| FREE PRESS/FAIR TRIAL |
| Where to find a balance between the constitutional rights of a free press and the constitutional rights of criminal defendants? |
| Case | Facts | Significance |
| Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) | Reviewing overwhelming media coverage of arrest and trial of osteopath Sam Sheppard for the bludgeoning murder of his wife, Supreme Court reverses conviction, cites massive prejudicial pretrial publicity and slams judge for losing control of case. | For fifth time in seven years, USSC reverses a criminal conviction for prejudicial pretrial publicity and lays out alternatives for avoiding undue prejudice, including change of venue, change of jury panel, voir dire, sequestering jury or ordering a new trial. |
| Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart (1976) | Local and national news media descend on tiny Nebraska town following murders of six family members and arrest of a suspect, prompting judge to gag everyone attending preliminary hearing, including the press. Supreme Court reverses gag order as a classic prior restraint. | Court used clear and present danger standard to weigh threat of prejudicial pretrial publicity and adopted test to be met before direct gag order on press can be issued: a) nature and extent of pretrial news coverage, (b) alternatives to mitigate prejudicial publicity and (c) effectiveness of a gag order. |
Missoulian
v. 21st Judicial District Go to the state law library site, follow the links for Montana Supreme Court decisions, then search in 1997 opinions for "Missoulian" | Trial judge issues participant gag order in pretrial and trial of Ravalli County murder case. State Supreme Court reverses. | State high court affirms right of press to attend trials under Article II, Section 9 (Right to Know provision) of state constitution and establishes "heightened scrutiny" test for participant gag orders: 1) press and public must have opportunity to be heard on gag order; (2) court must describe what reasonable alternatives were considered and why they were rejected; (3) order is narrowly tailored and (4) court must make specific findings of substantial probability defendant's fair trial rights will be prejudiced absent gag order. |
| Federated
Publications v. Swedberg 633 P.2nd 74 (1982) | Washington state judge conditions press access to "Hillside Strangler" pretrial hearing on agreement to abide by state press-bar guidelines. State supreme court rules this is a reasonable means of avoiding closed hearing and is not a prior restraint. USSC refuses to review. | Case has no precedential value outside of Washington, but caused news media in many states to be leery of "voluntary" guidelines. |
Dickinson
v. U.S. (Use Lexis-Nexis Academic: search by citation) |
Two reporters in Baton Rouge disobey judge's order not to report public testimony in a murder-conspiracy case. Judge holds reporters in contempt and fines them $300 each. Appeals court agrees judge's order was a prior restraint but holds that court injunction must be obeyed and appealed, not ignored. | This is the majority rule regarding contempt citations for defying judicial prior restraints. The First Circuit has a more relaxed rule (In re Providence Journal, 1987) allowing news media to publish in the face of a restraining order "if timely access to the appellate court is not available or if a timely decision is not forthcoming." |
| Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980) | After three mistrials in a Virginia murder trial, judge grants defense motion to close court proceedings to public. Supreme Court overrules, holding that public and press have First Amendment right to observe trials and other government proceedings. | Supreme Court looks to public policy and history of open jury trials (discourages perjury; inspires public confidence), holding that First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of assembly amount to right to witness court proceedings. Courts may be closed only if the state can prove that its interest in a fair trial is sufficient to override free press rights. |
| Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982) | Newspaper challenges Massachusetts statute closing trials in sex- related cases involving victims under 18. Supreme Court declared law to be unconstitutional. | Supreme Court recognizes significant state interest in protecting juvenile victims from trauma and embarrassment but rules that court closure must be on a case by case basis and cannot last longer than absolutely necessary. |
| Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court I (1984) | Trial judge closes jury selection for 6 weeks in trial of black man accused of raping white girl, to protect privacy of jurors being asked sensitive questions regarding sexual assualt. Supreme Court rules that jury selection is essential part of trial process and cannot be closed to public unless state can show overriding interest. | To overcome presumption of openness, trial court must: 1. specify overriding interest in a closed court; 2. document in writing that this interest could not be protected by any other means; 3. close court only as long as to meet needs of juror being questioned. |
| Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court II (1986) | Trial court closes preliminary hearing in mass murder trial, citing defendant's 6th amendment rights, and refuses to release transcripts. Supreme Court reverses. | Same open-court rationale applies to pretrial proceedings. Supreme Court holds standard for court closure must be based on "substantial probability" of harm to defendant's fair trial rights. |
| Landmark
Comms. v. Virginia (1978) | * | * |
| Smith
v. Daily Mail (1979) | * | * |
| Cox
Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975) | * | * |
| Florida
Star v. B.J.F. (1989) |
109 S. Ct .2603 | * |