Final Exam Flashcards
Pell v. Procunier
- no special access rights for press to interview inmates
- Press has no more rights than public
- First Amendment doesn’t require the government to make sources available to the press that are usually unavailable to the public
Houchins v. KQED
- Press has the right to gather info from sources by legal means, but the First Amendment does not require sources to provide information
Any rights through 6th Amendment?
The 6th Amendment calls for a “speedy and public trial” but this is the right of the defendant, not a third party like the press.
Irvin v. Dowd
- first decision reversal on grounds of prejudicial publicity
- Media coverage made public and jury biased against defendant (Irvin) before trial began
- Supreme Court overturned murder conviction because Irvin didn’t receive a fair trial
Shepard v. Maxwell Alternatives
- isolating witness
- controlling courtroom
- controlling release of info to cops, witness, lawyers
- Continuance
- Changing venue
- Sequestering jury
- Declaring mistrial
Courtroom access promised by First Amendment
Press and public have access to criminal trials under First Amendment
Richmond Test
Openness is not absolute but can only be limited if:
- A judge makes specific findings, justified by evidence, to support closure
- Overriding interest justifying closure
- No alternatives exist
- Closure is no broader than necessary
Globe v. Superior Court
- Even in the case of a trial concerning the rape of a minor, across-the-board closure is not necessary.
- Judge should look to alternatives and apply one of them instead, or at least only close a specific portion of the trial.
Press Enterprise I
- Decided the Voir Dire (jury selection) is a part of the trial and therefore subject to the Richmond test
- If 6th Amendment is the reason for Voir Dire closure, the judge must demonstrate a “substantial probability” of prejudicial publicity instead of just a “reasonable likelihood.”
Press Enterprise II
Decided that pre-trial hearings are considered part of the trial and therefore subject to the Richmond Test
Estes v. Texas
Estes appealed his conviction because he thought television cameras prevented him from having a fair trial; Supreme Court agreed
Current policy on cameras in the courtroom
- Technology has improved since Estes v. Texas, so cameras aren’t as invasive or rare and therefore not banned
- First Amendment does not protect use of cameras in courtroom
- on a state-by-state basis, judges have the right to allow or prohibit cameras from their courtrooms
Bagley-Keene Act
Allows public to attend any meeting held by a state body
- state boards, commissions, etc
- must post notice of meetings at least 10 days before they are held
Brown Act
Allows public to attend any meeting held by legislature of local agency
- cities, counties, school districts, municipal corporations, etc.
- agendas must be made readily available at least 72 hours before meeting
- Requires agendas to be mailed to anyone who requests them
Executive session
When government bodies can meet in private to discuss any of 13 issues, including:
- license renewal, pension funds, employee health insurance, pending litigation, worker’s comp, public security, and real estate negotiations
California Open Records Statute
- Covers all state and local agencies
- covers records, which include all communications related to public business regardless of format
- Access is immediate and allowed during all business hours
- Agency must provide assistance to obtaining records
- Agency has 10 days to decide if copies will be provided
- Agency may never make electronic forms only type available
- Access must be free with the possible exception of duplication cost
- Withholding of any record must be justified by agency
Cohen v. Cowels
Cowels media company found liable for promissory estoppel because Cohen provided info under promise that his identity would remain anonymous
Promissory Estoppel
- allows courts to enforce promises that don’t have legally-binding contracts to avoid injustice
- Requirements:
• defendant made clear and definite promise
• defendant intended to induce the plaintiff’s reliance on the promise
• plaintiff reasonably relied on the promise to his or her detriment
• Promise must be enforced in the interest of justice to the plaintiff
Branzburg v. Hayes
- Significance: there is no first amendment right for journalists to withhold confidential information from grand juries
California Shield Law
- Protects people from gathering news for dissemination to the public, regardless of publication form
- Covers unpublished info, whether obtained in confidentiality or not, as well as source identities (or info that may lead to identities), whether confidential or not
O’Grady v. Superior Court
- Journalist Jason O’Grady was subpoenaed to reveal identity of a source that Apple was suing
- shield law protected O’Grady from revealing his source
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
- Stanford Daily was searched via warrant for photos but claimed that it should have been subpoenaed instead
- court ruled against Stanford
- Privacy Protection Act of 1980 passed in response
Privacy Protection Act of 1980
It it unlawful for government to search or seize material that is possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate it to the public
Federal Constitutional Reports Privilege
- First Amendment provides news gatherers with a qualified privilege against disclosure of confidential info
- Five factors considered:
• whether reporter is a party to the litigation
• importance of the info to the case
• if other sources to the info are available
• importance of protecting confidentiality
• strength of the case of the party seeking disclosure
