Free Press & Fair Trial

The Fugitivehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hdx4iYs7k

Sheppard v. Maxwell

What happened?

Consequences Supreme Court holds trial judges strictly responsible for ensuring that a criminal defendant’s rights are not compromised by prejudicial press publicity

“Killer” Sheppard

Estes v. TexasCourt bashes trial judge who let reporters disrupt decorum of courtroom with intrusive cameras and other recording devices

Prejudicial Crime Reporting

Past criminal behavior

Witness credibility

Defendants character

Inflame public mood

Test performances

Confessions

To what extent does publicity prejudice an

individual’s right to a fair trial?

Impact on jurorshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0

What is an impartial juror?U.S. v. Burr (1807)Murphy v. Florida (1975)Patton v. Yount (1984)

One who possesses knowledge of the case can serve on the jury as long as…

Traditional Judicial Remedies For Publicity

There are 5 Remedies.• Voir Daire• Change of Venue• Continuance• Admonition To Jury• Sequestration To Jury

Voir Dire Process by which jurors are examined to ascertain biases that might thwart objectivity

Challenges for causeJudge has discretion to uphold/deny challengeUnlimited number available to each side

Peremptory challengesJudge has no discretion to allow or disallow (though Supreme Court has recently placed limits on their use by attorneys seeking to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race or gender)Limited number (usually specified in statutes or by court rules) available to parties

ContinuanceDelay of Trial

Theory that a postponement of the trial will allow for some of the hype to die down.

In order for a continuance to take place, the defendant has to waive the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Disadvantages:• Court system is already clogged, this could make the trial go on

for even longer• The Criminal defendant could spend that added time in jail.

• There is no guarantee that once the trial resumes no harmful publicity wont spring back up.

Change of VenueA trial in a state court can be moved to any other forum of appropriate jurisdiction in that state.

A trial in federal court can be moved to any other federal court elsewhere.

Usually a limited number of federal courts sites (often just one other) located in stateMore advisable to stay as close as possible to the original venue to keep ensure the ease of getting witnesses, presenting evidence and generally keeping expenses down.Yet effectiveness of change improves heavily with distance.

Change of Venire men: Instead of relocating to another court site, jurors are simply imported from another locale.

Admonition To JuryJudge may Admonish Jury to:

Render their decision based only on what they hear as admissible evidence in courtRefrain from watching or reading reports relating to the trial for which they are impaneled

Evidence suggests that most jurors actually adhere to these admonitions.

Sequestration of jury Publicity during the trial can often be as threatening to a defendant as pretrial publicity.

Pre Trial Publicity: The extra, often times negative attention gained before a trial gets under way; that could create a biased opinion for those involved in the trial (jurors, judge).

Arguments about admissibility of evidence is usually conducted outside of jury’s hearing, but these may be reported/commented on by the pressOther inflammatory info may get reportedJudges thus have prerogative of isolating members of the jury to shield them from publicity about the case or to insulate them from other potentially harmful influences.

Sequestration ofJury CONT..

Disadvantages:CostlyMay lead to different types of prejudice- Jurors may blame one side or the other from being kept/isolated from the world.

Restrictive orders to control publicityon court cases

Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In particular, the court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.

Sheppard v. Maxwell

After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Sam Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari (a review of the case by a higher court).

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

(1976) Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.As a response to Nebraska Press, courts have resorted to drying up sources of info for the pressRestrictive orders (gag orders)

Designed to stop parties, participants (even the press) from making comments about specific aspects of case

Continued In Nebraska Press Supreme Court did not

declare anything with regard to restrictive

orders aimed only at participants

Continues to be assumed that courts have

much broader power to limit what police,

attorneys, witnesses and other participants

can say about a case out of court

The aftermath of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart

In several cases, courts have ruled that the press may legally challenge gag orders aimed only at attorneys and other trial participants because they infringe with the right to gather news (Connecticut Magazine v. Moraghan)

When press is thus given the legal standing to challenge a restrictive order on First Amendment grounds, then trial judge must justify order pursuant of Nebraska Press

Media On T.I Gun Charges Case

IF YOU HAD TO BE A JUROR IN A CASE SIMILAR TO THE STATE OF GEORGIA V. CLIFFORD HARRIS (T.I), DO YOU THINK VIEWING THE VIDEO BELOW , BEFORE TRIAL WILL AFFECT YOUR OPINION AND VOTE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE DEFENDANT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb1CAundf_0

674,423 YOUTUBE VIEWS

Closed proceedings and sealed documents

The American press proudly boasts news coverage of crime, criminals, and trials as its “top stories” Consequentially, tension between the press and

the judicial system has gotten worse.

Top 3 Reasons Why:

Mass media has expanded in recent years. Mass media promotes the broadcast of crime news as “live, local, and late-breaking.” Crime news is discussed on the radio, in newspapers, on social media sites, and has even made its way into prime-time television (ie: First 48, Law and Order)

War on Terror: the government’s response to recent terrorist acts and matters of national security has been heightened by the media’s influence.

Public’s Infatuation with Hollywood: Let’s face it: we all have invested heavy interest in the lives of celebrities, sports figures, and socialites. Publicity of high profile cases is in high demand

Here’s the issue: Judges are extremely limited when it comes to blocking the press from printing or broadcasting judicial proceedings and documentsNow government officials have begun to limit public and press access to trials, judicial proceedings, and documents….

1980: US Supreme Court says it is a right under common law and the First Amendment in the US constitution for the public and the press to attend a criminal trial.

1986: “right of access” extended to access of judicial proceedings and records.

 Publicker Industiries v. Cohen- 1984Civil proceedings are also presumptively open to the public.

Right is not absolute, but government must prove that access is beneficial. Trial must serve in important government interest, closing the trial is the ONLY way to serve that interest

Press Enterprise vs. Riverside Superior CourtPress-Enterprise Company won two separate Supreme Court cases that established the public’s right to witness specific aspects of criminal court proceedings

First case, won in 1984 Press-Enterprise Co vs. Superior Court of CaliforniaSecond case, won in 1986

Press-Enterprise Co. vs. Superior Court of Riverside County, California

Does a qualified First Amendment right of public access attach to a preliminary hearing, and under what conditions may the hearing be closed to the public while ensuring a fair balancing of First Amendment and Sixth Amendment guarantees?

Press Enterprise v. Riverside Superior Court (1986) Test

Five-prong elements of testParty seeking closure must advance an overriding interest (e.g. right to a fair trial or protection of a witness) that is likely to be harmed if proceeding is openParty seeking closure must demonstrate “substantial probability” this interest will be harmed by opennessTrial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closure (voir dire, limited closure during specific testimony)If judge decides on closure it must be narrowly tailored to restrict no more access than is absolutely necessaryTrial court must make adequate findings to support closure decision (provides basis for appellate review)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63hdx4iYs7khttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb1CAundf_0