramatic picture taken during closing arguments:
it showed the prosecuting attorney brandishing the murder
weapon. The local public television station attempted to

114
videotape opening arguments, but after a misunderstanding
with the judge regarding taping during a recess, the station
was ordered to remove its cameras for the duration of the
trial. The local public radio station sent a reporter with a
recorder during jury selection; after she spoke to one of the
veniremen in the courtroom, the judge called her aside and
ordered her to remove her recorder for the duration of the
trial also.
Although the judge had granted advance permission for
camera coverage of the trial, the end result was one
newspaper photograph. Questioned afterward, the judge
(brought out of retirement for the trial) said the incidents,
particularly with the television station, were unfortunate:
"I hated it. I wanted to tell them, 'Bring it back, it's
O.K.,' but I couldn't. Well, maybe it will help them learn a
valuable lesson. I might have been overly sensitive."
The civil case was heard May 23-27 in the Alachua
County Courthouse. This case involved a suit brought by 19
property owners in the Cross Creek area against the county's
Land Use Plan, which they claimed deprived them of equal
protection and due process: they lost their case. The local
daily newspaper photographer was present for an hour each
day, and the story was front-page news all week, with
photographs each day. The local commercial television
station presented live coverage from the courthouse opening
day and live coverage from Cross Creek when the verdict was

115
announced. The local public television station presented
coverage including courtroom footage taken the opening day of
the trial. The local public radio station sent a reporter
(the researcher) to cover the entire trial and presented
daily live and taped'reports, including interviews taped in
the courthouse as well as a same-day wrap-up story sent via
satellite to other Florida public radio stations.
The researcher noted a great deal of freedom granted
the media in covering the trial. Questioned afterward, the
judge told the researcher that since this was not a jury
trial, and because he had been told the case might be of
national interest (author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings having
written extensively about Cross Creek), he granted the
photographers and cameramen more freedom than usual in moving
around the courtroom.
The civil case was heard June 14-23 in the U.S. Middle
District Court in nearby Jacksonville, Florida. In this
case, the local chapter of the NAACP had sued the city of
Starke, demanding a single-member-district election system
and claiming the current at-large system meant a black
candidate would never win election to city office in Starke.
The decision, in favor of the NAACP, was handed down nine
months after the trial.
The only broadcast reporter to attend the trial was
from the Gainesville public radio station (the researcher).
The difficulties of coverage of federal courts, where cameras

116
are not allowed in the courtroom, became immediately clear.
The Guidelines for the U.S. Middle District Court allowed
broadcast equipment only in the lobby area of the courthouse
(and not on the sidewalks immediately surrounding the
courthouse). However, as there was no space allotted to
store equipment while the reporter was in the courtroom, the
only solution seemed to be for the reporter to arrange with
the trial participants for interviews at appointed times in
the courthouse lobby, across the street, or at the hotels
where the out-of-town participants were staying.
After minor refinements to the methodology (such as the
development of a juror exit poll), the researcher then
observed all four of the first-degree murder trials which
appeared on the 1989 criminal docket in the Eighth Judicial
Circuit. These included Florida v. Simmons, Florida v. C.
Harris and P. Harris, Florida v. Spikes, and Florida v.
Stanley.
Regarding the first question--how closely broadcast
journalists follow state guidelines for behavior in
courtrooms during criminal trials—the researcher observed
the media behavior in the seven areas of the Florida
Guidelines: whether coverage was limited to one still
photographer, two television photographers, and one audio
system operator, with "pooling" the responsibility of the
media; whether only nondistracting sound and light equipment
was employed; whether placement was limited per the chief

117
judge's designation;is whether movement was limited to
recesses; whether (according to court personnel)
modifications to light sources acceptable to the chief judge
had been installed at media expense; whether conferences with
clients or judge were excluded from broadcast; and whether
any of the media material was made admissible in evidence in
any proceeding. (See Appendix A for the full text of the
Guidelines.)
Regarding both the second and the third questions--what
impact the guidelines have on coverage and whether broadcast
journalists present undistorted coverage of criminal trial
proceedings—the researcher first analyzed the process of
coverage by questioning media personnel regarding how it was
decided to cover a specific case, how the media organization
determined assignment of personnel, the general background of
personnel selected to cover the trials (including familiarity
with the Guidelines, which was also useful in discussing the
first question), and factors involved which affected the
manner of coverage of each trial. She then compared the
broadcast coverage of each trial with her own observations of
the proceedings.
Finally, regarding the fourth question--whether
broadcast journalists observably disrupt the judicial
process--the researcher analyzed the findings above. She
also took into account such specific considerations as
whether any incidents had occurred during the proceedings

118
which might be classified as disruptions (such as a judge's
asking a photographer to cease, a court participant's comment
or obvious reaction to the presence of cameras, any motions
for and/or granting of mistrial due in any part to the
presence of the media).
To further attempt to mitigate the danger of some of
the risks associated with the selection of the participant
observation methodology, the researcher augmented the
qualitative observations with quantitative data. For
instance, regarding the first two questions, survey/interview
data--designed to elicit a perspective on the general outlook
toward courtroom camera guidelines in the Circuit--were
collected prior to the observation period. The researcher
interviewed 15 representatives of the Eighth Judicial Circuit
regarding their experience with courtroom cameras since the
implementation of the state's new Canon 3A(7) in 1977. (The
results are discussed in Chapter 4: see Appendix B for the
complete text of the questionnaire.)
Regarding the third question, content analysis of trial
coverage--designed to provide a basis for comparison of print
coverage with coverage by broadcasters in an effort to
discern distortions in coverage—was conducted during the
observation period. The content analysis included
quantification of and analysis of all published newspaper
articles regarding coverage of each trial, as well as of
broadcast coverage, based on scripts and (where possible)

119
tapes. (The results are discussed in Chapter 4: see Appendix
C for content analysis, Appendix D for selected articles and
scripts.)
Finally, regarding the fourth question, survey/
interview data--designed to provide data regarding the
response of trial participants to coverage in an effort to
discern disruptions to the judicial process—were collected
after the observation period. The researcher interviewed (in
some cases, reinterviewed) trial participants, including
media personnel, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys,
and also conducted juror exit polls. (The results are
discussed in Chapter 4: see Appendix E for the complete text
of the juror exit poll.)
Although it was difficult for the researcher to have
the benefit of a colleague's observations, the content
analyses contributed some degree of intersubjectivity, as did
evaluation of press coverage by trial participants: the
interpretations of the researcher, the print reporters, and
the trial participants were compared with those of the
broadcasters. Finally, for the reasons discussed, the
researcher remained particularly aware of the need for
introspection throughout the observation period in order to
keep to a minimum the risks involved in the methodology of
participant observation.

120
Limitations
The limitations inherent in participant observation in
general have already been discussed, as have those
methodological limitations of a case study of courtroom
cameras (e.g., the researcher's selective perception, the
"Hawthorne effect"). Additional limitations of a study of
this type might include obstacles which may have limited the
empirical studies of actual courtrooms to date: primarily,
the judiciary's possible reluctance to allow a researcher
full access to observation of entire trials, particularly if
permission to interview trial participants is requested. In
this aspect, the researcher has been very fortunate, in that
the judiciary in the Eighth Judicial Circuit has been
extraordinarily cooperative; this may be due in part to many
judicial officers' being graduates of the local university
and thus aware of the nature of qualitative social science
research.
Most significantly, the study of only a handful of
trials (despite attempts to minimize differences) in only a
single jurisdiction (particularly a university town, a medium¬
sized broadcast market with only one commercial television
station competing with the public station) suggests extremely
limited generalizability. Future researchers would need to
replicate the study, first, in other jurisdictions (first in
Florida, then in other states); next, for other types of
cases (e.g., lesser crimes, civil cases); finally, at other

121
levels (e.g., state appellate courts, eventually federal
trial, and—ultimately--federal appellate courts) in order to
validate the findings.17
Future researchers would also want to take a
longitudinal approach, following particular cases through the
appeals process, a necessary approach in order to evaluate
the actual impact of courtroom cameras on the process of
judicial administration. And eventually, someone might
commission a researcher to take the time to cover enough
cases under variant conditions--!.e., a selection covered by
print media only, a selection covered by broadcasters only,
a selection covered by both, and a selection covered by
neither--in order to draw some valid conclusions regarding
whether the "qualified differential," allowing access to
print media while regulating electronic media, is still
appropriate.
Finally, future researchers might build directly on the
findings of the instant study. The data might be used to
construct theoretical conclusions which might be the basis
for a quantitative approach to the issue of courtroom
cameras.
Despite the obvious limitations of this study, the
research will contribute useful information on an important
topic. In fact, with the implications concomitant with the
increased reliance on negotiation (i.e., the shift in
culpability that now suggests it may be better to convict an

122
innocent man than to let a guilty one go free,)18 it is more
important than ever to have as much public exposure as
possible of the process of judicial administration.
Florida's Guidelines for courtroom coverage are serving
as a model for guidelines developed recently in other states
and are thus an appropriate subject of study (which they have
not been to date). Additionally, although a single case
study may not be very generalizable, there is no evidence
that either the choice of locales or the selection of
criminal trials studied is in anyway atypical. Thus, the
study should lead to better understanding of the role
courtroom cameras actually play in the judicial process, and,
as necessary, to suggested refinements in current practices
and procedures.
Notes
iJurgen Friedrichs & Hartmut Ludtke, Participant-
Observation; Theory and Practice (Lexington, MA: Saxon House,
1975 .
2R. Gold, "Roles in Sociological Field Observation," in
Issues in Participant Observation, eds. George McCall & J.
Simmons (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969), 30-39.
3John Lofland & Lynn Lofland, Analyzing Social
Settings; A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984).
■’Earl Babbie, "Field Research, " in The Practice of
Social Research. 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986), 238-
264'.
5Jack Douglas, Investigative Social Research:
Individual and Team Field Research (Beverly Hills: Sage,
1976) .

123
6James Spradley, Participant Observation (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1980).
7Eugene Webb et al., Unobtrusive Measures: Non-Reactive
Research in the Social Sciences (Chicago, Rand McNally,
1966).
SRobert Yin, Case Study Research: Design & Methods
(Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984).
9George McCall and J. Simmons, eds. Issues in
Participant Observation (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969) .
10Barney Glaser & Anselm Strauss, "Theoretical
Sampling," in The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies
for Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1967),
55-56.
1:LA recent study involving mutual evaluations by print
and broadcast rivals concluded rivals tend to be skeptical of
each other, particularly in evaluating rivals' accuracy: most
print journalists especially are likely to see their own work
as accurate but place less confidence in the work of their
broadcast competition. See Val Limburg et al., "How Print
and Broadcast Journalists Perceive Performance of Reporters
in Courtroom," Journalism Quarterly 65:3 (Fall 1988):621-
626+; Charles Sheldon et al., "The Effect of Voluntary Bench-
Bar-Press Guidelines on Professional Attitudes Toward Free
Press, Privacy and Fair Trial Values," Judicature. 72:2
(August-September 1988):114-121.
12Malcolm Feeley, "Introduction," in The Process is the
Punishment ; Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court (New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979), xvii. See also,
Chapter 1 supra, Notes 88-89 and discussion, for description
of lack of formal hypotheses in participant observation.
13For discussion of the shift in theory of culpability,
see, e.g., George Cole, ed., Criminal Justice: Law &
Politics. 4th ed. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing,
1984); Feeley; W. Boyd Littrell, Bureaucratic Justice:
Police, Prosecutors and Plea Bargaining (Beverly Hills: Sage,
1979); Arthur Rosett & Donald Cressey, Justice By Consent:
Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse (New York:
Lippincott, 1976).
14For example, as noted in earlier discussion,
Florida's Guidelines have been proposed both for general
coverage of the federal courts (Chapter 2, Note 80 and
discussion, regarding "Petition to the Judicial Conference of
the United States Concerning Visual and Aural Coverage of

124
Federal Court Proceedings by the Electronic and Print Press,"
March, 1983), as well as specifically for coverage of the
U.S. Supreme Court (Chapter 1 supra, Note 81 and discussion,
regarding proposal by Dean Talbot (Sandy) D'Alemberte in a
letter to Justice Rehnquist.) See also Westmoreland v. CBS,
752 Fed. 2d 16 at 18, Note 2 (Florida Guidelines proposed for
use in coverage of Westmoreland trial).
15For the criminal case (Florida v. Johnson) , the
researcher was a full-time observer. In the supplementary
civil cases (Glisson v. Alachua, Bradford NAACP v. Starke),
the researcher was primarily a correspondent for WUFT-FM
(NPR), and the observations were incidental to coverage of
the case.
16The Chief Judge of Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit
issued an administrative order granting responsibility for
placement of equipment in all judicial proceedings to the
presiding judge: "The Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida
General Administrative Order 1.720, Placement of Audio &
Visual Equipment in Courtroom," August 18, 1986, Gainesville,
FL.
17Sandy D'Alemberte, former dean of the College of Law
at the Florida State University, began videotaping all
proceedings of the Florida Supreme Court as of January, 1985
The tapes would serve as an excellent data base for research
on appellate coverage.
18See Note 15.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study of courtroom cameras in Florida's Eighth
Judicial Circuit took place in 1989. However, in 1987-88, as
discussed, the researcher had conducted a preliminary survey
of court officials and others and had also studied three
representative trials in the circuit. (See Chapter 3,
supra.) The results of the survey will precede presentation
of the results of the 1989 trials.
Preliminary Study; Eighth Judicial Circuit
During November, 1987, the researcher interviewed 15
representatives of the Eighth Judicial Circuit regarding
their experience with courtroom cameras since 1977. These
included the Chief Judge and a County Judge; the Clerk of the
Court, the Assistant Circuit Clerk, and the Court Executive
Assistant; the State Attorney and the First Assistant; the
Public Defender, a private criminal attorney, a private civil
attorney, the managing editor of the local newspaper, and the
news directors of both local television stations (one
commercial, one public) and the two local radio stations (one
commercial, one public) involved in courtroom coverage.1
Questionnaires, including a copy of the Guidelines,
were sent a week in advance to each respondent. The
125

126
interviewees were asked to describe their familiarity with
the Guidelines, whether they had a problem in theory or
practice with any aspect of the Guidelines, whether cases (or
coverage of cases) had been handled differently since the
advent of courtroom cameras, how often courtroom cameras had
been encountered, how often the respondent had encountered
refusal of permission for courtroom coverage, and whether the
respondent foresaw any change in courtroom coverage. (See
Appendix A for complete text of Guidelines; Appendix B for
Questionnaire.)
The first question dealt with familiarity with the
guidelines. All but one of the interviewees had seen the
Guidelines. (The one exception, a radio news director, had
an "operating knowledge" of them.) One of the television
news directors had seen the Guidelines in the Florida Bar
Association's Reporter's Handbook, and the rest were familiar
with them from court sources.
With varying degrees of reservations, all of the
respondents approved in principle the notion of cameras in
courtrooms. the topic of the second question. The Chief
Judge said he is not generally pleased with the way the media
covers the courts, but he says the use of cameras does not
make a difference. The County Judge said, "I'm all for it."
The court administrators expressed some concern; for
instance, the Clerk said he feels in some cases judges might
give more lenient sentences were it not for the cameras. The

127
Assistant Clerk said she had no problems with audio or still
cameras but was concerned in theory that television cameras
might have some effect, particularly on juvenile witnesses.
According to the Assistant State Attorney, cameras are
no problem. "Lawyers are actors, hams . . . very little
bothers us. In terms of personalities we have an ego or we
wouldn't be in that arena." However, he said sometimes
witnesses have a problem. "Witnesses have a story to tell
and it's not always easy. They're shy or they think the
defendant will come back and kill them."
The Public Defender said, "Some of our defendants
express concern. Most of our clients would prefer not to
have coverage. Then we tell them that's the way it is. I've
always felt it was entirely acceptable; it has never worried
me. "
A private attorney who spent more than 12 years in the
Public Defender's office, including eight years as the Chief,
says his main concern is that if the broadcasters are not
going to air the entire trial, they need to balance the
coverage in terms of prosecution and defense, plaintiff and
respondent. "I've seen all of the worst-case scenarios on
occasion. I've seen grandstanding attorneys . . . I've seen
on the news at 6:00, if we didn't wait til 11:00 we'd see
only one perspective. . . . The print media plays mop-up and
provides depth of perspective, not available at 6:00 when you
have three minutes to do a story."

128
Taking the actual Guidelines one at a time, no one had
any problem with equipment and personnel restrictions. The
civil attorney said, "When the camera is first interjected,
there is a great deal of energy (in a nonpun way) being
released. . . . They're relatively unobtrusive, but I've seen
them attempt to violate the Guidelines, seen two at once, or
lights. . . . The judge says 'No.'"
The news director of the commercial television station
said that in more competitive markets, media representatives
work out pooling arrangements in advance. He said in some
courtrooms a single camera is intrusive, in others three
cameras would not be intrusive. The news director of the
public television station said his previous experience
involved more flexibility: "There were some court proceedings
in which we had three or more TV cameras and probably five
radio stations. It was not a zoo, and as long as the
courtroom is large enough to handle that number of units the
judges allowed it."
Regarding the second factor, sound and light criteria,
one incident was mentioned by the State Attorney: he said in
one trial he could hear a still camera clicking. "It was a
capital case. The judge stopped it."
The news director of the public television station
expressed a great deal of concern with the audio in the
courtroom. "Let's face it. What is said in the courtroom is
really important. If we're not getting good audio from what

129
testimony is delivered, or arguments by both attorneys, or
comments from the judge, then we are not communicating the
delivery of justice like we should or could." He went on to
suggest rewiring of courts to include microphones at the
witness stand, the judge's bench, and at attorneys' podiums,
all wired into an audio mixer which would allow for
simultaneous audio to be fed to multiple recorders: "I think
you'd see a considerable increase in the number of cases and
the variety of cases being covered." The news director of
the commercial radio station agreed and suggested at least
one courtroom in each circuit might be wired for audio.
As far as the third factor, location of equipment
personnel, the only one to comment was the commercial radio
news director who said he felt the judge had too much
discretion in determining what was a "reasonable" location.
"'Reasonable' is too subject to interpretation and may be
difficult to resolve sometimes."
The fourth criterion, limiting movement during
proceedings. seemed like a good idea to most of the
respondents. The Clerk said, "I think this is an excellent
rule. Sometimes they don't have the respect for the system
they should. For example, when the judge is speaking to the
jurors from the bench, no one should move around in the
courtroom." The public TV news director said he totally
agreed "except to allow a photographer a chance to sit down
occasionally." The public radio news director said that

130
although he has never encountered a problem, "There are times
when a radio reporter needs to leave the courtroom in order
to file a phone report to meet an hourly deadline or because
of a late-breaking story or other spot news considerations.
I believe that if the reporter is discreet, he should be
allowed to leave during an appropriate break in the
proceedings."
There were no additional comments regarding courtroom
light sources. The only comment regarding conferences of
counsel was that of the commercial radio news director who
said he would like to hear the attorney-judge conferences.
The final criterion, regarding impermissible use of
material as evidence, caused some comment. The Assistant
Clerk said she thought the court ought to be allowed to rule
on this "as it does on anything else." The newspaper
managing editor said the rule makes sense; otherwise,
defendants might request tapes. For instance: "Inmates might
want them to show a 1987 judge or juror the slack jaws of the
1977 jury, claiming inadequate counsel."
The commercial television news director seemed to
represent the consensus of the media on this issue when he
said, "I agree with it. We're there to cover it, not be part
of it."
Questioned whether cases are handled any differently
since the advent of cameras, there seems to be almost
universal agreement that cameras in courtrooms have had only

