Organizational Leadership

Full Answer Section

FAIR TRIAL/FREE PRESS - B

• Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976): A judge issued a gag order preventing the press from reporting on certain details of a sensational murder trial. The Supreme Court ruled the order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the press. The Court established a high bar for issuing such orders, requiring a showing that there is a "clear and present danger" to the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980): A trial judge closed a criminal trial to the public and press. The Supreme Court held that the public and press have a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials, with only rare exceptions. This case firmly established the principle of openness in court proceedings.
• Chandler v. Florida (1981): This case addressed the question of whether a defendant's right to a fair trial is violated by the presence of a television camera in the courtroom. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prohibit states from allowing television coverage of criminal trials, as long as it does not interfere with the fairness of the proceedings.
• CBS v. U.S. District Court (1984): This case dealt with a gag order placed on parties in a civil lawsuit. The court held that the gag order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, as it was overly broad and failed to meet the high standard of a "clear and imminent danger" to the trial's fairness.
• Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991): An attorney was disciplined for making extrajudicial statements to the press about a pending case. The Supreme Court reversed the discipline, finding that the state bar's rule was too vague. The Court also held that a lawyer's speech can be regulated to protect a fair trial, but the rules must be narrowly tailored.
• People v. Bryant (2004): This highly publicized criminal case involving NBA star Kobe Bryant highlighted the modern challenges of balancing a defendant's right to a fair trial with intense media coverage. The case saw multiple leaks of sensitive information, a public release of the victim's name, and a media frenzy that raised concerns about the ability to seat an impartial jury.

Sample Answer

• Wilson v. Layne (1999): The Supreme Court addressed whether police can bring reporters and photographers into a private home while executing an arrest warrant. The court found that doing so violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as the media's presence is not related to the purpose of the warrant.
• Earnhardt v. Volusia County (2001): This case involved a media request for the autopsy photos of race car driver Dale Earnhardt. The court had to balance the public's right to access government records against the privacy rights of the deceased and their family. The decision ultimately led to a Florida law protecting the confidentiality of autopsy photos.
• Doe v. Gonzales (2007): This case dealt with the constitutionality of the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which allowed the government to compel businesses to turn over customer data without a warrant and imposed a gag order. The case challenged the government's ability to restrict speech without a clear showing of necessity.

FAIR TRIAL/FREE PRESS - A

• Lindbergh kidnapping trial (Bruno Hauptmann): This was a sensational trial in the 1930s that highlighted the dangers of a media frenzy. The extensive, and often inaccurate, press coverage created a circus-like atmosphere, raising serious concerns about whether the defendant, Bruno Hauptmann, could receive a fair trial.
• Irvin v. Dowd (1961): A defendant was convicted of murder despite widespread pre-trial publicity, which included media reports that he had confessed to a number of murders. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding that the intense and pervasive publicity had made it impossible to select an impartial jury, thus violating the defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Rideau v. State of Louisiana (1963): A defendant's televised confession was broadcast multiple times in the community where his trial was held. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, ruling that the exposure to the televised confession made a fair trial impossible, as the trial became a "hollow formality" after the community had already seen the defendant confess.
• Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966): A doctor was convicted of murdering his wife after a trial that was heavily influenced by a chaotic and sensationalized media environment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, arguing that the judge failed to control the courtroom and protect the defendant from prejudicial publicity. The decision established that judges must take steps to ensure that media coverage does not jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial.
• Dickinson v. U.S. (1972): A reporter was held in contempt of court for violating a judge's order not to report on certain court proceedings. This case established that a reporter cannot disobey a court order, even if they believe it is unconstitutional, and then challenge its constitutionality later.