Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 24, 1991 TAG: 9103240050
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO LENGTH: Medium
In its federal civil lawsuit, publicly supported TV station KQED argues that the public has a right to see the death penalty meted out.
"Why is it that the ultimate act of criminal justice should suddenly be taken behind closed doors? This is being done in our name on our behalf and with our money, and therefore we would argue that we have a right to see it," said Michael Schwarz, current affairs director for the San Francisco station.
The state attorney general's office, however, says reporters don't have any specific legal right to witness executions and could pose security problems with their electronic equipment. For example, lawyers say, a camera could inadvertently show a guard or witness whose identity was supposed to be confidential.
California has not executed a prisoner since 1967, although voters approved reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978.
San Quentin Prison Warden Daniel Vasquez recently banned all reporters from witnessing executions, saying he doesn't want to relinquish control to the court.
"He felt that with the present action with the lawsuit with KQED that the federal courts were forcing the warden to elect between forfeiting or retaining control," said Vasquez' spokesman, Vernell Crittendon.
But KQED maintained it would press ahead with its suit. "The real issues [are] balancing the needs of the press for access against the needs for security," Schwarz said.
State law mandates that executions be witnessed by the prison warden, the attorney general, two doctors, correctional staff members and witnesses selected by the warden and the inmate, Crittendon said.
Schwarz said the ban on reporters and a previous policy declaring that names of public witnesses won't be released make the proceeding secret.
KQED's suit, filed last May, challenged state policy forbidding use of recording devices and cameras to cover the execution and also alleged that the process of selecting media witnesses was unfair.
"The central issue here is who decides how a news event gets covered," Schwarz said. "The current process is completely arbitrary."
In their legal arguments during a November hearing, both sides avoided the possible effect of taking public executions into Californians' living rooms.
"The state seems to fear that broadcasting an execution would undermine support for an execution, but I think to try and predict the effect on public opinion of broadcasting is purely speculative," Schwarz said.
by CNB