We The People Unit 5 (Q3)

O.J. Simpson trial (1994-1995)

There was much conversation in this case to determine how OJ’s rights could be protected alongside the freedom of speech of all others involved in the case. They had to eventually keep jurors sequestered to ensure that they weren’t influenced by what the press was saying about the trial.

Estes v Texas (1965)

The use of radio and television equipment in the courtroom “disrupted decorum” and thus compromised Este’s right to a fair trial. Decided that the right to a fair trial overrides the media’s right to broadcast from the courtroom.

Sheppard v Maxwell (1966)

Case information was publicized before the trial ever took place and the defendant argued that it created a biased environment when the actual trial took place. Argued his 6th Amendment rights were taken away as a result of the press exercising the 1st Amendment rights.

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)

Richmond Newspapers challenged a law that Virginia could close a criminal case to the public. The court decided the right of the public and press to attend a criminal trial is protected by the 1st amendment, absent of an overriding interest articulated in findings.

Nebraska Press Association v Stuart (1976):

A Judge ordered a restraining order of the press from a widely publicized murder trial to ensure the fairest trial for the defendant and the Burger Court agreed that there was a need to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, but they concluded “a whole community cannot be restrained”

Geders v. United States (1976)

He was in the middle of being cross-examined by the prosecution when the day ended and he was denied the right to be in communication with his attorney until the completion of the cross-examination the following day. The Supreme Court said that this took away his 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and that a defendant must be allowed to communicate with their attorney during a recess.

Skilling v. United States (2010)

The Court acknowledged that Houston media coverage was extensive but concluded that there was no actual prejudice among the jurors. The Court found that the trial court took steps to ensure a fair jury selection process.

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v Cohn (1975)

The court held that the first amendment protects the press from liability of posting rape victims name obtained from public court papers. This case reinforced that the principle to access open information must be preserved even if it intersects with individual privacy rights.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Preventing unfair convictions

•  The defendants, nine African American teenagers, were convicted in a closed, racially charged environment with inadequate legal representation. The case showed that closed trials can create bias and injustice, leading to a Supreme Court ruling mandating fair legal representation in criminal cases, with public trials being a crucial part of that fairness.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Informing the public

• The trial's visibility allowed the general public to understand what was being challenged and share the message further so that the precedent was spread to more people.

Limitations on press

• In-Camera Conferences

• Public Nuisance Laws

• Evidence from confidential sources

• Contempt of Court

• Access to Information

In-Camera Conferences

Judges can conduct in-camera (private) conferences to discuss sensitive matters without media presence

• United States v. Nixon (1974)

• Maryland v. Craig (1990)

• Doe v. United States (1988)

United States v. Nixon (1974)

1. Said that it is okay to hold in-camera meetings to protect sensitive/confidential information, in this case, the Watergate tapes, from the press

2. Reinforced the idea that in-camera meetings can be used when confidentiality is an issue

Maryland v. Craig (1990)

Ruled that child witnesses in sexual abuse cases could testify over a closed-circuit television to protect the child’s well-being while maintaining the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses.

Doe v. United States (1988)

Protected sensitive information involving a confidential informant by protecting the informant's safety while still ensuring the right to a fair trial. 

Public Nuisance Laws

Any speech deemed unconstitutional under First Amendment law can be censored to protect the rights of the accused

• Brockett v Spokane Arcades, Inc (1985)

• Near v Minnesota (1931)

• New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1735)

Brockett v Spokane Arcades, Inc (1985)

Not a criminal trial but upheld a Washington State statute stating the any institution selling lewd films is subject to civil and criminal sanctions. SC upholds this as long as the language used in marketing is not protected under the 1st Amendment, i.e. obscenity and other stuff.

Near v Minnesota (1931)

A newspaper publisher was publishing defamatory, malicious, and scandalous content. Under Minnesota state law anyone who is deemed a public nuisance can be censored. The SC ruled that Minnesota state law put excessive restraint on the press which was deemed unconstitutional.

New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1735)

Printer published several articles and false ads claiming malintent of the New York Governor at the time. He was arrested and charge with seditious libel as he was posting slanderous information that was false.

Evidence from confidential sources

• Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

• New York Times Co. v United States (1971)

• Sean “Diddy” Combs v US (2024)

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

The court ruled reporters are required to disclose information discovered in confidence and cannot withhold information

New York Times Co. v United States (1971)

Pentagon Papers Case, US tried to prevent the publication of classified documents from the US occupation of Vietnam during the war. SC ruled that the government could not restrict the publication of these papers.