131
a positive effect, if any. The Chief Judge did, however,
express concern with the lack of experience of student
journalists in the college town: "One time [the campus
television station] called me, a student, they couldn't get
here 'til 10:00. They wanted me to postpone the trial until
10 for them."
The Assistant State Attorney said he and his staff had
expected the cameras would cause a big change: "I had 35
paranoid complaints, we had conferences, we had our concerns.
[But] I just don't think they affect a trial unless it's the
witnesses or jurors."
The Public Defender had also expected problems but now
says the cameras might affect the jurors in a positive way:
"I just don't think it changes the results. Maybe it's good,
maybe it makes them pay closer attention."
The civil attorney cites a case from his experience as
a public defender in which the cameras affected the clients:
this was a political case. His clients "wanted to make a
statement, a political statement, but our job was not
political. If the media hadn't been there, the case would
have been like any other. The media created a forum." The
attorney said he persuaded his clients not to make the
statements.
The criminal attorney said there is some posturing for
the cameras, but "I'm not sure posturing is a bad thing.
Lawyers and judges do justice and also have to give the

132
appearance of justice. Actuality impacts a few, appearance
impacts a lot of people. The presence of the media forces an
awareness of the appearance."
As did the civil attorney, the criminal attorney cites
a (different) political case, this one attracting the
national media, in which the cameras had an effect on his
clients: "The [local] judge couldn't believe the federal
government was capable of wrong. The media forced him into
the open. ... We all refused to go into his chambers
without the press corps. . . . When they were acquitted . . .
the spectators, the U.S. Marshalls, they all knew justice had
prevailed."
Finally, the public television news director says he
thinks the media cover more courtroom cases because of the
cameras. He adds his belief that court stories may also be
longer since the advent of cameras.
Estimates on the frequency of coverage with courtroom
cameras vary. The Chief Judge estimates he sees television
cameramen about once every two weeks. The County Judge says
he sees the cameras in his court rarely, most recently at a
first appearance by a female AIDS carrier who had bitten the
arresting officer.
The State Attorney says, "They're here for the major
homicides. . . . The thrust was getting in. Once they got
the right, they don't bother to show up." His Chief
Assistant says he's seen the cameras at every first-degree

133
murder case he has handled since 1971, about two dozen cases.
He says he was impressed recently with the concern of the
media when the cameras followed the jury out to the parking
lot where he was showing a piece of evidence (a shirt worn by
a murder victim; the clothes had a terrible odor so he did
not bring them into the courtroom). "They rode down with us
in the elevator. I even took them to an apartment."
The civil attorney estimates since he began his private
practice four years ago, he has seen television in the court
about half a dozen times. The criminal attorney, whose
clients include "the more interesting ones" (e.g., a
professor accused of sexual molestation, a male school
principal accused of grabbing a female jogger), says
(understandably) he sees the cameras quite frequently.
The commercial TV news director estimates he assigns on
the average one court story a day, including almost all first
appearances. The public TV news director estimates he
assigns about one each three weeks and cites as examples a
murder trial, murderer Ted Bundy's appeal, a state
representative's bribery trial, an appearance of a child
molester, and a trial of a mother accused of causing her
daughter's suicide. The commercial radio station news
director estimates coverage of five to ten cases in the past
year, mostly murder trials; the public radio station news
director covers major trials and provides blanket coverage of
cases "every couple of months." The newspaper managing

134
editor says he rarely takes advantage of the rules allowing
cameras in court--generally photographers do not accompany
reporters: "Occasionally we do something else, but our
tradition has not been to blow an ordinary case out of the
water, even in stories."
There are only a few cases anyone could recall in which
the media were turned down in a request for courtroom
cameras. One case involved a prisoner who testified in a
prison murder case. The Chief Judge recalls the network
media covered the story, and one network did not want to
comply with his decision that the face of the witness not be
televised. "They said 'No' to our plan, so I said, 'Well, I
get to choose the pool,' and I chose [a local television
station]." (The managing editor recalls the same case and
remembers cooperating with the request not to photograph the
prisoner.)
Another such case, recalled by the State Attorney,
occurred during the experimental year of courtroom cameras in
Florida and involved a rape victim who refused to testify
unless the newspapers and TV stations would agree in writing
not to photograph her. Although they agreed verbally, the
representatives of the media would not agree to such prior
restraint in writing, and the victim refused to testify.
The criminal attorney once asked to have the press
removed during a case while a client testified, but the court
did not comply. He says, "I have seen times I wish they

135
weren't there, but to choose—never to have them or to put up
with them when I don't want them—I'll take the latter."
The only respondent who reported a major problem in
this area was the news director of the public radio station
(a campus station): he says student reporters are turned down
as much as 70% of the time they appear in court with
recorders--but admits the students often fail to follow
procedure in calling ahead of time for permission. "I also
fear the use of unsupervised student reporters in any lengthy
proceeding. ... We hope to solve this problem in the near
future by assigning a permanent staffer to supervise field
coverage of any court case and more professionally negotiate
with the presiding judge or the bailiff."
Regarding the future, no one foresees any dramatic
change in degree of courtroom coverage. The Chief Judge
expects to see perhaps somewhat less coverage ("The novelty
is wearing off"), and except for some of the student
reporters, generally has no problem with cameras in
courtrooms. The County Judge says he expects slightly more
coverage in the future, and he thinks that would be a good
idea. "It's a scary thing to have a complicated process open
to public scrutiny; there is the possibility the public won't
understand what you're doing and why you're doing it. . . .
But it's a risk we ought to be taking in order for the public
to retain faith in institutions."

136
This position is similar to that of the State Attorney,
who adds that he would like to see proceedings covered in
their entirety rather than in fragments. The Assistant State
Attorney says, "It's a bit of a surprise to me it's worked as
well as it has."
The Court Clerk says, "I'm surprised TV doesn't show
more actual trials from the beginning, especially Public TV."
The Court Executive Assistant likewise says, "I don't see as
much interest as I thought would develop. Either there's
lack of interest or the court has figured out somehow to get
rid of them."
The Public Defender concludes, "We have a uniformly
good experience with them." The civil attorney says he
foresees few of his cases covered unless the client is
"catastrophically injured." As for the amount of coverage he
saw during his years in the Public Defender's office: it was
"more negligible than I would have anticipated."
According to the commercial television news director,
people often call and ask that coverage not be broadcast.
"We get relatives who say, 'If you show that, Grandma will
just have a heart attack and die, we'll sue you' but they
never do." He suggests in the future his station might cover
fewer first appearances. The public TV news director,
however, says he would like to cover more cases, particularly
civil cases.

137
Finally, the criminal attorney predicts coverage of the
federal courts. He says, "It's just a matter of time."
Thus, an examination of the attitudes of courtroom
participants toward courtroom cameras in the Eighth Judicial
Circuit of Florida reveals no major problems. The few minor
concerns with the Guidelines (for instance, the need for hard¬
wired audio systems in courtrooms) seem to be merely
procedural obstacles that can be worked out as the Guidelines
are refined.
Florida v. Simmons
The first murder trial to appear on the 1989 criminal
docket of the Eighth Judicial Circuit was the trial of Samuel
Edwards Simmons, which took place February 16-17, 1989, in
the Alachua County courthouse, Gainesville, Florida, before
Judge Elzie Sanders. Eighteen-year-old Simmons was charged
with first-degree murder and burglary in the beating death of
a 25-year-old man in May, 1988, in Newberry, Florida. Three
other teenagers were involved in the case: one subsequently
pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, one to burglary, and
one was not charged in the case. Simmons was found guilty of
both charges, and his sentence included life imprisonment
with a minimum 25 years in prison.
Courtroom Proceedings
Reporters from the daily newspaper (the Gainesville
Sun), the commercial TV station (WCJB-ABC), the public TV

138
station (WUFT-PBS), the public radio station (WUFT-NPR), and
a commercial radio station (WRUF-CBS) covered the trial.2
(The public stations and the commercial radio station are all
licensed to the Board of Regents on behalf of the University
of Florida. The news directors are professionals; the
reporters and technical crews are students working short
shifts between classes, often for grades. Naturally, this
had some effect on quality of coverage, particularly the
length of time spent by reporters in the courtroom.) The
researcher contacted the judge as well as representatives of
the media prior to the trial, observed the proceedings in
their entirety, and interviewed the judge and the attorneys
after the trial. She also conducted a juror exit poll and a
content analysis of all press coverage.
All five news organizations had representatives present
for opening arguments on the first day, a Thursday. The TV
stations pooled coverage, with the public station patched
into the commercial station's equipment, which was located at
the rear of the courtroom. WCJB sent only a camera operator
the first day of the trial; she left after the noon recess.
On Friday, WCJB sent only a student intern-reporter with no
camera; he left after the jury broke for deliberations and
was not present for the decision (which the jury announced at
6 p.m. while WCJB's evening news program was already on the
air; the decision and sentence were included in the 11 p.m.
story).

139
WUFT-TV's reporter and camera operator arrived about
one hour after the trial began; both left after the noon
recess on Thursday. On Friday, the station sent a second
reporter with the camera operator, and both left when the
jury broke. (The WUFT evening news program airs from 5:30-
6:00 p.m. and ended before the decision was announced.)
WUFT-FM's reporter remained in the courtroom with a
tape machine until after the noon recess on Thursday. A
second reporter covered the trial on Friday: he remained in
the courtroom with a tape machine until after the decision
and sentencing. (However, WUFT-FM's last local newscast ends
at 5:00 p.m. weekdays; thus the decision was not reported
until newscasts resumed Monday morning at 6 a.m.)
WRUF-AM's reporter arrived late Thursday morning and
stayed the rest of the day. A second reporter covered the
trial on Friday; she stayed only a few hours and left before
the jury broke.
Finally, the newspaper reporter was the only journalist
who covered both days of the trial for her news organization.
Except for missing almost the entire hour of the defendant's
testimony (after lunch on Thursday), the Gainesville Sun
reporter was present for the entire trial through the
decision and sentencing. A Sun photographer also arrived
after opening arguments Thursday morning and took photographs
for approximately one hour.

140
The courtroom was a bit noisier than some, due perhaps
to the presence of approximately one dozen teenagers,
presumably friends of the defendant or of the other teenagers
involved in the case. Also, about one dozen members of a
college journalism class (and, during opening arguments,
their professor) observed the trial.
The only notable instance of awareness of press
coverage occurred Thursday morning, during the testimony of
the 16-year-old witness charged with burglary in the case.
During the young man's testimony, the newspaper photographer
began taking pictures of the witness. At one point, the
prosecutor was showing the witness some photographs taken at
the crime scene; tears showed in the (extremely soft-spoken)
witness' eyes, and the judge asked the bailiff to have the
photographer cease. The still cameras were unusually
audible. Interviewed later, the newspaper reporter said the
photographer had failed to bring the "blimp"--a device
usually employed to muffle camera sounds.
Media Coverage
The Gainesville Sun ran two stories on the trial, one
Friday and one Saturday. The Friday story ran on page 1 A
and included a three-column photograph of the defendant and
his attorney as well as a one-and-a-half column photo of the
witness charged with burglary in the case. The Saturday
story also ran on 1 A. (The next month, the newspaper ran a

141
brief story on 1 B regarding the sentencing of the other two.
witnesses charged in the case. The newspaper also ran a
letter the same week: the victim's family wrote expressing
appreciation for the way in which the case had been handled.
See Table 4-1, infra, and Appendix C for content analyses;
Appendix D for selected articles and scripts.)
WCJB-TV ran four stories on the trial: one Thursday
evening, one Friday at noon, one Friday at 6:00, and one
Friday night at 11:00. None of the stories included any
silent video or sound recorded in the courtroom ("actuality")
or interviews with courtroom participants ("sound bites").
(The producer later explained that the station had "problems
with the video," i.e., due to the lighting restriction of the
Guidelines, the station could not use artificial light, and
the light level was too low in the courtroom for the
station's camera to pick up a suitable picture.)
The first story described the opening of the trial and
mentioned the testimony of the two other teenagers involved
in the murder. The second story described the testimony of
the defendant's cellmate and of the medical examiner. The
third story summed up the prosecution and the defense and
reported the jury was deliberating at the time of the
newscast. The last story described the jury verdict and
sentencing.
WUFT-TV also ran four stories on the trial: one
Wednesday evening preceding the trial, one Thursday evening

142
mentioning the testimony of one of the other teenagers
involved in the trial, one Friday evening while the jury was
deliberating, and one the next Monday evening regarding the
decision and sentencing. Each of the three stories which ran
during and after the trial included silent footage of the
courtroom, but there was no sound actuality. The only "sound
bites" were brief interviews with both the prosecutor and the
defense attorney taken in the hallway the first day of the
trial. (A month later, WUFT-TV also ran a follow-up story on
the pleadings and sentencing of another witness charged in
the case.)
WUFT-FM ran six stories on the trial: one phone-in on
the Thursday noon news, one story on the Thursday evening
news, one phone-in on the Friday noon news, one story on the
Friday evening news, and two (regarding the decision and
sentencing) on Monday morning's news. Sound bites included
interviews with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney
taken in the hallway the first day of the trial, and the
comments of the prosecutor regarding the charges against the
other witnesses (the last taken in the hallway following the
verdict and aired on the Monday morning newscasts).
WRUF-AM ran 20 brief stories on the trial: one
preceding the trial Thursday morning, three phone-ins
Thursday during the trial along with three other stories on
Thursday; eight stories Friday, and five stories on Saturday
morning. The preview story and half the reports aired Friday

143
and Saturday included sound bites of interviews with the
defense attorney, the latter ones taken after the decision
was announced.
TABLE 4-1
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Florida v. Simmons
WCJB-TV
WUFT-TV
WUFT-FM
WRUF-AM/FM
Gainesville Sun
4 stories
4
6
20
2 stories
0 actuality
0
0
0
1 with 2 courtroom
photos
0 sound bite
1(2 d)
3(4 d)
7(3 d)
Total Number Television
Average Length: :41
Stories: 8
Total Number Radio Stories: 26
Average Length: :35
actuality: sound recorded in the courtroom during the trial
sound bite: sound recorded with trial participants outside the courtroom
d: different sound bites, used only once, not repeated
Participant Response
Interviewed after the trial, Judge Elzie Sanders said
he had no problems with courtroom cameras in theory. His
only complaint with the press in general is the last-minute
nature of some requests for coverage. Regarding the incident
with the newspaper photographer who had been asked to halt
during Simmons, the judge said he had to stop him because
the noise was distracting. "You assume they are, as
professionals, aware of the requirement; it should not be

144
distracting or annoying." The judge says in general the
press follows the Guidelines. He did not consider the
incident in this trial a significant disruption to the
judicial process. As far as the accuracy of the coverage of
the Simmons trial, the'judge said he had no time to follow
the coverage during the trial. Contacted after the trial, he
said he had seen WCJB-TV’s coverage and read both newspaper
stories and was impressed with the accuracy of the coverage.
Prosecutor Harris Tobin, who says his appearances are
covered by cameras approximately every two or three months,
generally approves of courtroom cameras. He says the media
follow the Guidelines, and distractions such as the incident
with the newspaper photographer in Simmons are rare.
Regarding the accuracy of coverage, the prosecutor says in
general some press coverage is better than others, although
he did not cite any specific cases of inaccuracies in the
Simmons trial or other cases.
Assistant prosecutor Gloria Fletcher approves of still
cameras and audio equipment. Although she says all
broadcasters generally follow the Guidelines, she says
sometimes television cameras inhibit her: for instance, she
does not permit her family to come to trials due to concerns
for their safety. She disagrees with the aspect of the
Guidelines forbidding use of news material in subsequent
litigation and says the need might arise for access in
subsequent litigation. Regarding accuracy of coverage, she

145
says she deliberately does not follow coverage during the
trial ("That way the jury's heard what I've heard").
Contacted after the trial, she said she did not notice any
inaccuracies in coverage of the Simmons trial. In general,
she again said still photographers and audio equipment are
not distracting, but she feels television cameras may affect
the jury: "They're always looking over there."
Defense attorney Craig De Thomasis generally approves
of courtroom cameras, although he says the court should have
the last say on whether they might be allowed in a specific
case. He says the press generally follows the Guidelines,
with occasional exceptions such as the incident with the
newspaper photographer in Simmons. Regarding accuracy of
coverage, he says he rarely sees fact errors. However, he
says from his point of view the press sometimes misinterprets
testimony, such as WCJB-TV's reporting the victim was
beaten to death with an ax handle wielded by Simmons when
De Thomasis felt the medical examiner's testimony showed it
was not the ax handle but a second weapon—a metal window
weight wielded by the teenager who pleaded guilty to second-
degree murder--which was the actual death weapon.
De Thomasis then described some lawyers: "The first
thing they do is look for inaccuracies. They can be minor
but the lawyers will make a big deal of it." Contacted after
the Simmons trial regarding coverage, De Thomasis said he
disliked the headline on the second newspaper story which

146
implied the jury very "swiftly" reached a verdict: "I don't
think two hours is 'swift.'"
It is interesting to note the defense attorney's
concern with a television reporter's interpretation regarding
which weapon was the cause of death, in that although WCJB-TV
(as well as WRUF-AM) generally described the death weapon as
a wooden ax handle wielded by Simmons, both WUFT-FM and the
Gainesville Sun, while describing the metal weight as the
death weapon, also reported it was De Thomasis' client--
Simmons--who wielded the metal weight. (WUFT-FM reported
that Simmons beat the victim to death with a "two-foot metal
object." Likewise, the newspaper reported in the first story
that Simmons attacked the victim with a "five-pound window
sash weight." In the second story, the newspaper reported
"De Thomasis argued that [the second teenager] hit [the
victim] with a wooden ax handle" and later repeated that it
was Simmons who had beaten the victim to death with a "metal
weight.")
The researcher's notes correspond to the version
reported by WUFT-FM and the newspaper. The notes describe
the second teenager's testimony that he (not Simmons) had
wielded the ax handle. Later notes taken during Simmons'
testimony describe Simmons as testifying that the other
teenager had hit the victim with an ax handle while "I
[Simmons] dropped the weight."

147
Regardless of who wielded which weapon or whether the
wooden ax handle or the metal weight should be considered the
death weapon (crucial to the trial but irrelevant to the
current study), the conflicting news reports may be regarded
as significant for two reasons. First, they reveal how
reporters, irrespective of medium, may interpret the same
testimony quite differently--differently not only from each
other but from the way an attorney pleading a case may
interpret it. Secondly, the literature on news values
predicted a general bias against perception of broadcast news
coverage as meeting the same degree of accuracy perceived as
met by print (a bias shared by members of the general public
as well as by members of rival print media).3 True to the
predictions, the defense attorney in Simmons perceived a
misinterpretation in the television coverage he watched,
while he apparently did not notice that the newspaper
version, while agreeing with his viewpoint that the metal
weight was the actual death weapon, had also reported it was
his own client who wielded the death weapon.
Upon dismissing the jury, the judge handed out the
researcher's study and suggested the jurors might want to
answer the anonymous exit poll and sent in the self-addressed
envelopes—or, if they should prefer, the jurors were free to
toss out the questionnaire. (See Appendix E for juror exit
poll, Table 4-5, infra, for juror response.)

