Issues in Newsgathering: Court Cases

Question 1

What is the background behind Gannett v. DePasquale

Answer 1

Two suspects charged with murder, robbery, and grand larceny requested that the public be excluded from a pre-trial hearing concerning the admissibility of evidence. They argued that an “unabated buildup” of adverse publicity had jeopardized their ability to receive a fair trial. The request was granted by the judge, and no objections were made at the time. The judge then denied press access to the pre-trial hearing and refused to immediately release the transcript of the proceedings. The case was argued and decided with Marshall, Secretary of Labor v. American Petroleum Institute et al.

Question 2

What was the issue behind Gannett v. DePasquale

Answer 2

Did the press and members of the public have a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to attend the trial?

Question 3

What was the ruling of Gannett v. DePasquale

Answer 3

Decision: 5 votes for DePasquale, 4 vote(s) against The Court held that members of the public had no right to attend criminal trials under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court noted that judges had “an affirmative constitutional duty” to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity, and that closure of pretrial proceedings was an effective method to do so. The Court found that the Sixth Amendment, while granting defendants the right to a public trial, did not imply a public right of access to trials. The Court added that since the suppression of the transcript was only temporary, no violation of the First Amendment had occurred.

Question 4

What is the background behind Richmond Newspapers v. Va

Answer 4

After a series of mistrials in a murder case in the state of Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media. Defense counsel brought the closure motion; the prosecution did not object. Two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge’s action.

Question 5

What was the issue behind Richmond Newspapers v. Va

Answer 5

Did the closure of the trial to the press and public violate the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment?

Question 6

What was the ruling of Richmond Newspapers v. Va

Answer 6

Decision: 7 votes for Richmond Newspapers Inc., 1 vote(s) against In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was “implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment.” The Court held that the First Amendment encompassed not only the right to speak but also the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also noted that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses. The Court emphasized that “certain unarticulated rights” were implicit in enumerated guarantees and were often “indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined.

Question 7

What is the background behind Branzburg v. Hayes

Answer 7

After observing and interviewing a number of people synthesizing and using drugs in a two-county area in Kentucky, Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story which appeared in a Louisville newspaper. On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources. Similarly, in the companion cases of In re Pappas and United States v. Caldwell, two different reporters, each covering activity within the Black Panther organization, were called to testify before grand juries and reveal trusted information. Like Branzburg, both Pappas and Caldwell refused to appear before their respective grand juries.

Question 8

What was the issue behind Branzburg v. Hayes

Answer 8

Is the requirement that news reporters appear and testify before state or federal grand juries an abridgement of the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Question 9

What was the ruling of Branzburg v. Hayes

Answer 9

Decision: 5 votes for Hayes, 4 vote(s) against No. The Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a “compelling” and “paramount” state interest and did not violate the First Amendment. Justice White argued that since the case involved no government intervention to impose prior restraint, and no command to publish sources or to disclose them indiscriminately, there was no Constitutional violation. The fact that reporters receive information from sources in confidence does not privilege them to withhold that information during a government investigation; the average citizen is often forced to disclose information received in confidence when summoned to testify in court.

Question 10

What is the background behind Sheppard v. Maxwell

Answer 10

After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Question 11

What was the issue behind Sheppard v. Maxwell

Answer 11

What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant’s Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial?

Question 12

What was the ruling of Sheppard v. Maxwell

Answer 12

Decision: 8 votes for Sheppard, 1 vote(s) against In an 8-to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The Cleveland television media’s repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in detail to crimes he was later charged with, the blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland’s radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jurors’ minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue.

Question 13

What is the background behind Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart

Answer 13

A Nebraska state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, entered an order restraining members of the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions made by the accused to the police. The judge felt that this measure was necessary to guarantee a fair trial to the accused.