Sean “Diddy” Combs v US (2024)

US court denied a gag order submitted by the defendant to prevent the leakage of documents from his case. The judge ruled against it. 

Contempt of the Court

Judges can hold the media in contempt of court if they violate court orders, such as by publishing information that could prejudice the trial.

• Bridges v. California (1941)

• Pennekamp v. Florida (1946)

• Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1982)

Bridges v. California (1941)

Bridges had written a letter threatening a strike if a court ruled unfavorably. The Supreme Court overturned the contempt charges, holding that punishing speech about court proceedings violated the First Amendment unless there was a "clear and present danger" of impeding justice. This case established a higher standard for finding contempt

Pennekamp v. Florida (1946)

Editorials critical of a judge’s handling of criminal cases resulted in a contempt charge against the editor. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper, saying that criticism of judicial actions is protected under the First Amendment unless it presents a threat to the administration of justice. The case reinforced that criticism of the judiciary should generally be protected speech, even when it creates tension with the judiciary’s authority.

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1982)

Cohen was promised confidentiality from reporters but he was identified in the papers and was fired. The Court ruled the 1st Amendment doesn’t exempt the press from other generally applicable laws

Access of Information

• Houchins v. KQED Inc.

• Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)

• Pell v. Procunier (1974)

Houchins v. KQED Inc.

KQED requested permission to inspect and take photos of a jail to investigate a recent suicide there. The Court ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn’t grant the press access to government-controlled sources of information

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)

Supreme Court ruled that police had access to search newspaper offices for photographs of a violent protest even without a warrant, if they had probable cause. Raised concerns about 1st Amendment rights of press

Pell v. Procunier (1974)

The Court upheld restrictions on face-to-face interviews between journalists and inmates

6th Amendment

• (Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution)

  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

• Accused has rights to a public and speedy trial with an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime was committed, which in our question must be balanced with the rights of the 1st amendment involving media, the jury, and the public.

1st Amendment

• (Freedom of expression and religion)

  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Federalist no. 78

• “Permanent tenure” can also help to resist legislative efforts to injure “the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws.”

• Judicial branch protects citizens’ rights like expression from being taken away by the legislature

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1

• “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

• Requires trial by jury, and this is why the judge needs to maintain jury impartiality in relation to the press

14th Amendment

• “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

• States must abide by the rights of the constitution for citizens, so the freedom of press and expression cannot be impeded by the states and citizens must be tried with due process by states

Federalist No. 83

• Titled "The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury," is the last in a series of six essays by Alexander Hamilton discussing the powers and limitations of the judicial branch. In this essay, Hamilton addresses concerns about the absence of a specific provision for trial by jury in civil cases within the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution's silence on this matter does not mean the right to a jury trial in civil cases is abolished. Hamilton emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary and the protection of individual rights, reassuring that the right to a jury trial remains intact

• Discusses right of the accused to a jury trial of their peers. This is a method to ensure they are tried by people of similar social status to them to ensure there is no SES bias or existing social class hate as well as a trial of people without preexisting opinions regarding a case. This helps protect the right of the accused and preemptively protects from slander in the press as it ensures the jury is impartial to the case.

Amendment V

• Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

• If press releases publication after publication post-trial claiming it was a mistrial and the defendant got off easy, they cannot be tried again for the same crime just based off of public opinion. Press can’t influence decisions of the court or jury post-trial but still need to address issue of during trial. (OJ Case)

Article II, Section 2

• Shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States

• Executive branch can elect justices that could eventually be deciding cases in which they are defendant or plaintiff. Could mean that judges are biased towards defendant

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

• “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

• Congress can check the judicial branch’s power by passing laws

Federalist No. 81

• Looks into concerns about judicial authority and the fear the courts may overreach their power. It discusses that the appeals process is made to protect the rights of those in lower courts and ensure their right to a fair trial.

• The appeals process makes it so that the press has a more limited impact on the court’s decisions because if a decision on a state level court can be appealed, then there is another chance for justice regardless of the media’s impact. This allows for the press to retain more of their 1st amendment rights in a trial atmosphere.

Federalist No. 1

• Hamilton advocated for debates regarding the Constitution, but warns against manipulation and emotional appeals in the public

• Hamilton confirms the rights awarded in the 1st amendment by saying that he encourages discussion and debate, but gives his personal opinion on the limit of free speech which can be seen in the context of avoiding manipulation and emotional appeals from the press during criminal trials.