148
Six of the twelve jurors returned the questionnaires.
Regarding the three multiple-choice questions: four jurors
selected the answer most favorable to the press on the first
question--courtroom cameras are a good idea which helps the
public understand the judicial system better. One selected
the neutral answer: cameras have some advantages, some
disadvantages. The only one who thought it was a bad idea
commented, "It's hard to give the full attention to the trail
[sic], cameras clicking all the time."
Four selected the middle answer on the second question,
indicating an awareness of the reporters and the equipment
and sometimes a slight distraction; the other two said they
wished the reporters and equipment were not in the courtroom.
(One of the two commented, "Too noisy!" while the second
wrote, "TV camera was fine, but the photographers with their
flash equipment were distracting": however, it should be
noted there was no flash equipment in the courtroom.)
Four jurors also selected the middle answer on the last
question: coverage was fairly accurate with only minor
inaccuracies. Neither of the other two respondents had seen
any of the broadcast coverage. The one who thought print
coverage was poor--he says he reads the Wall Street Journal
and the Gainesville Sun each twice a week—commented,
"Coverage was redundant and very serious differences. It was
more like reading gossip & opinions than reporting the
facts."
The respondent who thought the print coverage was

149
good--he says he reads the Sun every day—wrote "Generally
very accurate reporting."
Regarding the demographics of the six jurors who
returned the survey: four were females, the average age was
32, three were part-time or full-time students, one a
computer programmer, one a coach, and one a "teacher
assistant." Only one had served on a jury previously. All
said they read the Gainesville Sun, including (after the
trial) coverage of the Simmons trial. Four said they watch
local news on one of the TV stations which covered the trial
(WCJB-ABC), and two said they listen to the news on one of
the radio stations which covered the trial (WUFT-FM).
However, only one juror reported he had heard (after the
trial) about broadcast coverage of Simmons.
Thus, regarding the Simmons trial: with the exception
of the incident with the newspaper photographer, the judge
and the attorneys involved agreed the media followed the
Guidelines. In general, coverage was seen as accurate, with
only minor (if any) inaccuracies. (The researcher did note
some very minor inaccuracies, not commented upon by anyone
else, presumably because they were so unnoticeable: for
instance, the WUFT-TV graphic on the sentencing story had the
defendant's name as "Simmon," and the station at one point
identified Craig De Thomasis as a "public defender." Due to
a conflict, the Office of the Public Defender was unable to
represent Simmons, and De Thomasis, a private attorney, was

150
hired by the government to represent him. Technically he was
a "public defender," but not officially a member of the
Office of the Public Defender.)
The only real concern regarding accuracy specifically
cited, by the defense attorney, was, upon closer examination,
a matter of general confusion to all involved--including the
defense attorney himself. Again, except for the incident
involving the newspaper photographer, which no one described
as a significant disruption of proceedings, no one described
any disruption to the judicial process caused by the presence
of the press in general or by courtroom cameras in
particular. The juror responses (50% response rate) were
also generally neutral or favorable toward the use of
courtroom cameras: 28% of the answers were those most
favorable to the press, 50% were neutral, and 22% were those
least favorable toward the use of courtroom cameras in the
Simmons trial. (See Table 4-6, infra, for juror response
percentages.)
Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris
The second murder trial to appear on the 1989 criminal
docket of the Eighth Judicial Circuit was the trial of
brothers Carlton Lorenzo Harris and Pierre Cullen Harris,
which took place September 26-30, in the Alachua County
courthouse, Gainesville, Florida, before Judge Robert Cates.
The two brothers were charged with first-degree murder in the

151
stabbing death of a 21-year-old acquaintance following a drug
related dispute in the streets of their Gainesville
neighborhood in October, 1988. Midway through the trial, the
judge granted a directed acquittal regarding one defendant;
the judge said there was no evidence Carl Harris at any time
participated in the stabbing, and the trial continued against
defendant Pierre Harris, who was acquitted by the jury after
two hours of deliberation.
Courtroom Proceedings
Reporters from the daily newspaper (the Gainesville
Sun), the public TV station (WUFT-PBS), the public radio
station (WUFT-NPR), and the commercial radio station (WRUF-
CBS) covered the trial.4 (WCJB-ABC, contacted the day before
the trial, had changed its plan to cover the trial due to
"too many other stories.") All four news organizations had
representatives present for jury selection and opening
arguments. WUFT-TV sent different pairs of student
reporters/videographers each day; no one represented the
station on the day of the verdict, a Saturday. WUFT-FM sent
a staff reporter each day; he was accompanied at times by
student observers and similarly was absent on Saturday.
Likewise, WRUF-AM sent different student reporters each day,
no one on Saturday. Finally, the newspaper sent the same
staff reporter for three days and hired a student to "string"
for them the last two days of the trial.

152
In addition to the usual spectators, about two dozen
members of a college journalism class (and, one afternoon in
the middle of the trial, their professor) observed the trial.
After the judge admonished some noisy spectators (an incident
which was noticed by at least one juror: see infra), the
researcher randomly picked one hour to conduct a casual study
of who went in and out of the courtroom: in that hour, the
courtroom door opened 30 times: 23 people came in (including
two media people) and eight people left (none were media
people).
Only two notable instances of awareness of press
coverage occurred, both during jury selection prior to
opening arguments. On the first day, a student reporter for
WUFT-TV walked over to the researcher and began whispering:
the judge admonished the reporter. And throughout the entire
voir dire, it was obvious pretrial publicity was an issue:
the newspaper had written an advance story on the case which
included the felony record of Carl Harris (inadmissible
evidence), and each juror who said he had read the article
was questioned in chambers by the judge and the attorneys.
All but one juror who said he had ready the story were
dismissed. (After later questioning, the researcher noted
the judge had dismissed them "for cause," and the one juror
who was allowed to remain had said she could not remember
anything she had read in the article.)

153
Media Coverage
The Gainesville Sun ran five stories on the trial: the
advance article on Monday, and one each day on Thursday,
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The advance story had run on
page 1 B, as did the Thursday story, which included a four-
column photo of the defendants and their attorneys. The
Friday story ran on 7 B; the Saturday and Sunday stories on
IB. (A brief mention of Judge Cates' swearing-in of new Bar
members during a Harris trial recess ran October 2. See
Table 4-2, infra, and Appendix C for content analyses;
Appendix D for selected articles and scripts.)
WUFT-TV broadcast five stories on the trial: one each
evening of jury selection and trial (Tuesday-Friday,
September 26-29) and one on the Saturday verdict on the next
available newscast (Monday, October 2). The Tuesday night
story on jury selection included footage of the empty lot
where the stabbing took place as well as a "sound bite" with
defense attorney Craig De Thomasis (his clients claim self-
defense) . Wednesday night's coverage included a sound bite
with De Thomasis (State has no evidence) as did Thursday
night's (still claiming State has no evidence): both nights
the reporter said the prosecutor refused to appear on camera.
Friday, the reporter phoned-in "live" coverage from the
courthouse over silent video of courthouse scenes: included

154
was a description of the directed verdict of acquittal of
Carl Harris.
WUFT-FM broadcast 15 stories on the trial: morning,
noon, and evening on Tuesday (jury selection); and two each
morning, one at noon, and one each evening during the trial
(Wednesday through Friday.) The morning stories Wednesday
included sound bites with defense attorney Craig De Thomasis
(opining that pretrial publicity was not an overriding
issue), as did one of the morning stories on Thursday
(response to the testimony of the first State witness, Tony
Ramsey). WUFT-FM did not broadcast a story on the verdict,
as it was reached on a Saturday, and the next available
newscast was not until the following Monday morning.
WRUF-AM broadcast 19 stories on the trial: two
Tuesday, two Wednesday, three Thursday, six Friday, five
Saturday, and one Sunday. Throughout the week, of the first
16 stories, 11 included sound bites with defense attorney
Craig De Thomasis (eight different cuts). The last three
stories included sound bites with the judge (a bit unusual):
one taken while the jury was out, the last (repeated) after
the verdict.

155
TABLE 4-2
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris
WUFT-TV
WUFT-FM
WRUF-AM/FM
Gainesville Sun
5 stories
15
19
5 stories
0 actuality
0
0
1 with courtroom
photo
3 sound bite
(3
d)
3(3 d)
14(11 d)
Total Number Television
Average Length: 1:08
Stories:
5 Total Number Radio Stories: 34
Average Length: :41
Participant Response
Interviewed after the trial, presiding Judge Robert
Cates said he feels the press is an extension of the public
consciousness, and both print and broadcast media have an
absolute right to be in the courtroom. Although he had seen
broadcasters in the courtroom at sentencing trials prior to
being seated on the bench two-and-a-half years ago, he can
remember only one other trial over which he presided where
broadcasters were present. The judge said he agreed in
general with most of the Guidelines and, in fact, his only
concern was that they might be too restrictive, and such
issues would be better left to individual judges; however, he
expressed concern that some judges might be arbitrarily
restrictive except for the existence of the Guidelines.

156
Regarding the Harris trial, Judge Cates said he had
followed the stories in the newspaper and on WUFT-FM. He
complained that although the WUFT-TV student reporters had
asked him for permission to make an exception to the
Guidelines and allow them to use additional lighting, the
second day of the trial they had shined the light in his eyes
instead of bouncing it off the wall as they had the first
day. The judge said he felt the newspaper stories were
"pretty accurate," and he said the radio stories he heard
were accurate but "so brief as to possibly be misleading."
The judge concluded that the most important thing is for a
judge to remain flexible and to meet with the media to assure
everyone understands the rules. He said the result then can
be a very good working relationship: "I have never had any
breach of faith by the press so far."
Prosecutor Margaret Stack, who says her appearances
have been covered by cameras approximately once every month
or six weeks during the five years she has been with the
State Attorney, says she feels in general reporters are
"frequently erroneous," and she wishes they would "report
what they see, get it straight." She says television
coverage can be distracting (although she says it has never
distracted her), but she says she has no strong opinion on
the issue: "You see them there all the time." Regarding the
Guidelines, she says she feels that if cameras are going to
be present, most of the rules are generally appropriate. As

157
far as Harris, Stack, who had read the newspaper coverage,
noted an error in the third day's newspaper story, where the
omission of the word "not" led the reader to believe the
testimony showed the victim conclusively had recently fired a
gun, when, in fact, the evidence showed the exact opposite—
the correct version, and the one favorable to Stack's
presentation. (The researcher's notes agreed with Stack.)
She also commented that the advance story had caused a great
deal of delay in jury selection (which had taken
approximately 10 hours) and suggested it would be "better
practice to wait until after jury selection" to print advance
stories to avoid possible disruption to the judicial process.
Assistant prosecutor Phyllis Kotey, who has been with
the State Attorney four years, was unfamiliar with the
Guidelines until the researcher showed them to her. She said
she rarely sees broadcasters because she primarily prosecutes
child-abuse cases, and the broadcasters do not bring their
equipment into the courtrooms. Kotey says she is "basically
in disagreement with cameras in courtrooms" due to fear
publicity might cause a mistrial; however, she says she has
never had any problem with the media, and regarding coverage
of sensitive child abuse cases, she says the press has always
cooperated with her requests: "They never let me down." The
only one of the guidelines Kotey did not approve of is the
last, disallowing uses of media coverage in subsequent
trials. She says she once subpoenaed the local commercial

158
station's videotapes in the trial of some political
protestors (although they were not used), and she thinks
trial coverage might similarly become an issue in some future
case.
Regarding the Harris trial, Kotey, who had read the
newspaper coverage and heard the radio coverage on WUFT-FM,
said she saw minor inaccuracies in coverage (although she did
not cite any offhand): "not because of any bias; they didn't
understand the procedure. They called it 'this' and it was
'that,' but nothing blatant." She said she feels the advance
story in the paper disrupted the judicial process: "Why not
run the story after jury selection?"
Robert Rush, defense attorney for Carl Harris (whose
motion for directed verdict of acquittal was granted in mid¬
trial) , spent two-and-one-half years in the Public Defender's
office prior to entering private practice. (Several of the
witnesses in the Harris case were clients of the Public
Defender, and thus private counsel was appointed by the court
for both Harris brothers.) Rush, who says he sees cameras in
only about 5% of the cases he covers (all capital cases),
says he has mixed feelings toward courtroom cameras: he
recognizes freedom of the press but feels somehow cameras
sometimes threaten a defendant's case. He approves of most
of the Guidelines, and'he found the exception allowing for
lights in the Harris case distracting. He also feels the
aspect of the Guidelines which forbids use of media material

159
in subsequent proceedings to be unnecessarily limiting: "If a
man's life is at stake, you should be able to use whatever
resources are available."
Regarding coverage of the Harris trial, as had Stack,
Rush noted the dropped word "not" in the newspaper's story
and its resulting inaccurate implication (in his case, in his
client's favor). Rush also complained about the advance
newspaper story and its causing delay in jury selection:
"There is absolutely no need to put background information on
a defendant in the newspaper just to sell newspapers. Or the
information could come out after the jury is impaneled."
Craig De Thomasis, defense attorney for Pierre Harris
(who was acquitted by the jury), was interviewed in the
preceding Simmons trial where his generally favorable
attitude toward courtroom cameras was noted.5 Regarding the
Harris trial, De Thomasis said his only concern was the
exception allowing lights to be turned on and off during the
trial, which he felt distracted the jurors and witnesses.
De Thomasis said he had read the newspaper coverage of
the Harris case, heard the morning news reporters on WUFT-FM,
and watched one day of WUFT-TV's coverage. He found the
radio coverage accurate but too brief to be of much benefit.
In addition to complaining of the delays caused by the
advance story and noting the dropped "not" in the newspaper
story, he said that in the fourth-day story, the newspaper
reporter took something De Thomasis had said out of context,

160
and it would have been more appropriate to have quoted his
colleague's remarks, since the story was on the midtrial
acquittal of Carl Harris, who was represented by his
colleague, Rush. De Thomasis also felt the newspaper
reporter should have made it clear that Carl Harris was
granted a "directed" verdict of acquittal by the judge, as he
felt some readers might think the jury had acquitted Carl
Harris midtrial. De Thomasis concluded that although the
pretrial publicity had caused a delay in jury selection,
overall the media "treated us pretty well."
Upon dismissing the jury, the judge handed out the
researcher's study and suggested jurors might want to answer
the anonymous exit poll and to send in the self-addressed
envelopes--or if they should prefer, they were free to toss
out the questionnaire. (See Appendix E for juror exit poll,
Table 4-5, infra, for juror response.)
Seven of the twelve jurors returned the questionnaires.
Regarding the three multiple-choice questions: five of the
jurors selected the neutral answer on the first question--
there are some advantages to allowing cameras and some
drawbacks too. One juror noted cameras "can intimidate the
jury and witnesses." A 38-year-old male "civil servant"
wrote a lengthy comment on the question:
I believe if you come into court, you stay in Court,
No leaving--you leave, that's it No more entrance
for the period of the Court--In and out--in and out,
is very distracting--When I did look--It seemed a lot
were reporters--If the reporters wish to be accurate

161
on the "drama" unfolding in the court room they
should "behave" as if they were the "Jury" themselves-
-not sitting there talking—trying to catch up on the
precedings [sic]. Judge Cates was quite proper in
addressing this particular problem of these immature
"Reporters", who never seem to grasp the seriousness
of the "Court" Jail Time for these people would be
welcomed by the Jury at this trail—[sic] Again I,
myself was distracted by the TV camera lights--"on",
"off" "on", "off" as if signaling what was, or was
not important—something should be done about that.
I think it distracted the witnesses more than me.
The Press should understand that a fair trail [sic]
is way more important, than the so called right of
the public to know. But, to insure a fair trial, the
Press should be allowed to observe, but not in the
Present form. Either New Doors, or court regulations
must be imposed on this "show". Thank you for this
forum.
Two jurors selected the answer most favorable to the
press on the first question—coverage is a good idea and
helps the public understand the judicial system better. One
juror commented: "As a first time jury member, I was more
aware of the process from coverage I had seen on TV in the
past. "
On the second question, five jurors selected the
neutral answer--reflecting an awareness of the cameras and
sometimes distraction. One juror noted, "When the camera
lights were turned on, I felt it was a distraction." The two
other jurors who responded to the survey selected the answer
most favorable to the press--hardly noticing the reporters or
the equipment. A 55-year-old female school bus driver wrote
a comment:
I made a questioning comment to a fellow juror about
there being cameras in the courtroom. He said it was
the press. After that I hardly noticed them. My

162
mind was on the trial. I think xf. there had been
flashes, it would have been distracting.
Five jurors also selected the middle answer on the last
question: the coverage was fair with only minor inaccuracies.
One juror commented: "If you had not been at the trail [sic]
you made [sic] have thought Carl Harris actually testified in
court, but what the jury heard was a tape of Carl taken at
the police station." The school bus driver commented: "I
don't watch TV at all, and the radio station I listen to
(WYGC-GC 101) has very scant news. I heard nothing about
it." (This juror also added a comment at the end of the
questionnaire: "I'm sorry this is 'late.' I just got the
clippings from the 2 friends who saved them for me. Have a
great day!") The sixth juror who responded to the survey
selected the answer most favorable to the press —coverage was
good with no inaccuracies. And the final juror who responded
selected the answer least favorable to the press—poor
coverage—but cited no specific examples of inaccuracies.
Regarding the demographics of the seven jurors who
returned the survey: four were females, the average age was
45, one a civil servant, one an instructor, one an engineer,
one a school bus driver/cashier, one a "case administrator
and assistant to my husband—an attorney, " one a
technologist, (and one left the "occupation" question blank).
Two had served on juries once before; one had served on three
other juries. All said they read the Gainesville Sun and had

163
read the coverage after the trial. Three said they watch the
news on the station which covered the trial, WUFT (five of
the seven also said they also watch news on the commercial
station which did not cover the trial; one does not watch the
commercial station, "not since they let a sports announcer go
for saying Jesus"). One does not listen to any radio news,
three listen to a station which did not cover the trial, one
listens to a station which did cover the trial (WUFT-FM), one
listens to "any of the local stations," and one respondent
specifically mentioned three stations including the two which
covered the trial. However, only one (different) juror had
seen or heard about broadcast coverage of the trial.
Thus, regarding the Harris trial: the judge and the
attorneys expressed general satisfaction with the media
adherence to the Guidelines--w'ith the exception of the use of
TV lights, an exception which the judge had granted, and then
presumably was reluctant to rescind. (The researcher noted
this is the first time she has seen lights used in a
courtroom in the Eighth Judicial Circuit; judging from the
response of courtroom participants, it will probably be the
last.) The only inaccuracy in coverage, noted by three of
the four attorneys, was the newspaper's dropping of the word
"not," which changed the meaning of a sentence describing
crucial evidence in the case; however, all agreed (and the-
reporter, later questioned, supported the interpretation)
that it was obvious from the context of the sentence that the

164
dropped word was a typographical error rather than any
misunderstanding of the testimony by the reporter.
None of the jurors noted the error nor any other errors
in coverage, although one juror thought one sentence in a
newspaper story might be misleading as to whether the jury
heard actual testimony or audiotaped testimony. However, the
researcher noted three additional minor inaccuracies not
noticed by anyone else (assumedly because she was combing the
coverage). First, in.the WUFT-TV story of September 29, the
reporter, who was calling in his report from the courthouse,
described Pierre Harris' reenacting the stabbing; however,
what the viewer saw was another witness, Tommy Smith, who was
reenacting his version of the stabbing—about a five-second
portion of the story. (Assumedly this error resulted since
the reporter was still at the courthouse and did not view the
video when it was edited: the video of Tommy Smith came up
out of sync with the audio report on his testimony.)
The second error was in WRUF-AM's story on the evening
of Friday, September 29: the jury was not "deliberating at
this hour" nor was the verdict "expected Monday": the jury
had recessed and was expected to resume deliberations and
(presumably) reach a verdict the next morning, a Saturday.
Finally, in the Gainesville Sun October 1 story
reporting the jury's verdict: both brothers were described as
29 years old rather than as 30 and 29 (understandable: even