Question 14

What was the issue behind Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart

Answer 14

Did the judge’s order violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Question 15

What was the ruling of Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart

Answer 15

Decision: 9 votes for Nebraska Press Assoc., 0 vote(s) against Yes. The Court agreed with the trial judge that the murder case would generate “intense and pervasive pretrial publicity.” However, the unanimous court held that the practical problems associated with implementing a prior restraint on the press in this case would not have served the accused’s rights. Chief Justice Burger reasoned that”a whole community cannot be restrained from discussing a subject intimately affecting life within it.”

Question 16

What is the background behind Chandler v. Florida

Answer 16

Two Miami Beach police officers were charged with burglarizing a local restaurant. Their trial gained much media attention. Local television stations televised a small portion of the trial, thanks to a recent Florida Supreme Court decision which permitted (with certain restrictions) electronic media to record judicial proceedings. Officers Chandler and Granger objected to the coverage and were found guilty as charged.

Question 17

What was the issue behind Chandler v. Florida

Answer 17

Does allowing radio, television, and still photographic coverage of a criminal trial for public broadcast violate the accused’s right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Question 18

What was the ruling of Chandler v. Florida

Answer 18

Decision: 8 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against The Court found no constitutional violation in this case. Chief Justice Burger first denied Chandler’s and Granger’s claim that the Court’s holding in Estes v. Texas (1964) regarded television cameras in the courtroom as offensive to due process. State experimentation with “evolving technology” in the courtroom, as long as it does not infringe on “fundamental guarantees” of the accused, is consistent with the Constitution. Furthermore, Florida’s policy was implemented with strict guidelines intended to protect the right of a defendant to a fair trial. For example, the state required its courts to protect certain witnesses from the “glare of publicity” and to hear and consider arguments from a defendant who feels that electronic coverage may bias the jury.

Question 19

What is the background behind Saxbe v. Washington Post

Answer 19

The Policy Statement of the Federal Bureau of Prisons prohibiting personal interviews between newsmen and individually designated inmates of federal medium security and maximum security prisons does not abridge the freedom of the press that the First Amendment guarantees, Pell v. Procunier, ante, p. 817, since it “does not deny the press access to sources of information available to members of the general public,” but is merely a particularized application of the general rule that nobody may enter the prison and designate an inmate whom he would like to visit, unless the prospective visitor is a lawyer, clergyman, relative, or friend of that inmate.

Question 20

What was the issue behind Saxbe v. Washington Post

Answer 20

Can press officials interview inmates?

Question 21

What was the ruling of Saxbe v. Washington Post

Answer 21

Decision: Five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court allowed Federal and California prison officials to ban all press interviews with specific individual inmates. Writing for the majority, Justice Potter Stewart ruled that because the members of the general public were not entitled to speak to specific inmates, neither could members of the press, citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) for the proposition that journalists have no rights greater than the general public. He stressed that journalists were accorded substantial access in other ways to both the federal and California prisons to report on conditions. The Court also relied on representations by prison officials that press attention might be concentrated on certain individuals. These inmates thereby became ‘‘big wheels,’’ acquiring great influence among prisoners and creating serious security problems.

Question 22

What is the background behind Houchins v. KQED

Answer 22

KQED Inc., owner of a number of licensed television and radio broadcasting stations, requested permission to inspect and take pictures of the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita. KQED sought to investigate a recent suicide that had occurred at the facility. Houchins, the Sheriff of Alameda County, denied access to the media

Question 23

What was the issue behind Houchins v. KQED

Answer 23

Did the First Amendment guarantee news media a right of access to jails over and above that of other persons?

Question 24

What was the ruling of Houchins v. KQED

Answer 24

Decision: 4 votes for Houchins, 3 vote(s) against No. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court held that the First Amendment granted no special right of access to the press to government- controlled sources of information. The Court reasoned that the importance of acceptable prison conditions and the media’s role of providing information afforded “no basis for reading into the Constitution a right of the public or the media to enter these institutions. . .and take moving and still pictures of inmates for broadcast purposes.”

