NCJ Number
75491
Journal
POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY Volume: 92 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1977) Pages: 89-108
Date Published
1977
Length
20 pages
Annotation
The question of Supreme Court involvement in the administration of justice versus State control is considered with a focus on pretrial publicity rulings.
Abstract
The Supreme Court has ruled that the States must provide accused persons with an impartial trial. When publicity makes impartiality impossible, the Court has ruled that the States must provide judicial remedies. The Supreme Court has refused, however, to specify what conditions would require such remedies. In response, most States have required proof of actual prejudice under strict standards. Failure to meet any of the standards is generally sufficient cause to deny the claim of prejudice. Only one State --California-- requires a reasonable likelihood of prejudice to provide a remedy. Due to the cost of remedies and the lack of public pressure to ensure defendants' rights, State action is usually limited. Few defendants have access to the Supreme Court, which hears a limited number of cases in this area each year. The Supreme Court has had little effect on State judicial systems in guaranteeing this right. State performance has also been unsatisfactory and can be expected to improve very little if the States are left to their own devices. Footnotes are included.