165
their mother when testifying had shown some confusion as to
the exact age difference).
As for the juror who wrote the lengthy comments
including criticism of the reporters' constant entering and
leaving the courtroom: as discussed, the researcher also had
noted the judge's admonishment to noisy spectators and had
taken an arbitrary hour in the middle of the trial to count:
of the 31 people entering and leaving the courtroom, only two
were media representatives: about half were members of the
defendants' or victim's families (including a representative
of the Victim's Advocate Office), and the rest were either
members of the Public Defender's or State Attorney's office
or students from the University (members of this last group
probably mistaken by the juror for working reporters--since
all three of the broadcast stations are staffed by students,
they might be indistinguishable to the layman).
However, this particular juror did not select any of
the answers unfavorable to the press on the multiple choice
questions. In fact, only one answer (less than 5%) was least
favorable to the press, 71% were neutral, and 24% were most
favorable to the press (58% response rate). One juror
particularly noted her appreciation of broadcast coverage in
past trials' having educated her as to courtroom procedures.
(See Table 4-6, infra, for juror response percentages.)
Thus, as with coverage of the Simmons trial, the
coverage of the Harris trial would be considered to have been

166
handled appropriately: the media followed the Guidelines
(with the exception of use of lights allowed by the judge the
first two days of the trial); coverage was generally seen as
accurate (with the main exception what all who noted it
regarded as a typographical error in one of the newspaper
stories). The only real problem regarding judicial
disruption which was noted by all the attorneys--the
newspaper's advance story's causing a delay in voir dire due
to its inclusion of inadmissible evidence--is a universal
issue of First Amendment versus Sixth Amendment rights in the
matter of prejudicial publicity and is unrelated to the
specific question of use of courtroom cameras.
Florida v. Spikes
The third murder trial to appear on the 1989 criminal
docket of the Eighth Judicial Circuit was the trial of Frank
Lee Spikes, which took place October 3-4 and 11, 1989, in the
Alachua County courthouse, Gainesville, Florida, before Judge
Elzie Sanders. Spikes was charged with first-degree murder
and first-degree arson of a dwelling in the death of his 77-
year-old grandfather, who died two weeks after receiving
severe burns when his house burned in February, 1989, in
Gainesville.
The trial had originally been scheduled for September
14 but was postponed due to the death of the defense
attorney's father the night before the trial. Jury selection

167
took one hour October 3, and the State presented its case
October 4; however, before the State rested, the Defense
moved for a continuance in order to obtain the testimony of a
fire official (who was originally scheduled as a State
witness, and upon failure to be called, was subpoenaed by the
Defense). The trial resumed on October 11. Spikes was
convicted on both counts and sentenced to life imprisonment
on the murder and the maximum 30 years on the arson, with a
minimum 25 years in prison.
Courtroom Proceedings
Reporters from the daily newspaper (the Gainesville
Sun. the Gainesville bureau of the Jacksonville Florida Times-
Union (the reporter said it was a "slow day" for Jacksonville
news in Gainesville), the public TV station (WUFT-PBS), the
public radio station (WUFT-NPR), and the commercial radio
station (WRUF-CBS) covered the trial.6 (As with the Harris
trial, WCJB-TV changed its announced plans to cover the
trial: this time the assignment editor reported that when the
trial had been postponed, it conflicted with coverage of a
trial of a police chief in the federal court, which the
station considered a major story; he said their resources
were limited to coverage of only one trial at a time.)
Three of the news organizations (both newspapers and
WUFT-NPR) had representatives present for the opening
argument on the first day, a Wednesday (the Defense declined

168
to present an opening argument): WUFT-TV and WRUF-AM did not
show up until the afternoon session, nor did the photographer
for the Gainesville Sun. A week later, the same three
organizations were present in the morning for the Defense
presentation, although the local newspaper sent a different
reporter (since the regular court reporter was covering a
special session in the state capital; he had "debriefed" his
substitute before he left town). All five organizations were
present for closing arguments (including a different
Gainesville Sun photographer and a different reporter from
the one who had been present a week earlier for WRUF-AM), and
all but the newspaper photographer were present for the
verdict. The only notable instance of awareness of press
coverage occurred during the first day of the trial, when the
judge had the bailiff remove the newspaper photographer from
the courtroom due to a noisy camera. The next week, a second
newspaper photographer explained to the researcher that the
local paper had bought a new camera (Nikkon F-4) which they
had been assured was courtroom-approved; however, the second
photographer followed the judge's admonishment to use a
camera which would fit in a "blimp" (silencer).
Media Coverage
The Gainesville Sun ran five stories on the trial: one
the day before the originally-scheduled trial; a small box
the day after the trial was cancelled; a small box the day

169
the trial actually began; a story including a three-column
photograph of the defendant the day after the State's case;
and a story including another three-column photograph of the
defendant a week later, the day after the trial concluded.
All the stories appeared on page 1 B of the newspaper. (See
Table 4-3, infra, and Appendix C for content analyses;
Appendix D for selected articles and scripts.)
The Florida Times-Union ran two stories: one the day
after the first part of the trial, the second a week later
the day after the trial concluded; both stories ran on page 1
B. The first Times-Union story was the only one to mention
the hostile response of one witness and the possibility the
witness may have known the death of the defense attorney's
father had caused the original delay in the proceedings. The
second Times-Union story repeated the State's case, made no
mention of the defense, and made no mention of the recall of
the court reporter to read testimony to the jury.
(Questioned later about the one-sided presentation, the
reporter told the researcher: "I always just cover the
opening arguments and the verdict." He added his editors
agreed with his self-determined policy.)
WUFT-TV ran two stories on the trial, one the evening
of the State's presentation--a story which included an
interview with a neighbor who happened by outside the crime
scene as well as a sound bite with the prosecutor. The
second story, which ran the evening the trial concluded, was

170
a "live" phoner from the courthouse and included the just-
reached sentence.
WUFT-FM broadcast 14 stories on the trial: one on the
evening news on the eve of the trial describing the jury
selection, four the first day of the trial, two the day
after, explaining the continuance, one the evening before the
resumption of the trial, three the second day of the trial,
and three the day after the trial concluded. Six of the
stories included sound bites, four with the prosecutor, two
with the defense attorney.
WRUF-AM broadcast 10 stories: two the first day of the
trial, three the next day, four the second day of the trial,
one the day after the trial concluded. Half the stories
included sound bites.
TABLE 4-3
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Florida v. Spikes
WUFT-TV
WUFT-FM
WRUF-AM/FM
Gainesville Sun
Florida Times/Union
2 stories
14
10
5
stories
2 stories
0 actuality
0
0
2
with photos
0 with photos
1 sound bite
6(3 d)
5(4
d)
Total Number
Television
Stories:
2
Total Number Radio Stories: 24
Average Length: 1:40
Average Length: :41

171
Participant Response
Interviewed after the trial, Judge Elzie Sanders,
(whose generally favorable attitude toward courtroom cameras
has been described earlier),7 said he had asked the bailiff to
remove the Sun photographer the first afternoon of the trial
because the camera clicking was distracting and a violation
of the Guidelines. The judge also mentioned that this was
the second time this had happened in his court (the first
being in the Simmons trial, supra) . The judge, who had read
the newspaper coverage, said he did not notice any
inaccuracies in coverage of the Spikes trial. Regarding
possible disruption to the judicial process, Judge Sanders
concluded that the photographers generally ask the bailiff
about specifics for coverage, and his bailiffs always insist
they talk with the judge directly. He has noted no
violations of his orders: "I usually find the press
people are really sincere about trying to follow the
Guidelines. '. . . I respect them for it."
Prosecutor Harris Tobin's generally positive comments
toward camera coverage have also been noted.8 Regarding
coverage of the Spikes trial, Tobin, who had read the
newspaper coverage, said he did not notice any glaring
inconsistencies or disruptions.
Assistant Public Defender Susan Wehlburg said she has
no general objection to courtroom coverage, but she says she
feels the press should not attempt to interview her until

172
after the conclusion of the trial, and she refuses to make
any statements to the press until that time. She generally
approves of the Guidelines, and she says she has noticed
media coverage of her cases (she has spent seven years in her
present position) only in murder trials: "You have to have a
body for the media to be fascinated."
Regarding the Spikes trial, Wehlburg said she feels the
media followed the Guidelines. She read newspaper coverage
and heard radio coverage and found the reporting "fairly
balanced." Wehlburg said she felt "hassled" when ["S]ome
young lady [the reporter from WUFT-TV] informed me that if I
would not make a statement, she would do the story, and
perhaps I needed to balance it out. My response was that my
ethics would not allow me to make one."
Upon dismissing the jury, the judge handed out the
juror exit poll and suggested the jurors might want to help
the researcher—whom he mentioned by name—with a doctoral
study. (See Appendix E for juror exit poll, Table 4-5,
infra, for juror response.)
Two of the six jurors returned the questionnaires.
(Florida law allows a defendant the option of a six-member
jury in capital cases when the death penalty is not sought.)
Both jurors picked the neutral answer to the first multiple-
choice question: camera coverage has some advantages, some
disadvantages. However, one of the jurors commented: "I
don't agree w/c. all. I personally would rather have my

173
privacy. Camera equipment and glaring journalist [sic] make
me feel uneasy."
Both jurors also picked the neutral answer to the
second question: the journalists caused a little distraction.
The same juror who commented above noted: "I was also
distracted by the defendants' reaction to a photographer who
was trying to get a picture of him/her. He was annoyed by
the photographers persistance."
However, this juror picked the most favorable answer to
the press on the third question: the coverage was good with
no inaccuracies (he had read the newspaper coverage only).
The other juror, who read the Sun and heard about broadcast
coverage of the trial, picked the middle answer to the third
question: the coverage was fair.
Both jurors who responded to the poll were males: only
one gave his age (43) and occupation (lab manager). One had
served twice before on juries. Neither watches the TV
station which covered the trial; one said he reads the Sun
and listens to one of the radio stations which covered the
trial (WRUF-AM).
Thus, regarding the press coverage of the Spikes trial:
with the exception of the failure of a newspaper photographer
to use a "blimp" (explained by the photographer as based on
the assumption his new camera did not require one), the judge
and both attorneys felt the journalists generally followed
the Guidelines. As far as accuracy of coverage, no one noted

174
any inaccuracies. Finally, regarding the possibility of
disruption to the judicial process: although one juror was
momentarily distracted by a photographer's picture-taking, no
one cited any disruption of the judicial process. The jurors
who responded to the poll (33% response rate) answered most
favorably to the press 17% of the time, gave neutral answers
83% of the time, and gave no answers least favorable to the
press. (See Table 4-6, infra, for juror response
percentages.)
Florida v. Stanley
The fourth (and last) murder trial to appear on the
1989 criminal docket of the Eighth Judicial Circuit was the
trial of Charlie Stanley, which took place December 5-8,
1989, in the Alachua County courthouse, Gainesville, Florida,
before Judge Elzie Sanders. Fifty-year-old Stanley was
charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of a
co-worker in September, 1988, in Hawthorne, Florida. He was
found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15
years in prison.
Courtroom Proceedings
Reporters from the daily newspaper (the Gainesville
Sun), the public TV station (WUFT-PBS), the public radio
station (WUFT-NPR), and the commercial radio station (WRÃœF-
CBS) covered the trial.9 A reporter from WUFT-TV covered jury
selection with a camera in the courtroom the first day. A

175
different reporter covered opening arguments: she had no
camera (the one assigned to her by the station was
inoperable), and she said she had brought a tape deck with
her, hoping to patch in to the commercial station (WCJB-ABC)
equipment. However, although WCJB had accompanied the police
to the wooded area where the body had been found a year
earlier, the TV station did not cover the trial. (According
to the Assignment Editor, contacted the day before the
Stanley trial began: "We just can't cover every murder trial
the way we should, gavel-to-gavel.") A third WUFT-TV
reporter covered the trial the third afternoon, and on Friday
a fourth crew; on both these days WUFT-TV had cameras in the
courtroom.
WUFT-FM had the same reporter in the trial almost the
entire time. The afternoon of the opening of the trial and
the next morning he was accompanied by one assistant (who did
not present any reports). A different assistant--who
presented the final report when sentencing was taking place--
accompanied him the final afternoon of the trial.
WRUF-AM sent different reporters for parts of each of
the three days of the actual trial (a total of five different
reporters). Each reporter appeared only for an hour or two
during the afternoon sessions, including the verdict and
sentencing.
The Gainesville Sun sent its usual court reporter
who covered everything except jury selection and all but a

176
two-hour period during the first day of the trial. The
reporter explained he had previously arranged an interview on
another story and asked a colleague to sit in on the time he
was absent; the colleague shared the byline on the next day's
story. The newspaper reporter also missed the first 30
minutes of the defendant's testimony which came up at 6:00 on
the second day of the trial when the reporter said he had
assumed the jury would have been dismissed for the day.
After the trial, the reporter explained to the researcher
that he had argued with his editor about the importance of
covering the trial in full. His editor had suggested
coverage of opening and closing arguments and the verdict and
sentencing were sufficient.
Media Coverage
The Gainesville Sun ran four stories on the trial: an
advance story the day of jury selection, and one the second
day, the third day, and the day after the trial concluded.
The one which ran the second day included a two-column
photograph of the defendant and his attorney. All four
stories ran on page 1 B. (On the last day of the trial, the
paper also ran a brief column mention about the judge's
comments when sending the jury to lunch at the taxpayers'
expense. See Table 4-4, infra, and Appendix C for content
analyses; Appendix D for selected articles and scripts.)

177
WUFT-TV ran four stories on the trial: one during the
evening news the day of jury selection and one each day on
the evening news during the trial. Two of the four stories
had interviews, each with both the defense and the
prosecution. The first story was a preview of the trial; the
second discussed the decision to allow jurors to hear the
confession tape. The third story described the testimony of
a somewhat hostile prosecution witness; the fourth included
the verdict and sentence.
WUFT-FM ran 12 stories on the trial, all but one by the
same reporter. Two of the stories appeared the day of jury
selection, both "phoners" during the noon and evening news
program. The second and third days each saw a story during
the morning news and two more phoners during the noon and
evening news. The last day there were two stories on the
morning news and phoners at noon and during the evening news
(by the assistant) to report the sentencing. None of the
stories included any sound bites.
WRUF-AM ran 26 short stories on the trial: two the
first day of the trial, seven the second day, 13 the final
day, and four the Saturday morning after the trial had ended.
Sixteen of the stories included interviews, 12 of them with
the defense attorney (eight different cuts) and four with the
prosecutor (three different cuts).

178
TABLE 4-4
CONTENT ANALYSIS
Florida
v. Stanley
WUFT-TV
WUFT-FM
WRUF-AM/FM
Gainesville Sun
4 stories
12
26
4 stories
0 actuality
0
0
1 with courtroom
photo
2 sound bite(4 d)
0
16(11 d)
Total Number Television
Average Length: 1:19
Stories: 4
Total Number Radio Stories: 38
Average Length: :39
Participant Response
Interviewed after the trial, Judge Elzie Sanders, whose
generally favorable attitude toward courtroom cameras has
been described earlier.10 said he had nothing to add to
earlier comments on camera coverage. He said he noted no
failure to follow the Guidelines, no distorted coverage (he
had read the newspaper coverage) and noted no disruption to
the trial.
Prosecutor John Carlin, Chief Assistant State Attorney,
had spent five years as a Public Defender before spending the
past five years with the State Attorney. He said he
generally favors the Guidelines and pointed out that were the
rule forbidding use of media coverage not applicable, the
result would be an inequity: since only high-profile trials
are covered, only certain defendants would have access to

179
possible appeal material. He said he sees broadcasters at
about 5% of the trials he handles.
Regarding the Stanley trial, Carlin said he read the
newspaper coverage and heard the coverage on WRUF-AM. He
said he feels the media followed the Guidelines. However,
regarding the question of accuracy, Carlin said, "This is not
a very good question. It's not so much the accuracy as the
thoroughness--it's just a glimpse of what goes on in a day,
so it has to, to a degree, give a distorted view, even though
the glimpse may be accurate." Carlin said he feels the media
is "irresponsible" to print information regarding
inadmissible evidence, because he feels that despite a
judge's admonishment not to read the coverage during the
trial, jurors often secretly disobey the admonishment, and he
would like the press to wait to present the inadmissible
evidence, "maybe in a summary after the verdict." Carlin
added that he saw no evidence of any disruption to the
judicial process caused by the press during the Stanley
trial.
Defense attorney Greg McMahon had spent 10 years with
the State Attorney prior to entering private practice (he was
appointed to represent Stanley due to a conflict of interest
with a witness who had been represented by the Public
Defender. McMahon had also announced his candidacy for a
county judgeship shortly before the Stanley trial.) McMahon
generally approves of the Guidelines, especially the

180
stricture against standing in front of the bar, as he worries
someone might read his notes. He said he generally has had
no problem with the media, although some reporters have asked
insensitive questions--of rape victims, for instance.
Regarding the Stanley trial, McMahon only read the
newspaper coverage. He said the reporters generally followed
the Guidelines: "The only time I noticed anyone, a
photographer [from the Gainesville Sunl was sitting in the
middle section [during a recess]. The judge told him to sit
on one side or the other; I didn't see him after that." He
said he found no inaccuracies and no disruption to the
judicial process by the media: "They were real polite and
stayed out of the way."
Upon dismissing the jury, the judge handed out the
juror exit poll. (See Appendix E for juror exit poll, Table
4-5, infra, for juror response.)
Six of the 12 jurors returned the questionnaires.
Regarding the first multiple-choice question: half the
respondents picked the most favorable answer to the press:
camera coverage is a good idea. The other half picked the
neutral answer: coverage has some advantages, some
disadvantages. One of these respondents commented: "The
public will only see the 'sensational' parts of the trial
thanks to our news media. I don't think it will help in
teaching the public unless public television or educational
people do the filming."

181
All six of the respondents picked the most favorable
answer to the press on the second question: they hardly
noticed the reporters or equipment. Regarding the third
question: three of the respondents picked the answer most
favorable to the press: the coverage was good and no
inaccuracies were noted. Two picked the middle answer:
coverage was fairly accurate with only minor inaccuracies
(none of which was specifically described). The last
respondent split her vote: she said the radio coverage was
accurate (although she did not indicate listening to a
station which covered this trial but one which had no
coverage) and the newspaper coverage was not accurate
(although she gave no examples of inaccuracies).
Thus, the jurors who responded to the poll (50%) gave
answers most favorable to the press 69% of the time, neutral
answers 28% of the time, and answers least favorable to the
press 3% of the time. (See Table 4-6, infra, for juror
response percentages.)
Five of the six respondents were females; the average
age was 42. Two were nurses, one was a systems project
analyst, one a secretary, one a fiscal assistant, and one
retired. All six had read the newspaper coverage after the
trial, and two said they had heard about radio and TV
coverage (but neither listens to a station which covered the
trial). One juror had served on a jury twice before, another
once; the rest were serving for the first time. All said

182
they read the Gainesville Sun every day, and none is a
regular member of the audience of any of the radio or TV
stations which covered the trial.
Thus, regarding press coverage of the Stanley trial: no
one cited any failure to follow the Guidelines. Although two
jurors claimed minor inaccuracies in coverage, and one found
"serious differences," none of the jurors gave specific
examples. No one cited any disruption to the judicial
process caused by the press.
However, although none of those surveyed noted any
inaccuracies, one of the reporters noted an error he had
made, and the researcher noted one extremely minor error.
Three days after the last story ran in the newspaper, the
reporter for the Gainesville Sun noted the word "not" had
been dropped from a quote by the defense attorney, reversing
the meaning of the defendant's words being cited. He printed
a small "Correction" four days after the end of the trial.
And the researcher noted only one minor error: on the first
day of coverage, WUFT-TV reported the body had been found
"two weeks" after the murder, while the testimony showed it
was actually nine days.
As discussed, neither of these slight inaccuracies was
noticed by anyone questioned by the researcher. Coverage of
the Stanley trial would therefore be regarded as handled in
accordance with the Guidelines, presented in an accurate
manner, with no disruption to the judicial process.

