Trial Ordered Over Right to Televise Executions : Law: A judge says needs of media and security must be weighed. A station sued when denied this year.

A federal judge Friday refused to throw out a lawsuit seeking an unprecedented court order that would permit an execution to be televised by a San Francisco television station.

U.S. District Judge Robert H. Schnacke rejected a bid by state authorities to dismiss the suit, saying there must be “appropriate balancing” between concerns over security and privacy surrounding an execution and the rights of a free press. A non-jury trial on the issue was set for March 25.

The ruling represented a victory for publicly funded station KQED, which earlier this year was denied permission to televise the scheduled April 3 execution of convicted killer Robert Alton Harris at San Quentin State Prison. The execution was blocked and Harris’ case remains pending in a federal appeals court.

“We’re very much pleased,” said William Bennett Turner, an attorney for the station. “This is a big step forward for the First Amendment.”

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Karl Mayer defended the ban on cameras at executions, citing concerns by prison authorities over protecting the identities of correctional staff members, inmates’ relatives or other witnesses who might later be subject to harassment or threats.

Examining camera equipment used to film the execution would add to the security burdens of authorities who also would have to screen about 250 news media employees who would be permitted on the prison grounds but would not witness the execution. “That is a tremendous strain on limited resources,” Mayer told reporters after the hearing.

KQED brought suit against Warden Daniel Vasquez and other state officials, challenging a prison policy barring reporters who are chosen to witness an execution from using cameras, recording equipment, sketch pads or paper, pens and pencils.

It also opposed a “standard-less” and perhaps politically tinged witness selection plan in which a list of news organizations chosen at random by corrections officials was allegedly reviewed--and revised--by the office of Gov. George Deukmejian.

In briefs to the court, attorney Turner argued that with modern technology, a camera could record an execution unobtrusively and that the public had a right to view the event as the “ultimate sanction” of the criminal justice system. It was not up to officials to decide whether televising an execution is in “good taste,” Turner said.

The suit also questioned whether televised executions were being prohibited because of concern they would arouse public opposition to the death penalty.

In reply, Mayer asked the court to uphold the ban on cameras and other equipment, contending that there was no constitutional right to televise an execution, just as there is no constitutional right to bring cameras into a federal or state courtroom.

Both sides in the dispute asked Schnacke to rule summarily--without a trial--in their favor on the issues. But on Friday the judge declined to do so, finding the question should be resolved at a trial.

Schnacke noted that the case presented the “needs of the media” on one side and the “need for security and other considerations” on the other. “We have to look for an appropriate balancing to accommodate the needs of both,” he said.