3. Sheppard v. Maxwell
What happened?
Consequences
Supreme Court holds trial judges strictly responsible
for ensuring that a criminal defendant’s rights are not
compromised by prejudicial press publicity
5. Estes v. Texas
Court bashes trial judge who let reporters disrupt
decorum of courtroom with intrusive cameras and other
recording devices
6. Prejudicial Crime
Reporting
Past criminal behavior
Witness credibility
Defendants character
Inflame public mood
Test performances
Confessions
7. To what extent does
publicity prejudice an
individual’s right to a
fair trial?
8. Impact on jurors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK71JfXnh0
What is an impartial juror?
U.S. v. Burr (1807)
Murphy v. Florida (1975)
Patton v. Yount (1984)
One who possesses knowledge of the case can serve on
the jury as long as…
9. Traditional Judicial Remedies
For Publicity
There are 5 Remedies.
• Voir Daire
• Change of Venue
• Continuance
• Admonition To Jury
• Sequestration To Jury
10. Voir Dire
Process by which jurors are examined to ascertain biases that
might thwart objectivity
Challenges for cause
Judge has discretion to uphold/deny challenge
Unlimited number available to each side
Peremptory challenges
Judge has no discretion to allow or disallow
(though Supreme Court has recently placed limits
on their use by attorneys seeking to exclude
prospective jurors on the basis of race or gender)
Limited number (usually specified in statutes or by
court rules) available to parties
11. Continuance
Delay of Trial
Theory that a postponement of the trial will allow for some of the hype to
die down.
In order for a continuance to take place, the defendant has to waive the
constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Disadvantages:
• Court system is already clogged, this could make the
trial go on for even longer
• The Criminal defendant could spend that added time in
jail.
• There is no guarantee that once the trial resumes no
harmful publicity wont spring back up.
12. Change of Venue
A trial in a state court can be moved to any other forum of
appropriate jurisdiction in that state.
A trial in federal court can be moved to any other federal court
elsewhere.
Usually a limited number of federal courts sites (often just one other)
located in state
More advisable to stay as close as possible to the original venue to
keep ensure the ease of getting witnesses, presenting evidence and
generally keeping expenses down.
Yet effectiveness of change improves heavily with distance.
Change of Venire men: Instead of relocating to
another court site, jurors are simply imported from
another locale.
13. Admonition To Jury
Judge may Admonish Jury to:
Render their decision based only on what they
hear as admissible evidence in court
Refrain from watching or reading reports
relating to the trial for which they are
impaneled
Evidence suggests that most jurors actually adhere to these
admonitions.
14. Sequestration of jury
Publicity during the trial can often be as threatening to a
defendant as pretrial publicity.
Pre Trial Publicity: The extra, often times negative attention
gained before a trial gets under way; that could create a biased
opinion for those involved in the trial (jurors, judge).
Arguments about admissibility of evidence is usually conducted
outside of jury’s hearing, but these may be reported/commented
on by the press
Other inflammatory info may get reported
Judges thus have prerogative of isolating members of the jury to
shield them from publicity about the case or to insulate them from
other potentially harmful influences.
15. Sequestration ofJury
CONT..
Disadvantages:
Costly
May lead to different types of prejudice- Jurors may blame
one side or the other from being kept/isolated from the
world.
16. Restrictive orders to control
publicity
on court cases
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) was a United
States Supreme Court case that examined the rights
of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st
Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to
a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment. In
particular, the court sought to determine whether or not
the defendant was denied fair trial for the second-degree
murder of his wife, of which he was convicted, because of
the trial judge's failure to protect Sheppard sufficiently
from the massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that
attended his prosecution.
17. Sheppard v. Maxwell
After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree
murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant
wife, Sam 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 the decision. When
Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari (a review of the case by a higher court).
18. Nebraska Press Association
v. Stuart
(1976) Supreme Court of the United States decision in
which the Court held unconstitutional prior
restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.
As a responseto Nebraska Press, courts have resorted to drying
up sources of info for the press
Restrictive orders (gag orders)
Designed to stop parties, participants (even the press) from making
comments about specific aspects of case
19. Continued
In Nebraska Press Supreme Court did not declare anything
with regard to restrictive orders aimed only at participants
Continues to be assumed that courts have much broader
power to limit what police, attorneys, witnesses and other
participants can say about a case out of court
20. The aftermath of Nebraska
Press Association v. Stuart
In several cases, courts have ruled that the press may
legally challenge gag orders aimed only at attorneys
and other trial participants because they infringe
with the right to gather news (Connecticut Magazine
v. Moraghan)
When press is thus given the legal standing to
challenge a restrictive order on First Amendment
grounds, then trial judge must justify order pursuant
of Nebraska Press
21. Media On T.I Gun
Charges Case
IF YOU HAD TO BE A JUROR IN A CASE SIMILAR TO
THE STATE OF GEORGIA V. CLIFFORD HARRIS (T.I), DO
YOU THINK VIEWING THE VIDEO BELOW , BEFORE
TRIAL WILL AFFECT YOUR OPINION AND VOTE ON
THE FREEDOM OF THE DEFENDANT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb1CAundf_0
674,423 YOUTUBE VIEWS
23. The American press proudly boasts news coverage of crime,
criminals, and trials as its “top stories”
Consequentially, tension between the press and the judicial system
has gotten worse.
Top 3 Reasons Why:
Mass media has expanded in recent years. Mass media promotes the
broadcast of crime news as “live, local, and late-breaking.” Crime news is
discussed on the radio, in newspapers, on social media sites, and has even
made its way into prime-time television (ie: First 48, Law and Order)
War on Terror: the government’s response to recent terrorist acts and
matters of national security has been heightened by the media’s influence.
Public’s Infatuation with Hollywood: Let’s face it: we all have invested
heavy interest in the lives of celebrities, sports figures, and socialites.
Publicity of high profile cases is in high demand
24. Here’s the issue:
Judges are extremely limited when it
comes to blocking the press from
printing or broadcasting judicial
proceedings and documents
Now government officials have begun
to limit public and press access to trials,
judicial proceedings, and documents….
25. 1980: US Supreme Court says it is a right under
common law and the First Amendment in the US
constitution for the public and the press to attend
a criminal trial.
1986: “right of access” extended to access of judicial
proceedings and records.
PublickerIndustiriesv. Cohen- 1984
Civil proceedings are also presumptively open to
the public.
Right is not absolute, but government must prove
that access is beneficial.
Trial must serve in important government
interest, closing the trial is the ONLY way to serve that
interest
26. Press Enterprise vs.
Riverside Superior Court
Press-Enterprise Company won two separate Supreme Court cases that
established the public’s right to witness specific aspects of criminal
court proceedings
First case, won in 1984
Press-Enterprise Co vs. Superior Court of California
Second case, won in 1986
Press-Enterprise Co. vs. Superior Court of Riverside
County, California
Does a qualified First Amendment right of public access
attach to a preliminary hearing, and under what conditions
may the hearing be closed to the public while ensuring a fair
balancing of First Amendment and Sixth Amendment
guarantees?
27. Press Enterprise v. Riverside
Superior Court (1986) Test
Five-prong elements of test
Party seeking closure must advance an overriding
interest (e.g. right to a fair trial or protection of a
witness) that is likely to be harmed if proceeding is open
Party seeking closure must demonstrate “substantial
probability” this interest will be harmed by openness
Trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to
closure (voir dire, limited closure during specific
testimony)
If judge decides on closure it must be narrowly tailored
to restrict no more access than is absolutely necessary
Trial court must make adequate findings to support
closure decision (provides basis for appellate review)
