Chapter 9 - The Media and the Courts - Preserving Public Trials and Preventing Prejudice

Topic Overview:

This chapter discusses the fine line that the media and reporters face, in abiding by their First Amendment right while also assuring that all people accused of a criminal or civil law case will be granted an impartial jury, free from outside influences. The courts face a constant challenge with the many forms of new media and creating a balance in court that eliminates all prejudice from jurors. 

This is very important to the defendant's and the plaintiffs because it has been seen how court cases have become media phenomenons and how the people involved can quickly become media celebrities and household names. Everyone deserves a degree of protection but a judge must reduce media's adverse impact on the outcome of a trial while maintaining the right of the public to view trials and the press' freedom of speech/First Amendment rights. The information in this chapter is especially important to those of us studying to be journalists and reporters in our future careers. 

Defining Key Terms:

continuance: Postponement of a trial to a later time. 

sequestration: The isolation of jurors to avoid prejudice from publicity in a sensational trial. 

gag orders: A nonlegal term used to describe court orders that prohibit publication or discussion of specific materials. 

admonitions: Judges' instructions to jurors warning them to avoid potential prejudicial communications. 

summons: A notice asking for an individual to appear at a court. Potential jurors receive such a notice. 

for-cause challenge: In the context of jury selection, the ability of attorneys to remove a potential juror for a reason the law finds sufficient, as opposed to a peremptory challenge. 

impanel: to select and seat a jury. 

experience and logic test: A doctrine that evaluates both the history and the role openness plays in ensuring the credibility process to determine whether it is presumptively open. 

experience and logic test: A doctrine that evaluates both the history and the role openness plays in ensuring the credibility of a process to determine whether it is presumptively open. 

restraining order: A court order forbidding an individual or group of individuals from doing a specified act until a hearing can be conducted. 

Important Cases:

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)- Samuel Sheppard suffered a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the death of his pregnant wife. Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. He noted that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread publicity that attended his prosecution. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question was what must be crossed before a trial is to be deemed prejudicial, due to context and publicity, to interfere with defendants's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial?

The court concluded that freedom of expression must be granted but that it must adhere and not divert from a fair trial. 

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980)- After a series of mistrials in a murder case in Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media. But two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge's action. The question before the court was did the closure of the trial to the press and public violate the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment? 

The Court concluded 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 added the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses.

Relevant Doctrine:

1. Open Courts - According to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the two Press-Enterprise cases, court proceedings are presumptively open to the public and the press if logic and experience dictate openness. Accordingly, court processes are presumed to be open if: 

• The proceeding in question has a largely uninterrupted history of openness, and
• Openness contributes to the proper functioning of the proceeding itself. 

2. The Press-Enterprise Test for Court Closure - Under the Supreme Court Test developed in Press-Enterprise (II) v. Superior Court, an individual seeking to close open-court records or proceedings, including pretrial hearings, must provide the following: 

• Specific, on the record findings that there is a "substantial probability" that the openness will jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial, and
• Convincing evidence that closure is "essential" to preserve the trial's fairness. 

3. Closing Media Mouths: The Nebraska Press Standard - The Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart established that a judge must justify orders that prevent media disclosure of information produced in court with convincing evidence that:

1. Disclosure of the protected information would present a substantial threat to a fair trial. 
2. There is no effective alternative to a gag on the press. 
3. The gag will effectively eliminate the danger to the fair trial, and
4. The gag is narrowly tailored to restrict only the information that must be kept secret. 

4. What is fair coverage of criminal trials? - Only an overwhelming justification should permit the media to report:

• The existence of a confession
• The content of a confession
• Statements or opinions of guilt or innocence
• The results of lab tests
• Statements or opinions on witness credibility
• Statements or opinions on the credibility of the person or the investigative process or personnel 
• Other information or statements reasonably likely to influence the trial verdict. 

My Questions/Concerns:

1. How does the current media coverage on the trials and court summoning of our current president and his confiding team, potentially affect the future outcome of future trials?

2. Are those who are serving jail time still granted the same rights of the constitution?