Question 25

What is the background behind Brown v. Commonwealth

Answer 25

Defendant convicted by jury of theft by deception. Defendant was accused of owning a car shop that made unnecessary repairs on cars and charged customers accordingly. The state police set up an undercover operation where the car submitted to the shop had a transmission is that only required turning a screw three times to the right in order to repair. Defendant told the undercover agents that transmission bands were overtightened and the entire transmission would need to be taken apart before knowing the extent of damage. Defendant then stated that it would cost hundred to repair or replace the transmission. Agents paid for the repair. It was revealed that the transmission had actually been replaced by the mechanics, not repaired as had been ordered.

Question 26

What was the issue behind Brown v. Commonwealth

Answer 26

Whether conviction for theft by deception can be sustained where there is no element of reliance on the misrepresentation provided by the defendant.

Question 27

What was the ruling of Brown v. Commonwealth

Answer 27

No. The relevant statute is silent on the issue of reliance. However, the court holds that reliance on the misrepresentation is an essential element. However, in this case the defendant made multiple misrepresentations. The first was that the transmission was defective. The detective did not rely on this misrepresentation. The second is that he would repair the transmission, not replace it. This misrepresentation was relied on by the detective. Because of this, conviction is affirmed, as the defendant replaced the transmission with a used transmission, but did not reveal to the officer that he would do so or did in fact replace.

Question 28

What is the background behind Wilson v. Layne

Answer 28

Armed Deputy United States Marshals and Montgomery County Police Officers in possession of arrest warrants entered a private dwelling in order to effectuate the arrest of suspect Dominic Wilson. As part of a media ride-along program, a Washington Post photographer and reporter were present in the home. Unbeknownst to the officers, the home was that of the suspect’s parents, and the suspect was not present. The attempted arrest was conducted in the early morning hours. The suspect’s parents (petitioners) were roused from bed in their nightclothes. The suspect’s father was physically restrained. The officers departed when they realized they had the wrong home. Petitioners sued the officers under Bivens and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for summary judgment which was based on a claim of qualified immunity. An interlocutory appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where the en banc court ultimately upheld the defense of qualified immunity, refusing to reach the Fourth Amendment issue.

Question 29

What was the issue behind Wilson v. Layne

Answer 29

Does the State violate the Fourth Amendment by allowing media representatives to accompany police officers during the execution of search and arrest warrants in private homes?

Question 30

What was the ruling of Wilson v. Layne

Answer 30

It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for law enforcement officers to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the third parties in the home is not in aid of the execution of the warrant. Since this Fourth Amendment violation was not clearly established in 1992, the officers who executed the warrant were entitled to qualified immunity. Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Court on the Fourth Amendment issue, based his decision on the primacy of common law and Fourth Amendment respect for the privacy of the home. “In 1604, an English court made the now famous observation that ‘the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.’ . . . William Blackstone noted that ‘the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with impunity.’ . . . The Fourth Amendment embodies this centuries-old principal of respect for the privacy of the home.” Rehnquist noted that the officers had an arrest warrant and “were undoubtedly entitled to enter the Wilson home in order to execute the arrest warrant for Dominic Wilson.” It was important to the Court that the presence of reporters was not related to the “objectives of the authorized intrusion.” The reporters did not aid in the execution of the warrant or assist the law enforcement officers in any way. The media presence had nothing to do with the arrest of Dominic Wilson, which was the sole reason the police were in the house. The Court was careful to note that where third parties can aid in the execution of a warrant, their presence inside the home does not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. It gave as an example the case of someone who officers need in order to identify property to be seized. The Court rejected a number of justifications for the policy of allowing the media to accompany officers in the execution of warrants, most of which were based on alleged benefits to the public and the public’s right to know. To the Court, these claims ignored “the importance of the right of residential privacy at the core of the Fourth Amendment.” Rehnquist noted in footnote two that the presence of the media constituted the Fourth Amendment violation, not the presence of the officers who were rightfully in the home. “We have no occasion here to decide whether the exclusionary rule would apply to any evidence discovered or developed by the media representatives.” This suggests that had the police themselves discovered evidence of a crime and charged the suspect’s parents, no challenge to admissibility of the evidence would have lied.