TABLE 4-5
JUROR RESPONSE
183
Simmons
Harris
Spikes
Stanley
TOTALS
1. General feeling courtroom
cameras:
A
. Bad idea, interferes with
judicial process
1
0
0
0
1
B
. Some advantages, some
drawbacks
1
5
2
3
11
C
. Good idea, helps public
understand process
4
2
0
3
9
2. During trial: How aware of
cameras?
A
. Hardly noticed reporters
or equipment
0
2
0
6
8
B
. Sometimes distracted by
presence
4
5
2
0
11
C
. Very aware, wish they
weren't there
2
0
0
0
2
3. After trial:
Read newspaper coverage?
Yes:
6
7
2
6
21
Hear about radio/TV
coverage?
Yes :
1
1
1
2
5
How .
accurate do you feel coverage
was?
A
. Poor, noticed serious
differences
1
1
0
0.5
2.5
B
. Fairly accurate, minor
inaccuracies
4
5
1
2
12
C
. Good, noticed no
inaccuracies
1
1
1
3.5
6.5
Respondents
6/12
7/12
2/6
6/12
TOTAL RESPONDENTS:
21/42
Percentage Respondents
.50
00
ID
.33
.50
TOTAL PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS: .50

184
TABLE 4-6
JUROR RESPONSE: PERCENTAGES
Multiple-choice answers
Simmons
Harris
Spikes
Stanley
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGES
Favorable to press
28%
24%
17%
69%
35%
Neutral to press
50%
71%
83%
28%
58%
Unfavorable to press
22%
5%
0%
3%
7%
Thus, from observation of coverage of trials, from
content analyses of coverage and from the responses of
courtroom participants, it may be concluded that courtroom
coverage was generally nondisruptive in the major criminal
trials in Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1989. A
detailed analysis of the data, with conclusions to be drawn
and recommendations for the future, follow in Chapter 5.
Notes
interviewees: Chief Judge Eighth Judicial Circuit
Honorable Chester B. Chance; County Judge Eighth Judicial
Circuit Honorable Frederick Smith; Clerk of the Court A.
Curtis Powers; Assistant Circuit Clerk Mary Grace Stephens;
Court Executive Assistant Ben E. North; State Attorney Eugene
T. Whitworth (deceased, 1988, subsequently replaced by Len
Register); First Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Hebert
(resigned, 1988, subsequently replaced, first, by George
Blow, then by John Carlin); Public Defender Richard Parker;
Attorney at Law Larry Turner; Attorney at Law Alan
Parlapiano; Managing Editor Gainesville Sun Rob Oblesby; News
Director WCJB-TV (ABC) Steve Hunsicker; News Director WUFT-TV
(PBS) Richard Hoffman; News Director WRUF-AM/FM (CBS) Thomas
Krynski; News Director WUFT-FM (NPR) Cecil Hickman.
2Journalists: Connie Bouchard, photographer Mark Dolan
(Gainesvi11e Sun); camera operator Belinda Espinosa (day 1),

185
student intern-reporter John Antonio (day 2) WCJB-TV;
reporter Graham Barnard, camera operator Kyle Ziegler (day
1), reporter Roy Brown (day 2) WUFT-TV; Roy Brown (day 1),
Steve Carmody (day 2) WUFT-FM; Robin Michaelson (day 1), Kim
Acker (day 2) WRUF-AM.
3See Chapter 2, Note 93 & discussion (regarding such
studies as that by Paul Weaver, "Newspaper & Television
News," in Douglas Cater & Richard Adler, eds., Television as
a Social Force: New Approaches to TV Criticism (New York:
Praeger, 1975), 81-94.
4Journalists: Mitch Stacy (days 1-3), Fatima Ahmad
(days 4-5), photographer Spencer Weiner (day 2) (Gainesville
Sun); Laura McElroy, videographer David Stein (day 1), Cheryl
White, videographer Eric Dodd (day 2), Eric Dodd,
videographer Cheryl White (day 3), Mike Ceide, videographer
Steve Slater (day 4) WUFT-TV; Steve Carmody (days 1-4) WUFT-
FM; Kevin Cohen, Marie Foley, Lisa Melvin (day 1), Wali
Waiters (Walter James) (day 2), Marie Foley, Kevin Benjamin
(day 4) WRUF-AM.
5See Chapter 4, Florida v. Simmons.
6Journalists: Mitch Stacy, photographer Steven Morton
(day 1), Ana Acle, photographer Spencer Weiner (day 2)
Gainesville Sun; Larry Schnell, Florida Times-Union; Amy
Mader, videographer Rob Lutz WUFT-TV; Steve Carmody, Karen
Oliver WUFT-FM; Kevin Cohen (day 1), Marie Foley, Ken
Chavinson (day 2) WRUF-AM.
7See Chapter 4, Florida v. Simmons.
8See Chapter 4, "Preliminary Study: Eighth Judicial
Circuit." (Harris Tobin had announced his intention to
run for Circuit Judge two weeks prior to the Spikes
trial.)
9Journalists: Mitch Stacy (days 2-4), Tom Lyons,
photographer Spencer Weiner (day 2) Gainesville Sun: Vicki
Lovall, videographer Mike Ceide (day 1), Luisa Fartuzi (day
2), Eric Dodd, videographer Cheryl White (day 3), Mark Lieb,
videographer David Rust (day 4) WUFT-TV; Steve Carmody (days
1-4), Shannon Walsh (day 2), Yolando Perdomo (day 4) WUFT-FM;
Kevin Cohen (day 2), Shannon Walsh, Desiree Landers (day 3),
J.C. Alvarez, Kevin Benjamin (day 4) WRUF-AM.
10See Chapter 4, Florida v. Simmons.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Case Study
The problem this study explored is how closely
broadcast journalists follow state guidelines for behavior in
courtrooms during criminal trials and whether the use of
courtroom cameras results in undistorted coverage without
observable disruption to the judicial process. The study
focused on the process of broadcast coverage of four criminal
trials in Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1989.
Four hypotheses in the form of research questions were
presented:
Q1: How closely do broadcast journalists follow
state guidelines for behavior in courtrooms
during criminal trials?
Q2: What impact do the guidelines have on
coverage?
Q3: Do broadcast journalists present undistorted
coverage of criminal trial proceedings?
Q4: Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt
the judicial process at the trial court level?
The primary method of data collection was participant
observation. Content analysis of trial coverage presented by
four broadcast stations (the ABC and PBS TV affiliates, a
commercial AM/FM-CBS, and an FM-NPR) as well as of the local
daily newspaper during a preliminary period and during a
186

187
one-year observation period was also conducted. Preliminary
interviews with general trial participants, including court
officers and news directors, were conducted prior to the
observation period, and interviews with specific
participants, including trial judges and attorneys, were
conducted during each trial.
Prior to the onset of the observation period, in
1987-88 the researcher observed and analyzed a sample of
three trials and conducted a series of interviews with 15
representatives of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, including
judges, court personnel, attorneys, and news media policy
makers. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience
with courtroom cameras during the decade since the experiment
had begun in 1977 as well as to respond to the specific
Guidelines adopted for courtroom cameras in Florida courts.
The general consensus was favorable toward cameras in
principle. Some concern was expressed with the limited
amount of time broadcasters spent broadcasting trial
coverage, particularly the few seconds spent to describe
events which may have taken eight hours in real time.
No one had any problem with equipment and personnel
restrictions of the Guidelines. However, regarding sound and
light criteria, there was concern expressed by some attorneys
with the "clicking" sound of newspaper cameras which results
when a photographer fails to use a "blimp." And the
broadcasters were concerned with the difficulty of picking up

188
audio in the courtrooms, none of which in the Eighth Judicial
Circuit is permanently wired to allow broadcasters to take
full advantage of the latest technology.
In general, all agreed with the appropriateness of
restrictions on location and movement of media personnel in
the courtroom and prohibitions against coverage of bench
conferences. Finally, although the media representatives
agreed with the rule on inadmissibility of press coverage as
evidence, some of the court personnel wanted the judge to
retain flexibility on this issue.
Estimates on the frequency of coverage with cameras
varied: the judges and attorneys estimated the cameras
generally appear for homicides and sensational cases; and
although the news directors of the radio stations and the
public TV station agreed with this estimate, the news
director for the commercial TV station estimated he assigned
a court story every day, including almost all first
appearances. The newspaper managing editor said he rarely
takes advantage of the rules allowing cameras in courts
except for murder cases and other exceptional trials.
Finally, few interviewees could recall significant problems
with access.
During the 12-month observation period (January-
December, 1989), a total of four first-degree murder cases
appeared on the criminal docket in the Eighth Judicial
Circuit. In Florida v. Simmons, the youthful defendant was

189
convicted of first-degree murder in the beating death of an
acquaintance; in Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris, one
brother charged with the stabbing death of an acquaintance
was granted a directed verdict of acquittal midtrial while
the second brother charged with the death was acquitted by
the jury; in Florida v. Spikes, the defendant was convicted
of arson and first-degree murder in the death of his
grandfather which occurred two weeks after a fire; and in
Florida v. Stanley, the defendant was convicted of second-
degree murder after the shooting death of a coworker.
Two TV stations, two radio stations, and the local
newspaper covered the Simmons trial. The only noticeable
awareness of press coverage was the judge's admonishment to
the newspaper photographer to halt picture-taking until
procuring equipment designed to muffle camera sounds;
otherwise, all courtroom participants agreed the press
followed the Guidelines. The only concern regarding
accuracy, cited by the defense attorney, was some confusion
regarding the reporting of which of two weapons was the
actual death weapon: upon close examination by the
researcher, it was determined that the issue was a matter of
general confusion to all involved—including the defense
attorney himself. No significant disruptions to the judicial
process were cited.
The public TV station, two radio stations, and the
local newspaper covered the Harris trial. Regarding the

190
Guidelines, the judge and attorneys expressed general
satisfaction with media behavior, with the exception of the
use of TV lights during the first and second days of the five-
day trial (an exception which the judge had granted and then
presumably was reluctant to rescind). The only inaccuracy in
coverage (other than extremely minor errors unnoticed by all
but the researcher), cited by one of the prosecutors and both
defense attorneys, was the newspaper reporter's dropping of a
crucial "not" in the third day's story, an error which
reversed the meaning of a sentence describing crucial
evidence in the case. Regarding disruptions to the judicial
process: although three of the four attorneys involved in the
case pointed out that the newspaper's advance story
contributed to a prolonged voir dire due to its inclusion of
inadmissible evidence, this situation may be interpreted as a
universal First Amendment/Sixth Amendment issue, unrelated to
the specific question of use of courtroom cameras.
The public TV station, two radio stations, the local
newspaper, and the local bureau of an out-of-town newspaper
covered the Spikes trial. As in the Simmons case, the local
newspaper photographer's failure to use a "blimp" to muffle
his camera (explained by the photographer as based on the
assumption his new camera did not require one) was the only
exception to the Guidelines. No one cited any inaccuracies
in coverage nor any distortions to the judicial process.

191
Finally, the public TV station, two radio stations, and
the local newspaper covered the Stanley trial. All media
personnel appeared to follow the Guidelines. The only
inaccuracy in reporting (unobserved by anyone except the
newspaper reporter himself, who inserted a brief correction
into the newspaper four days after the trial ended) was the
inadvertent omission of the word "not" in a statement from
the defense attorney quoting the words of the defendant after
the verdict. Except for one attorney's complaint about the
brevity of coverage's possibly leading readers to
misunderstand the details of the trial, no one cited any
distortions in coverage nor any disruptions to the judicial
process.
The results of the juror polls (50% response rate)
appear to uphold the results of the survey and the interviews
with courtroom participants and the researcher's observation
and content analysis of news stories. First, regarding the
Simmons trial, the only negative comments mentioned the
noisiness of the newspaper camera (without a "blimp"), as
well as a nonspecific suggestion that the coverage included
serious differences from one juror's perception of the
proceedings. Positive comments included the suggestion that
the coverage was very accurate.
Next, regarding the Harris trial, a negative comment
was the lengthy criticism of journalists (mistakenly) assumed
to be responsible for causing a distraction by frequently

192
entering and leaving the courtroom, as well as mention of
the distraction caused by the (judge-approved) use of
artificial lighting by TV reporters the first and second days
of the trial. Positive comments included the suggestion that
a first-time juror was helped by coverage she had seen in the
past.
Regarding the Spikes trial, a negative comment
described the cameras' causing uneasiness on the part of one
juror who was also distracted by the defendant's apparent
annoyance at the newspaper photographer. (The other juror
who responded to the survey—this was a six-man jury—did not
write any separate comments.)
Regarding the Stanley trial, only one comment was
offered. The respondent suggested that public or educational
television cover trials in order to avoid sensationalism.
Finally, regarding the multiple-choice questions
describing general feeling toward courtroom cameras,
awareness of courtroom cameras during the trial participated
in, and accuracy of coverage of that trial: an average of 35%
of the respondents selected answers most favorable to the
press, 58% selected answers neutral toward the press, and 7%
selected answers unfavorable to the press. (See Table 4-6,
supra. )

193
Analysis
Based on the information gathered from the survey, the
interviews, the participant observation, and the content
analysis, all four questions were analyzed. The first
question asked:
How closely do broadcast journalists follow state
guidelines for behavior in courtrooms during criminal
trials?
The evidence suggests the broadcast journalists follow
the Guidelines very closely. In fact, the only exceptions to
following the Guidelines were when (twice) the newspaper
photographer failed to use equipment which would prevent
"distracting sound," and when (once) the television
videographers used artificial lighting for two days. As
previously discussed, on one occasion the newspaper
photographer had been told his new camera would not require
use of a silencer, and the (student) videographers had been
given special permission by the judge for an exception on the
lighting--a unique exception, one which the researcher had
never seen before (or since). However, in general, all
concerned agreed the media largely followed the Guidelines in
these--as in most—cases selected for camera coverage.
The second question asked:
What impact do the guidelines have on coverage?
The evidence suggests the Guidelines do have a
noticeable impact on coverage. For instance, in one trial,
when one of the television station's cameras did not produce

194
a broadcast quality picture (due to the Guidelines'
restriction on artificial lighting), the result was the
station had no video to show on the news story that night but
merely presented a brief "tell" story (voice of the
newscaster with graphics in background). In another trial,
the broadcasters received permission from the judge to use
artificial lighting to enable them to produce a broadcast
quality picture; however, the threat of possible negative
response from the trial participants was such that the
station personnel decided not to use the lights for the last
half of the trial and, as a result, had limited video. And
the restriction on microphone placement (the Guidelines limit
broadcasters to one microphone placed behind the bar)
contributed to the failure of any of the broadcast stations
during the observation period to use any "actuality" (sound
taped in the courtroom).
The third question asked:
Do broadcast journalists present undistorted coverage
of criminal trial proceedings?
The evidence suggests the broadcasters generally did
present undistorted coverage [defining undistorted coverage
as a "high degree of correspondence between events (as
perceived by the researcher, described by print journalists,
and evaluated by trial participants) with the work product of
the broadcast journalists covering the same criminal trial
(taking into account assumed stylistic differences)"].

195
There were a few exceptions. For instance, in one
trial, an attorney questioned a television broadcaster's
interpretation of testimony regarding an admittedly ambiguous
factor (which weapon had been the actual death weapon).
Moreover, a complaint was voiced by several attorneys and one
judge that the brevity of coverage (seen as more a problem of
broadcasters than of print journalists) may lead to a
"distortion" in the mind of the audience member who may not
fully understand the ramifications of specific events.
However, none of the criticism was directly related to the
issue of courtroom cameras.
Finally, the last question asked:
Do broadcast journalists observably disrupt the
judicial process at the trial court level?
The evidence suggests the broadcasters did not
observably disrupt the judicial process. The attorneys
complained during one trial that the newspaper's advance
story contributed to a prolonged voir dire (i.e., pretrial
questioning of potential jurors) due to its inclusion of
inadmissible evidence. However, despite specific questioning
on this crucial issue--due to the traditional objections to
courtroom cameras as well as to apprehensions expressed by
some of the court personnel in the preliminary survey—none
of the trial participants mentioned any specific instance of
disruption caused by cameras, nor did the researcher's

observations or the content analyses suggest any such
disruption.
196
Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to take a first step in
actual observation of the behavior of broadcast journalists
in a courtroom. Based on the information reported earlier,
the discussion to follow will focus on an evaluation of the
journalists' adherence to the state guidelines for courtroom
coverage and the impact of the guidelines on the coverage,
the effect of this behavior on presentation of undistorted
coverage without observable disruption of the judicial
process, and suggestions to policy makers interested in
improving the performance of broadcast journalism as a medium
for informing and enlightening the public while minimizing
the potential danger of Free Press/Fair Trial conflict.
Florida Guidelines
First, based on the data, the Florida Guidelines,
(which, as discussed, serve as a model for other states as
well as for possible coverage of federal courts),1 seem to be
appropriate and should continue to be strictly adhered to:
following the Guidelines appears virtually to eliminate
problems. In the only instances where the journalists varied
from the Guidelines (i.e., failing to use a "blimp" on a
still camera and the television videographers' seeking an
exception to the prohibition against artificial lighting),

197
the consensus is that the failure to adhere to the Guidelines
causes a distraction.
The only major area of concern with the Guidelines,
noted by several of the medial personnel in the survey (and a
justifiable concern based on the observations of the
researcher), deals with the poor audio quality available to
the broadcaster limited by the Guidelines to a single
microphone in a traditional courtroom. In fact, the content
analysis of all four trials revealed that none of the 141
stories included any "actuality," i.e., sound actually
recorded in the courtroom during the trial. Time and again
the broadcast journalists would sit in the courtroom (often
arriving late, after missing crucial steps in the
proceedings), and then, during a recess, would interview the
attorneys in the hallway and ask the attorneys to sum up the
day's events. Thus, rather than the observations of an
impartial observer, trained to present objectively all points
of view, the observations of a biased source—who is pledged
in a criminal case to present the strongest legally
supportable case on behalf of either the State or the
defendant—are being presented to the public. And although
this situation does not meet the criteria established in the
case study for distorted coverage, the researcher perceived a
potential for distortion in the coverage.
Therefore, regarding the Guidelines, the researcher
recommends, first, that broadcasters continue to be required

198
to follow strictly the strictures, particularly the technical
requirements designed to minimize distracting sound and
light. Moreover, in the interest of improved coverage (and
to safeguard against potential distortion), media
representatives might work with courtroom personnel to
permanently wire at least one courtroom in each jurisdiction
to accommodate electronic equipment. This would allow
broadcasters to make full use of the opportunity to present
"actuality" rather than interviews with attorneys (or, as is
often the case in television coverage, audio reports of
proceedings "voiced over" silent video of courtroom
participants).
Undistorted Coverage
Data collected directly regarding the issue of
presentation of undistorted coverage leads to the conclusion
that rather than fact errors, the major cause of perceived
distortion is due to a general feeling, particularly among
members of the Bar, that journalists misinterpret some of
what they see (although generally unsupported by specific
examples during the study). Of even greater concern to court
officers is the brevity of most broadcast coverage, due in
part to the inability of the representative broadcast
journalist to spend a sufficient amount of time in the
courtroom to comprehend fully the proceedings. In the case
study, with 19 television stories, the average length of the
actual presentation on the news was roughly 1:20; with 122

199
radio stories, the average length of the presentation on the
news was approximately :40. (See Tables 4-1 through 4-4,
supra, and Appendix C.) Moreover, in contrast with print
reporters (who were present in the courtroom throughout most
of each trial), many of the broadcast reporters were in the
courtroom only part of each day, and (with the exception of
one radio station's field reporter, specifically hired to
cover as much of a single event as possible), different
broadcast reporters often covered different days of a trial,
sometimes even different parts of a day.
Thus, regarding the presentation of undistorted
coverage: the researcher recommends, first, that broadcasters
recognize the potential dangers of incomplete coverage and
make every effort to increase the length of coverage of
courtroom stories. Within the (regrettable) limitations of
traditional broadcast news, such efforts might have a
negligible effect; however, acknowledgement of the problem
might lead eventually to more "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of
trials, much as the limitations of traditional television
network news led to the eventual success of all-news stations
and networks such as CNN. Moreover, in the interest of
improved coverage, local stations might follow the television
networks' lead and attempt more "beat" coverage, allowing
reporters to become more familiar with courtroom procedures
and able to more quickly grasp the essentials of an
individual trial.

200
Judicial Process
The final area of concern of the study was possible
disruption to the judicial process caused by courtroom
cameras. The data indicate (as was predicted in some of the
recent literature)2 that rather than specific problems arising
from the use of cameras, major concerns are those of
traditional Free Press/Fair Trial, such as the potential for
prejudicial publicity concomitant with pretrial coverage. In
this area, the potential for disruption seems compounded by
the apparent ignorance of some broadcast journalists, who may
enter the courtroom with an insufficient understanding of the
judicial process and the delicacy of its safeguards.
Based on intuition (a survey of journalism schools
would be a natural next step in research), the researcher
concluded that the majority of broadcast journalists receive
insufficient education in courtroom procedures. For
instance, one (student) journalist arrived at the third of
the trials to 'which he had been assigned during the case
study, sought out the defense attorney, and the first
question asked was whether the client had pleaded "guilty";
the attorney gritted his teeth and, "on mike," explained that
if the plea had been "guilty," there would have been no need
for a trial.
Admittedly, one of the limitations of this particular
study is the disproportionate number of student journalists
covering the news in a college town. However, there is

201
nothing in the researcher's background as a professional
broadcast journalist in both large and small markets, as a
broadcast journalism educator associated with three different
educational institutions, or in data gathered during informal
interviews with professional (nonstudent) journalists
encountered during the case study which would indicate
journalism schools are fully recognizing the problem: the
recent increase in states permitting some form of courtroom
camera coverage (only 10 of the 45 states currently
permitting coverage allowed any courtroom cameras before
1980) suggests curriculum revisions are needed.
A final observation regarding coverage of courts is
offered by the researcher: a recommendation reached
inductively after conducting the case study (as the
participant observation literature suggested) rather than as
a direct result of attempting to answer the research
questions on camera usage. Just as some of the literature
had predicted, there was evidence of some prejudice in the
legal community regarding the ability of journalists,
particularly broadcast journalists, to interpret properly
what they saw in the courtroom. (The most noticeable
instance was one attorney's charging a broadcaster with
misinterpreting testimony unfavorable to his client: the
researcher's notes agreed with the broadcaster.)
The researcher, with some education in both
constitutional law and criminal procedure, observed several

202
instances where the journalists indeed misunderstood the
nuances of the proceedings. For instance, the journalists
routinely left the courtroom when the judge was reading jury
instructions, regarding the instructions as dull and routine,
not realizing that the instructions might include important
factors (such as whether lesser charges would be considered)--
factors which would presumably have an impact on the jury's
deliberations and on the verdict.
However, on the other side of the issue: the broadcast
journalists accurately presented coverage from the layman's
point of view. Because the typical journalist covering the
courtroom did not have a legal education, he was detached
from the intricacies of the machinations of the attorneys,
who are trained to take advantage of legal technicalities to
win "their" cases: the journalist did not see each motion
granted as a "point" for either "side" but rather
concentrated on the defendant--and the verdict—in reporting
the trial. It may be this approach which contributes to
criticism of journalists by members of the legal profession.
Therefore, along with the recommendation that the
journalists receive more education about courtroom
proceedings, the researcher also suggests that members of the
legal community might benefit from more education regarding
the work of journalists. Particularly relevant would be
discussion of the goal of the journalist to present impartial
coverage. Perhaps increased understanding of the restraints

203
of broadcast journalists in particular (e.g., the need to
meet split-second deadlines, the tradition of the Fairness
Doctrine which has led some members of the public to expect
every broadcast news story to balance equally opposing
viewpoints) might enhance the relationship between members of
the press and bar.
Suggestions for Further Research
As discussed earlier, a study of only a handful of
criminal trials (all for first-degree murder) in a single
jurisdiction (a medium-sized broadcast market with only one
commercial television station competing with the public
station) suggests extremely limited generalizability. Future
researchers would need to replicate the study: first, in
other jurisdictions and different-size broadcast markets,
next for other types of cases, finally at other levels in the
judicial process, in order to validate the findings. It
would also be beneficial to take a longitudinal approach,
following particular cases through the appeals process.
Eventually a researcher might study a selection of cases
under variant conditions--!.e., a selection covered by print
media only, a selection covered by broadcasters only, a
selection covered by both, and a selection covered by
neither—in order to draw some valid conclusions regarding
whether the "qualified differential," generally allowing
courtroom access to print media while regulating access by

204
electronic media, remains appropriate. Nothing in the
researcher's study of the history of courtroom cameras and
the development of new technology, or the legal questions
involved such as the question of the constitutionality of
access and the appellate record's general lack of convictions
overturned due to courtroom camera coverage, supports
continuation of the differential. Nor does the data gathered
for the instant study--which seems to be a first attempt at
combining participant observation of actual courtroom
coverage with interviews, surveys, and content analysis--and
which might serve as the basis for theoretical conclusions to
be tested by future quantitative research.
As also discussed earlier, the methodology of
participant observation raises questions beyond the scope of
the study itself, questions which might be answered by
further inquiry. For instance, the observer realized in
conducting the study that although it seemed to demonstrate a
limited potential for cameras to disrupt the judicial
process, it might be useful to concentrate on the suggestions
in Estes that cameras might have an adverse impact on the
defendant or on the quality of testimony of the witnesses.
Thus, future researchers might study the possibility of the
impact of camera coverage on trial participants other than
the judges, attorneys, and jurors of the case study. And
communications researchers, who have made only a very
hesitant start in the area, might do well to conduct studies

205
of the impact of the coverage on the audience: does camera
coverage enhance audience understanding of the process? If
so, in what ways?
The study also leads to broader philosophical
questions. For instance, does camera coverage of criminal
trials--when only ten percent of arrests actually end up in
trial, with the great majority of cases settled somewhere
earlier in the process of adjudication--add to a possible
misconception on the part of the public regarding the actual
process of judicial administration today? Furthermore, one
might discuss the role of camera coverage and press coverage
of trials in general vis-a-vis the democratic values
underlying the assumption that coverage benefits the public
good.
When William Lozano, an Hispanic Miami policeman, was
recently tried for manslaughter in the shooting deaths of an
unarmed black motorcyclist and his passenger, community
leaders specifically requested a local public television
affiliate provide nightly gavel-to-gavel coverage of the
trial. The community hoped to avoid another outbreak of
racial violence, similar to those which occurred during two
earlier Miami trials in cases involving the killings of
blacks by white policemen--and the type of "civil
disturbance" which also had taken place the night of the
Lozano shootings. The leader of the Miami Community
Relations Board, which requested the television coverage,

206
explained: "A basic philosophy we have is that when people
are informed, they are able to assess judicial proceedings
and develop a respect for the judicial process."3
The eight Miami television stations devoted hundreds of
hours to coverage of the Lozano trial; reviews of the
coverage comprised one-fifth of the Miami Herald's post¬
verdict-day news, with columns by both the "Anglo" TV
columnist and his Hispanic associate (including "MVP" awards
and one for "most embarrassing moment").4 William Lozano was
convicted on December 7, 1989, and on that day there were no
riots; in addition to the verdict itself, perhaps the
courtroom cameras had contributed in some way to defusing the
potentially explosive situation.
As discussed, courtroom cameras were the scapegoat for
the disruption of the judicial process in the most
sensational case of its time more than 50 years ago
(Hauptmann); they were derided by the U.S. Supreme Court for
speculative "mischievous potentialities" to due process,
contributing to an overturned conviction 25 years ago
(Estes) . Today, however, as in Lozano, courtroom cameras may
again be invited to enter the courtroom in order to dramatize
the fairness inherent in the unique process of judicial
administration under the U.S. Constitution.
Curious history indeed.

207
Notes
iFor example, as noted in earlier discussion, Florida's
Guidelines have been proposed both for general coverage of
the federal courts (Chapter 2, Note 80 and discussion,
regarding "Petition to the Judicial Conference of the United
States Concerning Visual and Aural Coverage of Federal Court
Proceedings by the Electronic and Print Press," March, 1983;
as well as specifically for coverage of the U.S. Supreme
Court (Chapter 1, Note 81 and discussion, regarding proposal
by Dean Talbot [Sandy] D'Alemberte in a letter to Justice
Rehnquist.) See also Westmoreland v. CBS, 752 Fed. 2d 16 at
18, Note 2 (Florida Guidelines proposed for use in coverage
of Westmoreland trial).
2See, e.g., Susanna Barber, News Cameras in the
Courtroom: A Free Press-Fair Trial Debate (Boston: Ablex
Publishing, 1982) 91.
3Rabbi Solomon Schiff, quoted by Barry Klein, "Miami
Station Airs Trial to Defuse Racial Tensions," Electronic
Media. December 4, 1989, 2. For further discussion of media
coverage of the Lozano trial, see, e.g., Marvin Dunn, "Why
the Lozano Trial Should be Moved," Miami Herald. 19 October
1989, 5 C; Solomon Schiff & Donald Bierman, "Listen to the
Voices of Reason: Justice System is Providing a Fair Trial to
Officer William Lozano," Miami Herald. 5 December 1989, 27
A+.
4S. Sonsky, "TV Gets High Marks for High-Stakes
Coverage," and J. Carlos Coto, "Channel 23 Led Spanish-
Language TV Coverage," Miami Herald. 8 December 1989, 23 A.
See also, M. Wilson, "TV Coverage No Courtroom Drama, But It
Served Its Purpose," Miami Herald. 13 December 1989, 1 D+.

APPENDIX A
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND TECHNOLOGY GOVERNING
ELECTRONIC MEDIA AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHY
COVERAGE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
("GUIDELINES")

PETITION OF POST-NEWS WEEK STATIONS, FLORIDA Fla.
die *». Fla.. 370 So.2d 76-1
APPENDIX I
PETITION OF POST NEWSWEEK STATIONS. ETC
CiU: Mt. Kb.. 347 So.Al 404
1. Equipment and personnel.
(a) Not more than one portable television
camera [film camera—16 mm sound on film
(self blimped) or video tape electronic
camera), operated by not more than one
camera person, shall be permitted in any
trial court proceeding. Not more than two
television cameras, operated by not more
than one camera person each, shall lx:
permitted in any appellate court proceed¬
ing.
(b) Not more than one still photogra¬
pher. utilizing not more than two still
cameras with not more than two lenses for
each camera and related equipment for
print purposes shall be permitted in any
proceeding in a trial or appellate court.
(c) Not more than one audio system for
radio broadcast purposes shall be permit¬
ted in any proceeding in a trial or
appellate court. Audio pickup for all
media purposes shall be accompiisiied from
existing audio systems present in the court
facility. If no technically suitable audio
system exists in the court facility, micro¬
phones and related wiring essential for
media purposes shall be unobtrusive ami
shall be located in places designated m
advance of any proceeding by the chief
judge of the judicial circuit or district in
which the court facility is located.
(d) Any “pooling” arrangements among
the media required by these limitations on
equipment and personnel shall be the sole
responsibility of the media without calling
upon the presiding judge to mediate any
dispute as to the appropriate media
representative or equipment authorized to
cover a particular proceeding. In the
absence of advance media agreement on
disputed equipment or personnel issues,
the presiding judge shall exclude all
contesting media personnel from a proceed¬
ing.
2. Sounfi and light criteria.
(a)Only television photographic and
audio equipment which docs not produce
distracting sound or light shall lie em¬
ployed to cover judicial proceedings. Spe¬
cifically, such photographic and audio
equipment shall produce no greater
sound or light than the equipment designat¬
ed in Appendix A annexed hereto, when
the same is in good working order. No
artificial lighting device of any kind shall
be employed in connection with the
television camera.
(b) Only still camera equipment which
does not produce distracting spund or light
shall be employed to cover judicial proceed¬
ings. Specifically, such still camera equip¬
ment shall produce no greater sound or
light than a 35 mm Leica "M" Senes
Rangefinder camera, and no artificial
lighting device of any kind shall be
employed in connection with a still camera.
(c) It shall be the affirmative duty of
media personnel to demonstrate to the
presiding judge adequately in advance of
any proceeding that the equipment sought
to be utilized meets the sound and light
criteria enunciated herein. A failure to
obtain advance judicial approval for equip¬
ment shall preclude its use in any proceed¬
ing
3.Location of equipment and person¬
nel
(a) Television camera equipment shall
be positioned in such location in the court
facility as snail be designated by the chief
judge of the judicial circuit or district in
which such facility is situated. The area
designated shall provide reasonable access
to coverage. If and when areas remote
from the court facility which permit
reasonaole access to coverage are provided
ail television camera and audio equipment
shall be positioned only in such area. Video
tape recording equipment which is not a
component part of a television camera
shall be located in an area remote from
the court facility
lb> A still camera photographer shall
[♦edition himself or herself in such location
in tile court facility as shall be designated
by the chief judge of the judicial circuit or
district in which such facility is situated
The area designated shall provide reasona¬
ble access to coverage. Still camera
photographers shall assume a fixed posi¬
tion within the designated area and, once a
photographer has established himself or
herself in a shooting position, he or she
shall act so as not to call attention to
himself or herself through further move¬
ment. Still camera photographers shall not
be permitted to move about in order to
obtain photographs of court proceedings
209

Fla.
370 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
APPENDIX 1
(c) Broadcast media representatives
shall not move about the court facility
while proceedings are in session, and
microphones or taping equipment once
positioned as required by 1(c) above shall
not be moved during the pendency of the
proceeding.
4. Movement during proceedings.
News media photographic or audio
equipment shall not be placed in or
removed from the court facility except
prior to commencement or after adjourn¬
ment of proceedings each day, or during a
recess. Neither television film magazines
nor still camera film or lenses shall be
changed within a court facility except
during a recess in the proceeding.
5. Courtroom light sources.
With the concurrence of the chief judge
of a judicial circuit or district in which a
court facility is situated, modifications and
additions may be made in light sources
existing in the facility, provided such
modifications or additions are installed and
maintained without public expense.
6. Conferences of counsel.
To protect the attorney-client privilege
and the effective right to counsel, there
shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of
conferences which occur in a court facility
between attorneys and their clients, be¬
tween co-counsel of a client, or between
counsel and the presiding judge held at the
bench.
7. Impermissible use of media material.
None of the film, video tape, still
photographs or audio reproductions devel¬
oped during or by virtue of the pilot
—Continued
program shall be admissible as evidence in
the proceeding out of which it arose, any
proceeding subsequent or collateral there¬
to, or upon any retrial or appeal of such
proceedings.
8. Appellate review.
So that the Court may evaluate in depth
all experiences engendered' under the
program at the end of one year, and to
preclude appellate activity during the teat
year. (1) no appellate review shall be
available to the electronic or still photo¬
graphic media from individual orders
entered by trial or appellate courts ruling
upon matters arising under these stan¬
dards, and (2) no appellate court shall
entertain any petition by the electronic or
still photographic media for extraordinary
writ seeking in any way to affect such
media reporting of a judicial proceeding or
proceedings; provided however, that any
party to this proceeding, any electronic
media representative or any circuit or
district court chief judge may at any time
during the one-year pilot program apply to
this Court, with proper notice to all
parties, to amend the standards set out in
this Order for the purpose of meeting
unforeseen technical difficulties in their
general application.
9. Evaluation of program.
At the conclusion of the one-year pilot
program, all media participants in the
program, all parties hereto, and all partici¬
pating judges are requested to furnish to
the Court a report of their experience
under the program, so that the Court can
determine whether or to what extent
Canon 3 A(7) shall be modified.

APPENDIX B
COURTROOM PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Name:
2. Title:
3. Are you familiar with the (enclosed) Standards of Conduct
and Technology Governing Electronic Media and Still
Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings?
If so, how did you become familiar with the Guidelines?
4 . How do you feel in principle about allowing in the
courtroom
a. Television cameras?
b. Audio recorders?
c. Still cameras?
5. Do you have a problem in theory or practice with any of
the sections of the Guidelines?
If so, please describe:
a. Equipment and personnel
b. Sound and light criteria
c. Location of equipment and personnel
d. Movement during proceedings
e. Courtroom light sources
f. Conferences of counsel
g. Impermissible use of material
h. Appellate review
6. Do you handle cases (coverage of cases) any differently
since the advent of cameras in courtrooms?
If so, please explain:
7. How often would you estimate you encounter in your
courtroom (assign reporters to) television, radio, or
still photography courtroom coverage?
Please list any such cases encountered (covered) the past
year:
211

212
9. Do you foresee any change in the amount of courtroom
coverage with television, radio, or still photographic
equipment in future?
10. Any other comments regarding cameras in courtrooms:
Thank You!
Supplementary (Post-Trial) Questions
Trial:
Date:
Interviewee:
1. (Show Guidelines) Do you feel the reporters (newspaper,
radio, & TV) followed the courtroom Guidelines in the
case in which you just participated?
2. What did you observe of press coverage of the trial (read
the newspaper, hear the radio news, watch TV news)?
3. What is your opinion of the coverage of the trial insofar
as accuracy, i.e., degree of distortion, comparing your
perception of the trial with that presented?
4 . Do you feel the press coverage in any way disrupted the
judicial process?
5. Any other comments?
Thank You!

