The media and the courts

1. Free Press vs. Fair Trial background – sometimes conflicting rights
   1. First Amendment guarantees for a free press, and resultant free flow of information sometimes conflict with Sixth Amendment guarantees to a "fair trial." See Sixth Amendment
      1. Prejudicial pretrial publicity may make it difficult to find an "impartial jury."
      2. Excessive media attention during trial may turn process into circus, jeopardizing defendant's rights.
   2. Efforts to control trial process may infringe on several established rights.
      1. If a judge attempts to close a trial, he not only may be shutting off press, but violating accused's right to public trial.
      2. Public has legitimate public welfare interests in crime proceedings.
   3. John Marshall in 1807 ruling on Aaron Burr case set criteria for "impartial juror"
      1. One free from dominant influence of knowledge gained outside the courtroom
      2. Mind open to fair consideration of courtroom testimony
2. Free Press-Fair Trial Major Cases
   1. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) offered us the first good S. Ct. ruling on prejudicial pretrial publicity.
   2. In Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963), the court did not require defense to prove jurors had had prejudicial exposure.
      1. He talks about the murders
         
      2. His Web site
      3. June, 2010 interview with him by WWL TV in New Orleans
         
   3. In Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), a court divided 5-4almost banned all cameras from the courtroom,
   4. The most celebrated fair trial case was Sheppard v. Maxwell,384 U.S. 333 (1966) which the court used to give fair trial vs. publicity guidelines to lower courts. With the Lindbergh kidnapping case, most widely publicized trial in U.S. (NTL 6:489-497)
      
      

      Sam Sheppard family in about 1951, three years before the murder. Marilyn, "Chip" and Dr. Sheppard

      
      • Link: PBS lays out Chronology of a Murder.
      
      
   
   
   5. U.S. v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496 (1972) was one of the first cases to test the idea many judges drew from Sheppard that judges could clamp down on media to insure a fair trial. RLH2:266-267; NTL 6:503-504.
   6. Trial judges continuing to tell reporters what to omit from their stories led to confrontation in Nebraska Press Assn.v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) RLH 2:267-268.
   7. Partially because of prior restraint rhetoric in Nebraska, many judges began to close court proceedings where prejudicial info was likely to be disclosed. Gannett, Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) RLH 2:271-272 dealt with gaining access to court proceedings.
   8. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)addressed the question of whether you could close a trial.
   9. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) grappled with the question of cameras in courtroom--are they a distraction
   10. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)RLH 2:279-280 -- Press Enterprise I dealt with closed voir dire. NTL 6:525
   11. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)RLH 2:281-282 -- Press Enterprise II -- court undid damage done in DePasquale re prelim hearings. NTL 6:527