MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota will soon see cameras in the courtroom — on a trial basis.

The state Supreme Court has ordered that a pilot program be set up to give electronic media access to court proceedings, with a judge’s approval. The order issued Feb. 12 directs an advisory committee to work with news-media groups to design the pilot project, which will include a study on how televised proceedings affect victims and witnesses.

“This pilot project will provide the court with additional information important to any final decision it might make regarding the presence or absence of cameras in the courtroom on a statewide basis,” the judges wrote.

“Most states allow cameras in the courtroom, and the evidence seems clear that cameras themselves do not impact the actual in-court proceedings,” the judges wrote, but added they were still concerned about the potential effect on victims and witnesses.

The order said the rules for the pilot project shall include recommendations that have already been submitted to the court, including: that a judge has the authority to grant electronic access, and that there be no audio or video coverage of jurors, or of witnesses who object.

The order also said that because of budget constraints, the judicial branch won’t fund the project or the accompanying study.

The group has until January to give its full recommendations to the Supreme Court. A timeline for the pilot project itself wasn’t outlined.

“The message is very clear, in reading that opinion, that cameras are coming into Minnesota courtrooms,” said Rick Kupchella, an anchor and reporter at KARE-TV and past president of the Society of Professional Journalists — one of the media groups that has petitioned for electronic access.

“We hope that by beginning to get our feet in the door here, we can establish that the existence of cameras is not an inherent jeopardy to people in their right to a fair trial,” he said.

At least 35 other states have looser restrictions on electronic coverage of courtroom trials than Minnesota. The state’s current judicial rules bar television cameras in district courts unless the judge, prosecution and defense all sign off — something that has seldom happened since the rule was enacted in 1983.

The new recommendations would put the decision in the hands of the judge alone.

“That’s a big deal from our perspective,” Kupchella said.

The issue of electronic media access has been bubbling in Minnesota for decades, with opponents arguing that television cameras could add stress for victims or witnesses, influence whether defendants plea or go to trial and could change the behavior of attorneys and judges. Opponents also fear that defendants wouldn’t get a fair trial.

Media outlets that are seeking the access have spent nearly two years arguing that the cameras would add transparency to the system and help educate the public about the judicial process.

Mark Anfinson, an attorney for the media groups who brought the petition before the Supreme Court, called the Feb. 12 ruling a breakthrough. He said that once the pilot project was completed, the justices would be able to make their final decision based on evidence and experience, instead of speculation.

Still, Kupchella said the order raised a few concerns.

Among them, he said, the order requires a study, but the judicial branch won’t pay for it. At this point, it’s unclear how the study would be conducted or funded. Kupchella said there would be no public cost to allowing electronic access itself — that cost would be absorbed by news-media outlets covering a case.

Jim Backstrom, the Dakota County attorney, has previously spoken against cameras in courtrooms. He said Feb. 12 that prosecutors were concerned about the impact cameras could have on victims and witnesses.

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court recognized those concerns,” he said, referring to the study ordered by the court. “We continue to oppose cameras under any circumstance.”

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page opposed the pilot program, saying cameras in the courtroom would “do nothing to assist in the elimination of racial bias from our judicial system and will, in fact, exacerbate the problem.”

Cameras are currently being allowed in one high profile case: the ongoing trial in the unresolved U.S. Senate race. There, the three-judge panel allowed electronic media coverage, and the attorneys for both Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman agreed.

In the Senate case, the judges have allowed one TV camera, one still photographer and one audio recorder in the proceedings, and participating news outlets are sharing their material with colleagues. Similar arrangements are recommended for the pilot project.