APPENDIX C
CONTENT ANALYSES
Florida v. Simmons
Gainesville Sun
February 17, 1989, P 1 A+, "Teen says plan to 'intimidate'
ended in man beaten to death," Connie Bouchard, (three-column
photo defendant Simmons & attorney; one-and-one-half-column
photo witness Burger). First day of trial. Testimony of
witnesses Chris Burger and Michael Williams, mentions Delk.
Simmons "took the pipe & hit him," attacked him with a "five-
pound window sash weight."
February 18, 1989, P 1 A+, "Jury swiftly convicts 19-year-old
of murder," Connie Bouchard. Conclusion of trial, verdict, &
sentencing. Simmons beat Horne to death "with a metal
weight."
(March 5, 1989, "Murder victim's family found solace in legal
system." Letter-to-Editor (s) Ginny McKoy & Nancy Kanaan for
the family of David Horne, praising handling of case by
government officials & court participants.)
(March 7, 1989, 1 B, "Archer teen gets 4 years in death,"
Connie Bouchard. Follow-up sentencing of Williams & Burger
plea.)
WCJB-TV
February 16, 1989, 6 p.m., :30 tell over key graphic.
Background and first day of trial, mention of witnesses
Burger & Williams. Horne "bludgeoned to death with a wooden
handle."
February 17, 1989, noon, :30 tell over key graphic.
Morning's trial testimony, witnesses Simmons' cellmate Benton
and medical examiner.
February 17, 1989, 6 p.m., :30 tell over key graphic. Jury
is deliberating at this hour. Mentions prosecutor & defense,
says Horne bludgeoned "with a wooden handle."
213

214
February 17, 1989, 11 p.m., :30 tell over key graphic. Jury
verdict & sentencing.
WUFT-TV
February 15, 1989, evening news, :30 voice over video
(courtroom scene, Simmons, some other judge). Advance story,
mentions Williams plea.
February 16, 1989, evening news, 1:30 voice over video
(courtroom). Inc. bite with prosecutor Tobin (:10) and
defense attorney ("public defender") De Thomasis (:10),
mentions Williams & Burger.
February 17, 1989, evening news, 1:00 voice over video
(courtroom, Simmons). Jury is deliberating at this hour.
Simmons hit Horne "twice on the head with a lead pipe."
Mentions Williams & Burger.
February 20, 1989, evening news, :30 voice over video
(courtroom, Simmons). Verdict & sentencing. (graphic
"Simmon Trial")
(March 6, 1989, evening news, :30 voice over video. Follow¬
up sentencing of Williams.)
WUFT-FM
February 16, 1989, noon, 1:00 phoner, reporter Brown.
Opening arguments, mentions Burger testimony.
February 16, 1989, evening news, 1:00 reporter Brown.
State's case, inc.:15 bite prosecutor Tobin (not all evidence
being allowed in) and :15 bite defense De Thomasis (State's
deals with witnesses unfair to Simmons). Murder weapon
"described as a two-foot metal object."
February 17, 1989, noon, 1:00 phoner, reporter Carmody.
Medical examiner's testimony & recap Burger & Williams
testimony.
February 17, 1989, evening news, 1:00 phoner, reporter
Carmody. Jury deliberating, Simmons testimony. Mentions
Williams plea.
February 20, 1989, morning news, 1:00 reporter Carmody.
Sentencing, inc. :11 bite Prosecutor Tobin re reconsidering
deal made with Williams & Burger.

February 20, 1989, morning news, 1:00 reporter Carmody.
Sentencing, inc. :09 bite Prosecutor Tobin re reconsidering
deal made with Williams & Burger.
WRUF-AM
February 16. 1989
a.m. :40 preview, inc. :10 bite with defense De Thomasis.
Mentions Burger & Williams.
p.m. :30 phoner, reporter Michelson from courthouse. Burger
testimony.
p.m. :30 phoner, reporter Michelson from courthouse.
Williams plea. Simmons accused of beating Horne "with a
metal weight."
4:06 p.m. :30 phoner, reporter Michelson from courthouse:
Williams testimony. Simmons used "a wooden axe."
8:15 p.m.
: 20
recap.
8:20 p.m.
: 20
recap.
Simmons "beat Horne
with a
wooden
handle."
9:06 p.m.
: 20
recap.
Simmons "beat Horne
with a
wooden
handle."
February
1282
4:20 p.m.
: 10
recap,
jury deliberating.
5:30 p.m.
: 40
reporter Acker, jury deliberating.
7:20 p.m.
: 10
verdict
& sentencing.
8:06 p.m.
: 45
verdict
& sentencing, inc.
13 defense attorney
De Thomasis re appeal. Weapon was "wooden ax handle" and
"some knives."
9:20 p.m. :20 verdict & sentencing, "wooden ax handle."
10:06 p.m. :20 verdict & sentencing, "wooden ax handle."
Inc. :13 defense attorney De Thomasis re appeal.
10:20 p.m. :10 verdict & sentencing.

11:06 p.m. :40 verdict & sentencing, inc. :10 defense
attorney De Thomasis re appeal. Weapon was a "wooden ax
handle."
216
February 18. 1989
6:06 a.m. :40 verdict & sentencing, inc. :10 defense attorney
De Thomasis re appeal.
8:20 a.m. :10 verdict & sentencing.
9:06 a.m. :40 verdict & sentencing. Weapon was a "wooden ax
handle."
11:06 a.m. :40 verdict & sentencing, inc. :10 defense
attorney De Thomasis re appeal. Simmons & friends carried
"an ax handle and some knives."
noon :40 verdict & sentencing, inc. :10 defense attorney De
Thomasis re appeal. Simmons & friends carried "an ax handle
and some knives."
Florida v. C. Harris & P. Harris
Gainesville Sun
September 26, 1989, 1 B+, "Murder trial set to begin," Mitch
Stacy. Background, includes Carl Harris' record of 12 felony
arrests.
September 28, 1989, 1 B+, "Brothers in murder trial plead
self-defense," Mitch Stacy. State witness Tony Ramsey
testimony. Inc. four-column photo Harris brothers &
attorneys.
September 29, 1989, 7 B, "Murder trial focus shifts to
weapons," Mitch Stacy. Says expert testified victim's hands
"did contain sufficient traces of gunpowder to conclude that
he definitely fired the shot."
September 30, 1989, 1 B+, "Murder charged dropped against 1
brother," Fataima Ahmad. Charge against Carl Harris dropped,
quotes Pierre's attorney De Thomasis in response.
October 1, 1989, 1 B+, "Courtroom jubilation: Brother
innocent of death," Fataima Ahmad. Jury acquits Pierre
Harris, quotes Carl's attorney, then Pierre's attorney in
response. Gives both ages as 29.

217
(October 2, 1989, 1 B, "In the Margin." Column of feature
tidbits mentions during 20-minute recess to excuse juror in
Harris trial, judge swears in three new Bar members.)
WUFT-TV
September 26, 1989, 1:00 package, reporter McElroy. Includes
video of crime site, :10 bite defense attorney De Thomasis.
September 27, 1989, 1:00 voice over video, includes :10 bite
defense attorney De Thomasis, prosecutor refuses comment.
September 28, 1989, 1:00 voice over video, includes :16 bite
defense attorney De Thomasis, prosecution refuses comment.
September 29, 1989, 1:30, includes reporter Ceide "live"
phoner from courthouse over video, acquittal of Carl Harris.
(Describes Pierre Harris' testimony over video of Tony Ramsey
testimony).
October 2, 1989, 1:00 voice over video, acquittal of Pierre
Harris.
WUFT-FM
September 26. 1989
6:05 a.m. :20, reporter Carmody. Backgrounder: jury
selection to begin.
noon, :40 phoner, reporter Carmody. Jury selection begins,
victim's family watching.
evening news, :40, reporter Carmody. Jury selection ending.
September 27. 1989
6:05 a.m. :40, reporter Carmody. Inc. :18 defense attorney
De Thomasis (pretrial publicity not an issue).
7:55 a.m., :35. Inc. :13 defense attorney De Thomasis
(delays are not unusual).
noon, :48 phoner, reporter Carmody. Open to begin.
evening news, 1:00 phoner, reporter Carmody. State's open v.
defense plan of self-defense.

218
Septembez. 2.8« LSM
7:35 a.m., 1:10, reporter Carmody. Opening arguments &
defense strategy.
8:35 a.m., :40. Inc. State witness Tony Ramsey testimony and
:09 defense attorney De Thomasis responds.
noon, 1:04 phoner, reporter Carmody. Ramsey testimony &
response.
evening news, 1:05, reporter Carmody. State case, one juror
excused.
Sept.emb.er 29, 1989
6:05 a.m.,
: 51,
reporter
Carmody.
Defense
to begin
8:05 a.m.,
: 50,
reporter
Carmody.
Defense
to begin
noon, 1:05 phoner, reporter Carmody. Defense begins,
evening news, :30, reporter Carmody. Carl Harris acquitted.
KRUE-AM
September 26. 1989
a.m., :30 reporter Foley, phoner, jury selection,
p.m., :30 reporter Melvin, phoner, jury selection.
September 21. 1989
a.m., 1:13, reporter James, trial begins, inc. :10 defense
attorney De Thomasis (self-defense) and :23 De Thomasis
response to Ramsey testimony.
8:15 a.m., :45, claim is self-defense. Inc. :23 defense
attorney De Thomasis response to Ramsey testimony.
September 28. 1989
8:20 a.m., :25, trial continues. Inc. :10 defense attorney
De Thomasis (self-defense).
11:06 a.m., :25, trial continues. Inc. :10 defense attorney
De Thomasis (self-defense) prosecutor refuses comment.

219
p.m., :30, trial continues. Inc. :10 defense attorney De
Thomasis (self-defense), :10 defense attorney Robert Rush.
September 29. 1989
a.m., :20, reporter Benjamin. State presenting case, State
already played tapes.
a.m., :50, medical examiner testimony. Inc. :10 defense
attorney De Thomasis response, juror replaced yesterday.
a.m., :20, juror replaced yesterday, trial continues.
p.m., :40, Carl Harris acquitted. Inc. :17 Pierre Harris
defense attorney De Thomasis responds.
7:06 p.m., 1:00, "jury is deliberating." Inc. :15 defense
attorney De Thomasis (glad jury is taking its time).
8:20 p.m., :20, jury expected to hand down verdict "Monday
morning."
September 30. 1989
a.m., 1:10, Carl Harris acquitted. Inc. :32 defense attorney
De Thomasis responds, jury reconvenes this morning.
noon, :40, trial continues, Carl Harris acquitted. Inc. :17
defense attorney De Thomasis (looks good for Pierre).
1:06 p.m., :40, trial continues, Carl Harris acquitted. Inc.
:17 defense attorney De Thomasis (looks good for Pierre).
p.m., :40, jury deliberating, inc. :04 Judge Cates comments.
p.m., :50, Pierre Harris acquitted, inc. :13 Judge Cates
comments.
October 1. 1989
a.m., :50, both brothers acquitted, inc. :13 Judge Cates
comments.
Florida v. Spikes
Gainesville Sun
September 13, 1989, 1 B+, "Trial set in grandfather's burning
death," Mitch Stacy, backgrounder.

220
September 15, 1989, 1 B, "Spikes' murder trial postponed."
Brief, trial postponed due to defense attorney's "family
emergency."
October 4, 1989, 1 B, "Trial scheduled in burning death."
Brief, backgrounder.
October 5, 1989, 1 B+, "Trial delayed in burning death,"
Mitch Stacy. State's case, continuation due to defense
motion, in order to subpoena witness thought would have been
subpoenaed by state. Aunt's testimony, grandfather's
accusation. Includes three-column photo of defendant and
attorney in court.
October 12, 1989, 1 B+, "Man sentenced to life in prison:
Grandson guilty of murder, arson," Ana Acle. Sentence,
rereading of witness Cobb testimony for jury, defendant's
testimony implicating aunt. Includes three-column photo of
defendant in court.
Florida Times-Union
October 5, 1989, 1 B+, "Man's lost love cited in grand¬
father's death," Larry Schnell. State's case, continuation.
Mentions hostile exchange with aunt regarding death of
father, "not clear" whether witness knew death of defense
attorney's father had caused earlier trial postponement.
October 12, 1989, 1 B+, "Jury convicts man of setting fatal
fire," Larry Schnell. Sentence. (No mention of defendant
testimony or rereading of testimony for jury.)
WUFT-TV
October 4, 1989, evening news. 1:20, reporter Mader.
Opening arguments. Included reporter on location of crime
scene, sound bite with prosecutor, interview with neighbor.
October 11, 1989, evening news, 2:00, reporter Mader. Phoner
from courthouse over video of defense, includes sentence.
WUFT-FM
October 3. 1989
evening news, :45, reporter Carmody, jury selection complete.

221
October 4, 1989
6:35 a.m., :30, background. Includes :13 sound bite with
prosecutor Tobin re strategy.
7:35 a.m., :30, background. Includes :14 sound bite with
prosecutor Tobin re strategy.
noon, :45 phoner, reporter Oliver, aunt's testimony.
evening news, :30 phoner, reporter Carmody, aunt's
testimony.
October 5. 1989
6:05 a.m., :30, explains delay. Inc. :17 sound bite
prosecutor Tobin, aunt's testimony.
8:05 a.m., :45, explains delay. Inc. :10 sound bite
prosecutor Tobin, aunt's testimony.
October 10. 1989
evening news, 1:15, reporter Carmody, recap.
October 11, 1989
noon, 1:00 phoner, reporter Carmody, defense witness,
defendant's testimony.
evening news, 1:00 phoner, reporter Carmody, closing
arguments, jury is deliberating.
evening news, break-in: :20, verdict in.
October 12. 1989
a.m., 1:00, wrap-up, inc. :16 sound bite defense attorney
Wehlburg, appeal.
a.m., 1:00, wrap-up, inc. :24 sound bite defense attorney
Wehlburg, appeal.
a.m., :40, reporter Carmody, wrap-up.

222
WRUF-AM
October 4. 1989
5:00 p.m., :40, reporter Cohen. State case, inc. :08 sound
bite with prosecutor Tobin re delay.
p.m., :20, delay.
October 5. 1989
8:15 a.m., :40, delay, inc. :12 sound bite with prosecutor
Tobin re delay.
8:20 a.m., :15, delay.
a.m., :25, delay, expert witness unavailable.
October 11, 1989
5 p.m., 1:00 phoner, reporter Chavison, jury is deliberating.
p.m., :40, verdict, inc. :14 sound bite defense attorney
Wehlburg re appeal.
8:47 p.m., :50, verdict, inc. :16 sound bite defense attorney
Wehlburg re appeal.
p.m., :40, wrap-up, inc. : 14 sound bite defense attorney
Wehlburg re appeal.
October 12. 1989
a.m., :30, wrap up.
Florida v. Stanley
Gainesville Sun
December 5, 1989, P 1 B+, "Hawthrone mechanic's murder: Judge
clears way for trial," Mitch Stacy. Jury selection begins
this morning. Mentions side issue: legality of State
Attorney's status due to failure to be registered to vote in
district prior to appointment.
December 7, 1989, P 1 B+, "Mechanic's murder trial begins,"
Mitch Stacy & Tom Lyons, (two-column photo defendant Stanley
& attorney). First day of trial. Body found nine days after
Labor Day murder. Stanley calmly ate dinner after shooting

223
ex-coworker over debt he came to collect, ex-wife says
Stanley is not prone to violence.
December 8, 1989, P 1 B+, "Suspect: It was in self-defense,"
Mitch Stacy. Stanley testifies Pippins threatened him with a
sawed-off shotgun. Mentions side issue: repeated attempts
of defense (former prosecutor) to claim state attorney
violates rules by failing to disclose information.
December 8, 1989, P 1 B (brief): Judge tells jurors they are
eating lunch at taxpayers’ expense, not clear whether
suggesting they order hamburgers or steak.
December 9, 1989, P 1 B+, "Worker gets 15 years in killing, "
Mitch Stacy. Despite pleas for leniency due to poor health;
ex-wife weeps. Last sentence: "Stanley said he wanted the
case to go to jury because he could not justify putting
himself in jail for a crime he felt he did commit, said
McMahon."
December 12, 1989, P 1 B "Correction": ”[T]he last sentence
of a story in Saturday's Sun about a murder trial verdict
should have read: '(Defendant Charlie) Stanley said he wanted
the case to go to jury because he could not justify putting
himself in jail for a crime he felt he did not commit said
(defense attorney Gregory) McMahon.' The second 'not' was
inadvertently left out of Saturday's story."
WUFT-TV
December 5, 1989, evening news, 1:30, voice over video
(courtroom), trial begins tomorrow, inc. :14 bite with
prosecutor Carlin and :14 defense attorney McMahon.
December 6, 1989, evening news, 1:00, voice over video
(courtroom yesterday), jurors will hear confession tape.
December 7, 1989, evening news, 1:30, voice over video
(courtroom), confession played, another coworker's testimony
controversial, inc. :14 bite with prosecutor Carlin and :14
defense attorney McMahon.
December 8, 1989, evening news, 1:15, voice over video
(courtroom), verdict and sentence.
WUFT-FM
December 5, 1989, noon, 1:00, reporter Carmody, jury
selection begins, judge rejects all defense motions.

224
December 5, 1989, evening news, 1:00, reporter Carmody, trial
begins tomorrow.
December 6, 1989, morning news, 1:00, reporter Carmody, trial
begins, expected to take two days.
December 6, 1989, noon, 1:00, reporter Carmody,
investigators' testimony this morning.
December 6, 1989, evening news, 1:00, reporter Carmody, jury
saw gruesome slides, Stanley covered his eyes.
December 7, 1989, morning news, 1:00, reporter Carmody,
slides, jury may not get case until tomorrow.
December 7, 1989, noon, 1:00, reporter Carmody, tape,
confession.
December 7,
confession.
1989,
evening
news,
o
o
l—H
reporter
Carmody,
tape,
December 8,
1989,
morning
news,
1:00,
reporter
Carmody,
tape,
jury will get case today.
December 8,
1989,
morning
news,
1:00,
reporter
Carmody,
tape,
argument over money, sawed-off shotgun.
December 8, 1989, noon, 1:00, reporter Carmody, summation,
jury instructions to come and then verdict.
December 8, 1989, evening news, 1:00, reporter Perdomo,
verdict & sentence.
WRUF-M
December 6. 1989
p.m., :35, jury will hear tape, inc. :11 bite with defense
attorney McMahon.
p.m., :15, jury will hear tape, McMahon says it's self-
defense .
December 7, L2.S.2
a.m., :40, trial continues, inc. :17 bite with defense
attorney McMahon.

225
a.m., :15, slides shown.
noon, 1:00, phoner, reporter Walsh.
3:06, :15, prosecution wrapping up.
p.m., :35, investigators' testimony, taped confession played
11:06, :30, inc. :07 bite with defense attorney McMahon,
Stanley acted in self-defense.
p.m. :30, inc. :05 bite with defense attorney McMahon, no
premeditation.
December 8. 1282
a.m., :25, inc. :05 bite with defense attorney McMahon, no
premeditation.
a.m., :20,
yesterday.
self-defense, jury heard taped confession
a.m., .35,
inc. :15 bite with defense attorney McMahon, gun
evidence is unrelated to crime
a.m., :35,
evidence.
inc. :15 bite with defense attorney McMahon re gun
a.m., :3 5,
inc. :13 sound bite with prosecutor Carlin,
evidence doesn't add up to self-defense,
a.m., :15, recaps Carlin's statement.
p.m., :30,
jury is deliberating.
p.m., :30,
reporter Benjamin, verdict & sentence.
p.m., :40,
awkward.
inc. :18 bite with prosecutor Carlin, case was
8:06, : 25,
appeal.
inc. :10 bite with defense attorney McMahon re
9:06, :30,
necessary.
inc. :15 bite with prosecutor Carlin, sentence
10:06, :15, verdict & sentence, recaps McMahon & Carlin.
11:06, :35, inc. :17 bite with defense attorney McMahon re
appeal.

226
December 9. 1989
a.m., :30, inc.
appeal.
: 15
bite
with
defense
attorney
McMahon re
a.m., :30, inc.
: 17
bite
with
defense
attorney
McMahon re
appeal.
11:06, :30, inc. :15 bite with prosecutor Carlin, sentence
necessary.
a.m., :30, inc. :15 bite with defense attorney McMahon, trial
unfair.

