We The People Unit 5 (Q3)

(1)    List 8 cases that have highlighted the tension b/t 1^st and 6^th amendment and how they highlight the tension.

• 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. 

(2)    Why do trials need to be public? What are the theories? Explain and provide 5 examples either from the US or other countries where we see that need.

Trials need to be public to ensure nothing shady happens behind closed doors, especially in cases involving large corporations or influential individuals who have the means to bribe and get out of convictions as a result of their status. 

1. The Nuremberg Trials (Germany, 1945-1946) - Education of the public

   1. The transparency of the proceedings provided legitimacy to the process and set a precedent for international justice by educating the world about the Nazi’s crimes. 

2. Powell v. Alabama (1932) - Preventing unfair convictions

   1.  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.

3. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Informing the public

   1. 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.  

4. The Trial of Saddam Hussein (Iraq, 2005-2006) - Closure and justice

   1. Even with political and security challenges, the trial was still held publicly, allowing the world to watch him get justice while also providing closure for the families of those affected. 

5. The Oscar Pistorius Trial (South Africa, 2014) - High-profile defendants

   1. The defendant was a paralympic athlete, and his trial was broadcast live, which provided a clear view into the South African legal system, reinforcing the public’s trust in judicial transparency. Public access to the trial’s proceedings helped alleviate concerns about preferential treatment for high-profile individuals.

(3)    List and explain 5 limitations judges have put on the press and three cases for each limitation that flesh it out.

1. In-Camera Conferences: Judges can conduct in-camera (private) conferences to discuss sensitive matters without media presence

   1. 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

   2. Maryland v. Craig (1990)

      1. 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. 

   3. Doe v. United States (1988)

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

2. Public Nuisance Laws: Any speech deemed unconstitutional under First Amendment law can be censored to protect the rights of the accused.

   1. Brockett v Spokane Arcades, Inc (1985)

      1. 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.

   2. Near v Minnesota (1931)

      1. 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.

   3. New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1735)

      1. 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.

3. Evidence from confidential sources: 

   1. Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

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

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

      1. 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.

   3. Sean “Diddy” Combs v US (2024)

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

4. Contempt of 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.

   1. Bridges v. California (1941)

      1. 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

   2. Pennekamp v. Florida (1946)

      1. 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.

   3. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1982)

      1. 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

5. Access to Information

   1. Houchins v. KQED Inc.

      1. 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

   2. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)

      1. 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.-

   3. Pell v. Procunier (1974)

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