Upload
dan-kennedy
View
6.542
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
To accompany lecture on Sheppard v. Maxwell, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, and related cases on the clash between First and Sixth Amendment rights.
Citation preview
Free press, fair trial
When constitutional rightscome into conflict
First Amendment• “Congress shall make no law … abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
First Amendment• “Congress shall make no law … abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
Sixth Amendment• “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”
Questions
• Is the First Amendment more important than the Sixth?
Questions
• Is the First Amendment more important than the Sixth?
• Is the Sixth Amendment more important than the First?
Questions
• Is the First Amendment more important than the Sixth?
• Is the Sixth Amendment more important than the First?
• How might these rights come into conflict?
Prior restraint
• Unconstitutional in nearly all cases– The Near v. Minnesota exceptions:
• National security• Obscenity• Incitement to violence, or “fighting words”
Prior restraint
• Unconstitutional in nearly all cases• But denying someone a fair trial is also
unconstitutional
Prior restraint
• Unconstitutional in nearly all cases• But denying someone a fair trial is also
unconstitutional• When interests collide, courts muddle
through on a case-by-case basis
“Lindbergh baby” case
• Lindbergh a national hero
• Hauptmann convicted after massive pretrial publicity
• Death penalty eliminated for kidnapping
Bruno Richard Hauptmann
Sam Sheppard case
• Illustrated the harm of pretrial publicity
• Led to a backlash against the media
• InspiredThe Fugitive
The Sheppards
The crime scene
Public inquest
Sheppard found guilty
• Judge Blythin (right) up for re-election
• Press allowed the run of the courtroom
• Sheppard sentenced to life in prison
Sheppard’s appeals
• Turned down by Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court (1954 and ’55)
• U.S. Supreme Court denies cert (1955)• Released on a writ of habeas corpus (1964)• Conviction overturned by U.S. Supreme Court
(Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966)• Acquitted in second trial (1966)
Sheppard’s sad end
• Became a professional wrestler
• Died in 1970• Who was the real
killer?
Backlash against media• Earl Warren (left) writes
that Oswald could not have received a fair trial
• Gag orders and other restrictions on the media become increasingly common
• Where is the balance of interests?
Nebraska Press Associationv. Stuart (1976)
• The Burger Court limits the use of gag orders
• For all practical purposes, gag orders are ruled unconstitutional
Conditions for gag orders
• Pre-trial publicity would be extensive and pervasive
Conditions for gag orders
• Pre-trial publicity would be extensive and pervasive
• No alternative measures would offset the effects of the publicity
Conditions for gag orders
• Pre-trial publicity would be extensive and pervasive
• No alternative measures would offset the effects of the publicity
• A gag order would succeed in protecting the right to a fair trial
Alternative measures
• What are they?
Alternative measures
• Continuance– Postpone trial until media frenzy blows over
Alternative measures
• Continuance• Change of venue
– Move trial to a place where the crime is not so notorious
Alternative measures
• Continuance• Change of venue• Intensive voir dire
– Question prospective jurors as to whether they can remain fair and impartial
Alternative measures
• Continuance• Change of venue• Intensive voir dire• Jury admonitions
– Remind jurors not to follow coverage in the media or to discuss the case
Alternative measures
• Continuance• Change of venue• Intensive voir dire• Jury admonitions• Sequestration
– Most extreme, generally (and rarely) used only for deliberations
The People v. Bryant (2004)
• Alleged victim’s sexual history is accidentally released to the media
The People v. Bryant (2004)
• Alleged victim’s sexual history is accidentally released to the media
• Justice Hobbs: Media should be forbidden to use it under Colorado’s rape shield law
The People v. Bryant (2004)
• Alleged victim’s sexual history is accidentally released to the media
• Justice Hobbs: Media should be forbidden to use it under Colorado’s rape shield law
• Justice Bender: That violates the First Amendment
The People v. Bryant (2004)
• Alleged victim’s sexual history is accidentally released to the media
• Justice Hobbs: Media should be forbidden to use it under Colorado’s rape shield law
• Justice Bender: That violates the First Amendment
• What do you think?
Press-Enterprise II (1986)
• Press Enterprise I was about jury selection
Press-Enterprise II (1986)
• Press Enterprise I was about jury selection• This case is about pre-trial hearings• Burger writes for the majority
– If it looks like a trial, then it should be treated like a trial and be open to the public
Press-Enterprise II (1986)
• Press Enterprise I was about jury selection• This case is about pre-trial hearings• Burger writes for the majority
– If it looks like a trial, then it should be treated like a trial and be open to the public
– Grand-jury proceedings would be secret because secrecy is their very purpose
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
• Nothing inherently unconstitutional about the presence of television cameras in court
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
• Nothing inherently unconstitutional about the presence of television cameras in court
• Television journalists do not have a right to be in the courtroom
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
• Nothing inherently unconstitutional about the presence of television cameras in court
• Television journalists do not have a right to be in the courtroom
• Same situation as today
Chandler v. Florida (1981)
• Nothing inherently unconstitutional about the presence of television cameras in court
• Television journalists do not have a right to be in the courtroom
• Same situation as today• What do you think?
Other cases in brief
• Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980)– Murder trial closed after first three ended in
mistrial– Justice Burger: Right to attend criminal trials
“implicit” in the First Amendment– Trial can be closed only if there is a specific
finding that it is necessary
Other cases in brief
• Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
• Press-Enterprise I (1984)– Jury selection must be open to public in most
cases– Exceptions
• “Substantial probability” that defendant’s right to a fair trial would be harmed
• No reasonable alternative
Other cases in brief
• Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
• Press-Enterprise I (1984)• California First Amendment Coalition v.
Woodford (2002)– All parts of an execution must be visible to the
media, not just parts of it– Attempts to close parts an “exaggerated
response” to security concerns