Cameras banned at sentencing of Harberts tragedy

Despite a Supreme Court ruling allowing cameras in Minnesota courtrooms for certain court proceedings, a Dodge County judge is not allowing cameras for the upcoming sentencing of a man who killed a school teacher and her daughter in a distracted driving crash.
Judge Jodi Williamson has ruled that media organizations will not be permitted to record or photograph during the Nov. 6 sentencing for Tanner Kruckeberg of Dodge Center.
Kruckeberg pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide in early September for causing the 2018 crash that killed Rachel Harberts and her daughter, Emerson, on U.S. Highway 14 on the edge of Claremont. Harberts’ son, Jaxon, was critically injured in the crash. As part of a plea deal reached, Kruckeberg would avoid prison time and serve 30 days jail time around the anniversary of the crash for five years and 10 years probation. However, the judge has final say on the sentence and could reject the terms of the plea deal.
The request for cameras at the sentencing was brought forth by several media organizations in Minnesota, including the Dodge County Independent. This comes after the Minnesota Supreme Court last year made a permanent ruling in a three-year pilot program that allows district court proceedings, including sentencings, to be recorded or photographed.
Under the program, cameras and audio can be used without consent of the involved parties after guilty pleas have been entered or guilty verdicts returned. The requests must be approved by the presiding judge.
In her ruling filed last week in Dodge County District Court, Williamson wrote there is good cause to bar audio and/or visual coverage of the sentencing hearing. “The physical facilities and, most importantly, the dignity of the proceedings each work to provide separate and independent bases for good cause,” the judge said.
Williamson’s order points out that the courtroom is quite small with general seating for 23-25 people. The state and defense anticipate up to 20 people will attend the sentencing hearing. This does not include the general public that may wish to attend.
“To add the burden of a press crew, even if pooled, would stretch the facilities beyond their limits and may hinder the ability of persons with a personal or emotional interest in the hearing to be present,” said Williamson.
The judge also mentioned that the jury box is small and narrow. “To place two cameras, one for audio/still photography and visual coverage in the jury box would simply not work,” Williamson said. “A jury box is a sacred place in a courtroom and placement of cameras in the jury box is undignified.”
Another reason given by the judge for her denial is the dignity of the proceedings would be “severely harmed and trivialized by audio and/or visual coverage.” Williamson said the victims in this case are entitled to their privacy. She also said the families and friends who may choose to be present in support of Kruckeberg are similarly entitled to their privacy.
“There is absolutely no reason that the faces or words of any person attending the hearing or providing a statement at this moment of heartbreak should be permanently recorded,” Williamson said. “The very idea of broadcasting the grief and sorrow wrought by this case is abhorrently ghoulish.”
Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the DCI and other media outlets in Minnesota, said Williamson’s order seems to be based on arguments that are self-contradictory and unpersuasive, in addition to minimizing the presumption of access for cameras that’s been explicitly adopted by the Supreme Court.
“If indeed the courtroom is too small to accommodate everyone who may have an interest in the sentencing hearing, that would seem to support audio-video access by the news media, so more people can see what happens,” Anfinson said.
Much more important, Anfinson argues, is the fact that by providing coverage of the sentencing and the impact of the tragedy on so many people, maybe future cases of distracted driving will be deterred.
“It really perplexes me that Judge Williamson (and others) don’t seem to consider this,” Anfinson said.
Williamson was one of 20 people who served on the advisory committee that made recommendations about cameras in the courtroom to the Supreme Court.