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