Chapter 10: Special Problems of a Free Press Flashcards
Sixth Amendment
The right to a fair trial:
- speedy
- public
- impartial jury
- of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
Irvin v. Dowd
Facts: Irvin is arrested, charged with 6 murders, and labeled the “mad dog killer” by the press. A judge moves his trial to the adjacent county and Irvin is convicted.
Decision: SCOTUS calls for a new trial because the jury was clearly swayed by the media coverage. Irvin is convicted again.
Significance: Marks the first time that SCOTUS recognized prejudicial publicity as a potential violation of a defendant’s 6th amendment rights
Sheppard v. Maxwell
Facts: After his wife is killed, the press begins to accuse Sheppard of her murder. The police arrest him. Sheppard is denied a change of venue and continuance. Sheppard is convicted.
Decision: SCOTUS says that prejudicial publicity violated Sheppard’s 6th amendment rights and orders a new trial. Sheppard is acquitted.
Significance: Demonstrates that jury partiality can alter a trial’s outcome
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart
Facts: In an attempt to prevent a biased jury pool, a judge issues a gag/protective order against the press, which bars reporters who attended a preliminary hearing from publishing accounts of what transpired.
Decision: SCOTUS rules that the gag order is unconstitutional citing the “heavy presumption” against prior restraints established in the Pentagon Papers case
Significance: Any gag/protective order against the press that aims to protect the defendant’s 6th amendment rights is unlikely to hold up in court
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
Facts: Gentile is reprimanded by the state bar, which prohibits lawyers from making extrajudicial statements that could impact the outcome of the trial, for holding a press conference, insisting on his client’s innocence, and placing the blame on cops.
Decision: SCOTUS reverses the reprimand because the Nevada rule is too vague
Significance: SCOTUS asserts that rules against prejudicial remarks by participants would not necessarily be unconstitutional
5 Alternatives to Gag/Protective Orders
- Continuance: postponing the trail to let media coverage die down
- Change of venue: can be moved to a new county in state cases or a new state in federal cases (very expensive)
- Voir dire: the process of questioning and dismissing jury members based on potential bias
- Jury Admonition: instructing the jury not to research or discuss the case
- Sequestration: limiting or preventing the jury’s contact with the outside world
Gannett v. DePasquale
Facts: A judge orders that a hearing to discuss an accused murderer’s previous confession should be closed to the public
Decision: SCOTUS upholds the decision arguing that the defendant can waive their right to a public trial
Significance: Creates a precedent that leads to judges closing both pretrial hearings and trials
Richmond Newspaper v. Virginia
Facts: After 4 mistrials in a murder case, the judge closes the trial to the public to prevent a 5th
Decision: SCOTUS overturns the order
Significance: SCOTUS grants the press a qualified first amendment right to attend trials (not pretrial hearings)
Press Enterprises v. Superior Court (1)
Facts: A judge orders the jury selection in a rape case to be closed to the public
Decision: SCOTUS overturns the order
Significance: SCOTUS rules that pre-trial hearings cannot be closed randomly, there must be an overwhelming interest (begins to unravel DePasquale)
Press Enterprises v. Superior Court (2)
Facts: a judge closes access to a preliminary hearing in a murder case
Decision: SCOTUS overturns the order
Significance: SCOTUS asserts that MOST pretrial cases should be open to the public. DePasquale is officially overturned and pretrial hearings are now held to the same standard as trials.
The Hauptmann Trial
Facts: The Lindbergh baby is kidnapped and murdered. The case becomes a huge media sensation and many cameras are present at the trial.
Decision: Hauptman is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death.
Significance: The case leads the American Bar Association to adopt Cannon 35
Cannon 35
Discourages photography and broadcasting in the court room
Estes v. Texas
Facts: Estes is indicted for a fraudulent ammonia tank scheme. His trial receives massive broadcast press coverage. Estes is convicted but appeals on the grounds that the courtroom cameras violated his 14th amendment right to due process
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Estes and grants him a new trial. Estes is convicted again
Significance: asserts that cameras in the courtroom can strip the accused of a fair trial. Stipulates that future technology may change this precedent
Chandler v. Florida
Facts: 20 years after Estes, Chandler’s burglary trial was televised under a Florida law that allowed judges to permit cameras in the courtroom. Chandler was found guilty.
Decision: SCOTUS rules in favor of Florida using a federalism argument
Significance: gives states the right to choose whether their courtrooms are open to cameras. 48 states now permit them, but federal courts remain closed.
“Deep Throat” Example
“Deep Throat” was the confidential source that leaked information about the watergate scandal.
Used to demonstrate the importance of reporter privilege and source confidentiality.