APPENDIX D
SELECTED ARTICLES AND SCRIPTS
The selection includes the following for coverage of
trials observed:
• all of the newspaper articles which included
photographs
• all of the television scripts
• any newspaper articles or television or radio scripts
which for any reason were specifically referred to
in the study
(All broadcast scripts are retyped; originals on file.)
227

228
Samuel Eduard Simmons. 19, left, on trial for the murder of a Newberry man. sits next to Ms attorney. Craig
DeThomasis. during testimony Thursday in circuit court.
Teen says plan to ‘intimidate’
ended in man beaten to death
By CONNIE BOUCHARD
Sun staff wnter
Nineteen-year-old Samuel Edward Simmons master¬
minded a plan last May in which he and three other
teen-agers would "intimidate" a 25-year-old Newberry
man. but he wound up beating the man to death, two of
the teens testified Thursday in Simmons' first-degree
murder trial.
"The whole thing was like a set-up." said Michael Wil¬
liams. 17. of the fatal May 1988 visit to the home of David
Horne-
Armed with knives and a wooden ax handle, the teen¬
agers were out to “get" Horne for a disgruntled friend,
Williams and 16-year-old Chris Burger .testified
Thursday
The trial, in which Simmons is also charged with bur¬
glary. is expected to end today It resumes at 9 a.m.
Williams. Burger and 19-year-old Melissa Delk were
arrested with Simmons a day after the May 17, 1988,
attack on Horne.
Williams and Burger testified that they accompanied
Simmons just days after they overheard him talking
about getting even with Horne.
See BEATEN on page 7A
MARK DOLAN/The Gamesvnie Sun
Chris Burger, an admitted accomplice in the murder of
David Home, testified against Samuel Simmons Thursday.

BEATEN
Continued from page 1A
Burger said he heard Simmons tell
another teen-ager, "I’m going to get
him."
And Simmons told the same per¬
son after the slaying, “You don't
have to worry about David no more
because I done taken care of him,"
Williams testified.
The night of May 17, the youths
went to “intimidate” Horne at the be¬
hest of Simmons, said Williams, who
has pleaded guilty to second-degree
murder in the case and is awaiting
sentencing.
“He told us he had business to take
care of with David,” Williams
testified.
While the group talked and
smoked marijuana inside Horne’s
house, Simmons snuck up behind
Home and attacked him with a five-
pound window sash weight, Williams
said. “Sam took the pipe and hit
him,” Williams testified. “Blood
rushed out of his head.”
Simmons continued to hit Horne,
who was screaming for help, Wil¬
liams said.
Burger testified earlier that he did
not actually see the beating, but
could hear it after he saw Simmons
pick up the weight from Horne's bed¬
room floor and begin to swing it.
“I froze. I didn't really do any¬
thing,” Burger testified through
tears.
Prosecutors said Thursday that re¬
venge was the motive for the slaying.
They claimed that Simmons was try¬
ing to avenge a friend who unknow¬
ingly bought a stolen engine from
Horne.
"His friend was on probation and
possession of stolen property jeopar¬
dized his freedom,” prosecutor Glo¬
ria Fletcher said.
And after his arrest on murder
charges, Simmons bragged to a cell¬
mate about the killing, Fletcher said.
“Sam is proud. He has carried out
his plan. He has done what he set out
to do,” she said.
But defense attorney Craig
DeThomasis argued there was no ev¬
idence that Simmons planned to
murder Horne that night.
"What you will hear is there was a
plan to intimidate or hurt,”
DeThomasis said. "There was never
a plan to kill."
If anyone had a motive for the
slaying it would be Williams, who
had a grudge against Horne, he said.
DeThomasis also questioned the
motives of Thursday's witnesses, not¬
ing that Williams is awaiting sentenc¬
ing and Burger has not gone to trial.

230
WCJB-TV
Slug: SIMMONS.A-3
Date: 02/16//89 PB/BOX
(PAIGE)
A MURDER TRIAL WILL CONTINUE
TOMORROW MORNING IN ALACHUA COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT FOR AN 18 YEAR OLD
ARCHER RESIDENT ACCUSED OF MURDER.
PROSECUTORS CLAIM SAMUEL EDWARD
SIMMONS COERCED THREE FRIENDS TO
HELP HIM TO KILL DAVID HORNE OF
NEWBERRY.
THE MURDER HAPPENED MAY 18TH LAST
YEAR.
INVESTIGATORS SAY HORNE WAS
BLUDGEONED TO DEATH WITH A WOODEN
HANDLE.
DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE..
MICHAEL WILLIAMS AND CHRIS BURGER
TESTIFIED TODAY. HOWEVER, THE THIRD
DEFENDANT MELISSA DELKS WHO HAS NOT
BEEN CHARGED..WILL NOT TESTIFY
BECAUSE SHE'S RECOVERING FROM
SURGERY.

231
WCJB-TV
Slug: SIMMONS A-l
Date: 2/17/89
BOB-WMS. CLOSE UP GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THE
PROSECUTION HAS RESTED ITS CASE IN
THE TRIAL OF SAMUEL SIMMONS.
THE 19-YEAR OLD IS ACCUSED OF
BEATING 25-YEAR OLD DAVID HORNE OF
NEWBERRY TO DEATH.
DURING TESTIMONY THIS MORNING
CHARLES BENTON WHO SHARED A CELL
WITH SIMMONS AT THE COUNTY JAIL SAID
SIMMONS TOLD HIM HE BEAT A MAN OVER
THE HEAD.
LATER AN OFFICIAL WITH THE MEDICAL
EXAMINER'S ISSUED A STATEMENT ON
VIDEO TAPE.
HE VERIFIED HORNE WAS KILLED FROM
SEVERAL BLOWS TO THE HEAD.
SIMMONS WAS ALLEGEDLY THE MASTER¬
MIND BEHIND A PLOT TO BEAT UP HORN
FOR A FRIEND WHO WAS ANGRY AT HORN.
THE DEFENSE IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN
ITS CASE LATER THIS AFTERNOON AND BE
FINISHED BY THREE O'CLOCK.

232
WCJB-TV
Slug: SIMMONS A-2
Date: 2/17/89 PB/BOX
(PAIGE)
AN ALACHUA COUNTY JURY IS
DELIBERATING AT THIS HOUR IN THE
FIRST DEGREE MURDER TRIAL OF SAMUEL
SIMMONS. THE 18 YEAR OLD ARCHER MAN
IS CHARGED IN THE BEATING DEATH OF
25 YEAR OLD DAVID HORNE OF NEWBERRY.
STATE ATTORNEY HARRIS TOBIN SAID
SIMMONS OWN TESTIMONY PROVED HE WAS
LYING. SIMMONS ATTORNEY CRAIG DE
THOMASIS SAID MOST OF THE EVIDENCE
IS CONFLICTING AND HE WANTS THE
CHARGE TO BE REDUCED TO SECOND
DEGREE MURDER.
HORNE WAS BLUDGEONED TO DEATH IN
MAY OF LAST YEAR WITH A WOODEN
HANDLE.

233
WCJB-TV
Slug:
SIMMONS A-2
Date:
2/17/89
LUCAS BOX
(JOHN)
AN 18-YEAR OLD ARCHER MAN HAS BEEN
FOUND GUILTY TONIGHT OF THE BEATING
DEATH OF DAVID HORNE OF NEWBERRY.
AFTER A COUPLE OF HOURS OF
DELIBERATING ... AN ALACHUA COUNTY
JURY RETURNED FOUND SAMUEL SIMMONS
GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND
BURGLARY WITH ASSAULT.
SIMMONS HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO LIFE
IN PRISON . . . BUT, WILL BE
ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE IN 25 YEARS.
HE ALSO RECEIVED A 40 YEAR
SENTENCE FOR THE BURGLARY
CONVICTION.

234
WUFT-TV
February 15, 1989
5:30 News
On talent
Key graphic:
Jury Selection
JURY SELECTION IS UNDERWAY FOR
THE TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED MURDERER
FROM ARCHER.
VO/Video
(Simmons, courtroom)
C:Alachua County
Courthouse
Gainesville
SAMUEL SIMMONS FACES FIRST-DEGREE
MURDER CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE BEATING DEATH OF NEWBERRY
RESIDENT DAVID HORNE LAST MAY.
SIMMONS AND ANOTHER MAN, ANTHONY
WILLIAMS, ARE CHARGED WITH HORNE'S
MURDER. LAST MONTH WILLIAMS PLEADED
GUILTY TO SECOND-DEGREE MURDER AND
WILL BE SENTENCED LATER THIS MONTH.
SIMMONS' TRIAL IS SET TO START
THURSDAY. HORNE'S BODY WAS FOUND AT
(HIS HOME IN MAY).

235
WUFT-TV
February 16, 1989
5:30 News
On talent
Key graphic:
Simmons Trial
TWO PEOPLE TESTIFIED TODAY THAT
AN ARCHER MAN MASTERMINDED THE
DEATH OF A 25-YEAR-OLD NEWBERRY MAN.
SAMUEL EDWARD SIMMONS FACES FIRST-
DEGREE MURDER CHARGES FOR THE
BLUDGEONING DEATH OF DAVID HORNE
LAST MAY.
VO/Video
(Simmons, court)
THE JURY TODAY HEARD TESTIMONY FROM
TWO TEENAGERS WHO SAY THEY WERE
IMPLICATED IN THE MURDER. SIXTEEN-
C: Alachua Co.
Courthouse
Gainvesville
YEAR-OLD CHRIS BURGER AND SEVENTEEN-
YEAR-OLD MICHAEL WILLIAMS SAY
SIMMONS PLANNED THE MURDER AND
HELPED BEAT THE VICTIM TO DEATH.
BUT THE DEFENSE SAYS THE JURY
SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THEIR TESTIMONY.
PUBLIC DEFENDER CRAIG DE THOMASIS
SAYS THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS LESSENED
THE CHARGES AGAINST THE TEENAGERS,
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY'RE JUST
TRYING TO KEEP THEMSELVES OUT OF
TROUBLE.
SOT De Thomasis
C: Public Defender
"It certainly would help their
cases, and it's obvious that I think
the jury should consider that when
deciding whether these people are
creditable or not.
SOT Tobin
C: State Attorney
"One person was charged according to
what we felt the evidence showed was
their involvement in the crime."
VO/Video
(Simmons, court)
MICHAEL WILLIAMS PLEADED GUILTY TO
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER
CHRIS BURGER, ORIGINALLY CHARGED AS
AN ACCESSORY TO THE MURDER, NOW ONLY
FACES BURGLARY CHARGES.

236
WUFT-TV
February 17, 1989
5:30 News
On talent
Key graphic:
Simmons Trial
C: Kathy Orendorff
VO/Video
(Simmons, court)
THE JURY IS DECIDING IF EDWARD
SAMUEL SIMMONS IS GUILTY OF FIRST-
DEGREE MURDER IN THE DEATH OF DAVID
HORNE.
THE STATE CLAIMS SIMMONS LED A GROUP
OF THREE TEENS LAST MAY TO HORNE'S
HOME IN NEWBERRY. TWO OF THE TEENS,
CHRIS BURGER AND MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
TESTIFIED AGAINST SIMMONS. WILLIAMS
STRUCK A DEAL BY PLEADING GUILTY TO
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER, BUT THE
DEFENSE SAYS HE IS REALLY THE ONE
WHO KILLED HORNE.
TESTIFYING IN HIS OWN DEFENSE,
SIMMONS SAYS HE PLANNED TO "JUST
BEAT UP" HORNE, BUT ADMITTED HE HIT
HORNE TWICE ON THE HEAD WITH A LEAD
PIPE. JURORS MUST DECIDE SIMMONS
DELIBERATELY PLANNED TO KILL HORNE
AND ACTED ALONE IN ORDER TO GIVE A
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER DECISION.

237
WUFT-TV
February 20, 1989
5:30 News
On talent
Key graphic:
Simmons Sentenced
VO/Video
(Simmons, court)
AND ANOTHER SENTENCE—THIS ONE
MORE SEVERE. A MAN FOUND GUILTY
OF MURDERING A NEWBERRY MAN WILL
SPEND AT LEAST 25 TO 40 YEARS BEHIND
BARS.
A JURY DECISION FRIDAY HAS EDWARD
SAMUEL SIMMONS SERVING A JAIL
SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF DAVID
HORNE LAST MAY.
SIMMONS GETS LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR
THE FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION.
HE HAS ANOTHER 40-YEAR TERM WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOR
BURGLARY WITH ASSAULT. FRIDAY, THE
JURY DECIDED SIMMONS ACTED ALONE AND
DELIBERATELY PLANNED TO KILL HORNE.

238
WUFT-TV
Williams Sentence
Kathy VO
3/6/89
* * *KATHY* * *
SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD ANTHONY
WILLIAMS WILL SPEND FOUR YEARS IN
JAIL FOR THE SECOND DEGREE MURDER OF
DAVID HORNE.
WILLIAMS PARENTS STOOD BY HIM
DURING THE SENTENCING THIS
AFTERNOON. THE JUDGE DECIDED TO
SENTENCE WILLIAMS UNDER ADULT
GUIDELINES . . . BUT AS A YOUTHFUL
OFFENDER
THAT MEANS HE'LL SERVE TIME IN AN
ADULT PRISON
BUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS FOUR
YEARS IN JAIL AND TWO YEARS IN
COMMUNITY CONTROL
THE DEFENSE SAYS THAT WILL ALLOW
WILLIAMS TO TAKE PART IN A
REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

239
WUFT-FM
BROWN
Simmons Trial
2/16/88
SAMUEL EDWARD SIMMONS IS ON TRIAL FOR THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER
IN AN ALACHUA COUNTY COURT HOUSE. HE IS ACCUSED OF PLANNING
THE DEATH OF DAVID HORN. STATE ATTORNEYS ARE TRYING TO PROVE
SIMMONS LEAD THREE OTHER TEENAGERS TO HORN'S NEWBERRY AREA
HOME TO HELP HIM WITH THE KILLING. THE JURY HAS SEEN BLOODY
SHEETS FROM HORN'S ROOM ALONG WITH WHAT THE STATE CLAIMS IS
THE MURDER WEAPON. IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS A TWO-FOOT METAL
OBJECT. STATE ATTORNEY HARRIS TOBIN SAYS THE JUDGE NOT
ALLOWING ALL EVIDENCE IN THE COURTROOM.
CART TOBIN : 15 ". . . win or lose at this point"
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS CRAIG DE THOMAS. HE IS A PRIVATE
ATTORNEY ASKED BY THE COURT TO DEFENSE SIMMONS. HE CLAIMS
THE STATE'S DEAL MAKING WITH A KEY WITNESS TO THE MURDER IS
UNFAIR TO HIS CLIENT
CART
THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST ONLY TWO DAYS. ATTORNEYS SAY
IT SHOULD GO TO THE JURY TOMORROW AFTERNOON.

240
WRUF-AM
2/16/89
MICHELSON
2nd VOICER
THE TRIAL OF SAMUEL SIMMONS IS IN PROGRESS IN THE ALACHUA
COUNTY COURTHOUSE. EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD SIMMONS IS ACCUSED OF
MURDERING DAVID HORNE BY BEATING HIM WITH A METAL WEIGHT LAST
MAY. THREE OTHER TEENAGERS WERE PRESENT THE NIGHT OF THE
MURDER. ONE WAS 17-YEAR-OLD MICHAEL WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS PLED
GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER OF DAVID HORNE AND HE IS NOW
WAITING TO BE SENTENCED. WILLIAMS IS A FORMER CLASSMATE OF
SIMMONS. ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER WILLIAMS THOUGHT THE
TEENS WERE GOING TO THE MOVIES BUT INSTEAD THEY WENT TO THE
HOME OF DAVID HORNE. SOC

241
WRUF-AM
2/16/89
3rd VOICER
IN SAMUEL SIMMONS MURDER TRIAL, 17 YEAR OLD MICHAEL SIMMONS
TESTIFIED HE WAS PRESENT THE NIGHT DAVID HORNE WAS KILLED.
WILLIAMS SAYS HE WENT OUT WITH SIMMONS INTENDING TO GO TO THE
MOVIES. INSTEAD THEY WENT TO DAVID HORNE'S HOME IN NEWBERRY.
WILLIAMS SAYS EARLIER THAT DAY HORNE HAD PULLED A GUN ON
WILLIAMS, HIS FRIEND, AND HIS SIX YEAR OLD BROTHER. WILLIAMS
HAS PLED GUILTY TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER AND IS AWAITING
SENTENCING. WILLIAMS TESTIFIED HE SAW SIMMONS BEAT HORNE
WITH A WOODEN AXE. IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS PLEA TO SECOND DEGREE
MURDER AND HIS TESTIMONY AT SIMMONS' TRIAL WILLIAMS WILL BE
SENTENCED AS A JUVENILE OFFENDER. SOC

242
WRUF-AM
NOON SAT 18
LIFE SENTENCE
A NEWBERRY TEENAGER WILL BE SPENDING A LONG TIME IN PRISON.
JURORS FOUND SIMMONS GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN THE
BLUDGEONING DEATH OF DAVID HORNE. SIMMONS TESTIFIED—HIS
FRIENDS AND HE WENT TO HORNE'S HOUSE TO INTIMIDATE HIM WITH
AN AX HANDLE AND SOME KNIVES. HOWEVER, WITNESSES SAY SIMMONS
WOUND UP BEATING HORNE TO DEATH. SIMMONS'S ATTORNEY CRAIG DE
THOMASIS SAYS SIMMONS'S ACTIONS WERE NOT PREMEDITATED AND
HE'LL APPEAL THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER DECISION.
FRI 30 DE THOMASIS :10 . . .OF FIRST DEGREE
SIMMONS WAS GIVEN A LIFE SENTENCE—PLUS FOUR YEARS FOR
BURGLARY—AND WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE IN 25 YEARS.

243
Murder
trial
set to
begin
By MITCH STACY
Sun staff wnter
Two brothers from Gainesville
will stand trial beginning Tuesday
for the murder last October of a 21-
year-old man.
Carlton Lorenzo Harris. 30. and
Pierre Cullen Harris, 29. were
charged with first-degree murder in
connection with the Oct. 24. 1988,
stabbing death of Irving Eugene
Lawrence, who lived in an apart-
_ mentatl900 SE
4th St. An argu¬
ment over mon¬
ey apparently
led to a confron¬
tation between
Lawrence and
• the Harris
brothers late
_ that October
evening, police
Lawrence was found by police ly¬
ing in a vacant lot on NE 1st Avenue
with a stab wound to the chest after
someone who lived in the area called
authorities about hearing a gunshot,
police said.
Lawrence was pronounced dead
on arrival at Alachua General Hospi¬
tal early the next morning.
Pierre Harris was arrested at
Gainesville police headquarters
hours after the stabbing, police said.
He came there for questioning in re¬
sponse to a request from police
detectives.
Carlton Harris was located at the
county jail Oct. 26. 1988. He had
turned himself in the day before for
unrelated warrants that included vi¬
olation of parole. Carlton Harris has
a history of 12 felony arrests, includ-
See TRIAL on page 2B
TRIAL
Continued from page IB
ing a 1981 conviction for aggravated
assault.
Police detectives said they talked
to witnesses who saw an argument
late that evening between Lawrence
and the Harris brothers. A long, fold¬
ing knife was recovered and is be¬
lieved to be the murder weapon.
The two
brothers
will be
tried
together
Police never determined the origin
of the gunshot heard by the
neighbor.
The Hams brothers will be tried
together and will be represented by
Gainesville lawyers Craig
DeThomasis and Robert Rush.
Assistant State Attorney Margaret
M. Stack will try the case before Cir¬
cuit Judge Robert P Cates. Jury se¬
lection is set to begin Tuesday
Tiorning.

She (fjatufsuillr á>im
Thursday, September 28,1989**
SPENCER WEINER
confer in court
Pierre Harris, left, and bis brolber, Carlton, far right, sit as Ibeir defense attorneys, Craig DeThomasis, Hearing glasses, and Hubert Hush,
Wednesd