NCJ Number
86974
Journal
Indiana Law Journal Volume: 57 Issue: 2 Dated: (1981-1982) Pages: 235-287
Date Published
1982
Length
53 pages
Annotation
After exploring the first amendment basis for media coverage of criminal trials, this article considers the reporting of certain facts in a trial, the proposed limitation of attendance by the media at trial and pretrial proceedings, and the electronic broadcasting of criminal trials.
Abstract
Criminal trials are newsworthy and central to the democratic process, so they should be fully and freely reported by the news media. Within the last decade, the Supreme Court has strongly affirmed this view, moving away from an emphasis on the sixth and 14th amendment rights of the accused and toward the legitimate interest of the media to open access to criminal trials. Instead of merely deferring to a claim of potential prejudice to the trial rights of the defendant, the Court has become concerned with the impact of restrictions on the dissemination of information under the first amendment. The Court's position makes sense in the area of reporting certain facts in a trial and in considering the limitation of attendance by the media at trial and pretrial proceedings. Prior restraint orders should be virtually impossible to obtain, since these orders completely cut off the media from the news events. Similarly, closure orders should only be granted in the rarest of circumstances. Other actions taken by the Supreme Court in this field are far less defensible. When the press is not being kept away from the proceedings, when they are free to report the important facts of the subject incident as well as the pretrial hearings and the trial, the Court should be reluctant to disregard other state interests. The privacy of rape victims and the state's interest in keeping juvenile and judicial inquiry matters confidential are significant. Of even greater concern is the Court's ruling in the televised trial case where the States were given much discretion, although questions regarding the limited educational value of such broadcasting and the adverse impact on the trial process were expressed. A total of 299 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)