Prejudicial press coverage of trials may even undermine public confidence in the judiciary and in jury verdicts. If prosecutors use the press to broadcast inadmissible material in court to jurors, such as the administration of polygraph tests or results, then defendants may be denied their right to an impartial jury.įurthermore, proponents claim that the harm caused by such disclosures may hinder the fair administration of justice. Judges issue gag orders to ensure a fair trial, to facilitate efficient administration of justice, and to prevent prejudicial information from reaching the jury pool. Rather than issuing gag orders, courts should consider alternatives, such as change of venue, trial postponement until public attention fades, rigorous voir dire (or jury selection procedures), and jury sequestration. The Supreme Court invalidated the judge’s order, ruling that media gag orders must meet a heavy burden and that courts must stringently demonstrate the need for them. The county judge issued a gag order barring the media from reporting on Simants’s confession, statements he made to others, contents of notes he had written on the evening of the murders, as well as other potentially damaging information. This case arose from the 1975 trial of Erwin Simants, who was charged with murdering six people. The Court dispelled this latter notion, setting a high bar for such orders in Nebraska Press Association v. Judges interpreted Sheppard as an authorization to impose gag orders on trial participants, but some even began to place them on the media. Maxwell (1966) ruled that defendants are entitled to impartial juries and that trial court judges should take strong measures to uphold the right to a fair trial. Gag orders on the press represent a form of prior restraint and are seldom upheld.Ĭourt set high standard for gag orders on media State Bar of Nevada (1991), the Supreme Court held that attorneys who make out-of-court statements are not entitled to the same level of protection as the media. In general, courts have held that gagging people involved in trials is more acceptable than similar orders issued against the press. Typically, judges issue injunctions barring trial participants - including attorneys, litigants, and witnesses - from discussing trial-related material outside the courtroom. Gag orders - issued by a court, government, or private entity - require an individual to refrain from making public comments. (AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi, with permission from the Associated Press.) However, gag orders on the press must meet high standards set by the courts to avoid prior restraint. Gag orders on trial participants are often used to ensure fair trials. Danielsen listens to arguments at a hearing where he lifted a gag order in the cases of murdered teenagers Chelsea King and Amber DuBois in Superior Court Thursday Apin San Diego.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |