Media Law 7 Fp Vs Ft (Test 2)

Front 1

(FREE PRESS VS FAIR TRIAL)


US vs Marshall

Back 1

- marshall murder trial
- marshall convicted by jury
- atty says violation of 6th Amend because jury read the papers.
-court rules that jury broke admonishment
-Free press vs Fair Trial: Conviction overturned

Front 2

(FREE PRESS VS FAIR TRIAL)


Irwin vs Dowd

Back 2

Irwin was AWOL
Long criminal record
press publishes his nickname "maddog" and a list of his priors
jury admits to reading and being influenced.
Conviction overturned

Front 3

(FREE PRESS VS FAIR TRIAL)


Shepphard vs Maxwell
(the fugitive case)

Back 3

Dr shep has a 4th of July party
After he falls asleep on the couch and his wife goes to bed
He wakes to noise upstairs, runs up and his wife has been murdered.
Press go crazy on the story cause Shep is a well known guy and start suggesting that it was him
Shep gets convicted and goes to prision.
Several years later, he gets out after getting Cert granted. so much media coverage. not a fair trial.

Front 4

Out of the Shepperd vs Maxwell case Chief Justice________ of Mass commissions the American Bar to come up with a way to fight this. This is known as the _______.

Back 4

Reardon
Reardon Report

Front 5

(DIRECT CONTROLS ON THE NEWS MEDIA)


Nebraska Press vs Stewart

Back 5

-Kelly Family of 6 are murdered in Southerland, Nebraska pop. 850
- judge Stewart says press dont print this or that about this trial.
-Goes to supreme court, Stewart loses
-Freedom of the Press & Prior Restraint

Front 6

Judge must prove 3 Factor Test for Prior Restraint:

Back 6

1. if w/o prior restraint there would be intensive and pervasive prejudicial news coverage of the accused
2. there was no other way to get a fair trail (refrence the other methods of the court adapting to the press)
3. prove prior restraint would work

Front 7

The Justice who didnt even like the press who wrote about the three test factor was___________.

Back 7

Warren Burger

Front 8

(DIRECT CONTROLS ON THE NEWS MEDIA)


Menendez Bros vs Fox

Back 8

-Fox want to make a doc about them because they killed their parents.
-Menendez bros sue to stop it because they believe it will effect their right to a fair trial.
-Court votes for Fox citing that they can just weed out the Jurors who had seen it.

Front 9

(CLOSED COURT ROOM)


Richmond Newspapers vs. Virgina

Back 9

- hotel clerk murdered and there has already been two mistrials
-Judges and Attys on both sides agree to close the courtroom
-press says nope and sues
- Paper wins: Berger says= "Courtrooms have been presumptively open for 200 years"

Front 10

(CLOSED COURT ROOM)


Boston Globe vs Superior Court

Back 10

-there is a law in place to close sex crime cases with minors (even if just the part where the minor testifies)
-Globe Challenges it and wins.
- the law gets tossed.
- court leaves it to the wisdom of the judges

Front 11

(PRE-TRIAL HEARING)


Press Enterprise vs Riverside Superior court II

Back 11

- Diaz is a nurse that is accused of murdering 12 people by injection in the hosp.
- Judge is worried about things coming out in the pre-trial hearing.
- court rules NO. same as the regular court, pre-trial is presumptively open.
-

Front 12

(JURY SELECTION)


Press Ent. vs Superior Court I

Back 12

- Mr Brown accused of raping a young teen.
- judge is worried that the questioning of the jury might result in the press hearing their private answers and says its going to be a closed jury.
- Court rules in favor of the Media

Front 13

(GAG ORDER)


Gentile vs Nevada Bar Assoc.

Back 13

-Gentile is an atty that reps a drug dealer.
-Judge orders a Gag
-Gentile goes strait to the press and tells press his client was framed.
-Nevada bar gets pissed and wants to punish
-Court backs the Bar: Chief Justice Renquist writes the opinion stating that the atty is expected to know how to act IAW judges instruction.

Front 14

(ACCESS TO EVIDENCE)


Nixion vs Waner Comm

Back 14

-Warner Comm wants the watergate tapes
-Judge gives them transcripts to the tapes

Front 15

(ACCESS TO EVIDENCE)


IN RE ABC

Back 15

-Pres Regean gets shot by John Hinkley
-Why? Because Hikley wants Jody Fosters attn.
-Foster is called into Depos.
-ABC wants the foster tapes
-ABC didnt get the tapes because it was not admitted into evidence.

Front 16

(CAMERAS IN THE COURT)


Lindbergh Trial

Back 16

-Lindberghs is like a rockstar in the 30's... his son is abducted and killed.
- Its found out a German Immigrant named Bruno Hauptmann is the killer.
-Media come from far and wide to the little court room with their big bulkey cameras and it was pretty disturbing.
- theaters all over see the footage.
- BAR gets involved and comes up with CANON 35: a recommendation for no cameras in the court.

Front 17

(CAMERAS IN THE COURT)


Colorado Graham case

Back 17

- Graham is going on trial for the murder of 60 people with an explosive device on a plane in order to kill his mom.
- so much interest in the case that the judge allows cameras with the stipulation that he has a switch that tells the camera people when they can take take pictures/film.

Front 18

(CAMERAS IN THE COURT)


Estes vs. Texas

Back 18

-Crook business man on trial for shady business practices.
-Estes and Pres Johnson were good buddies so people were very interested.
-Media frenzy ensues, Estes is convicted.
-Case gets thrown out on appeal
- Justice Clark's famous statement " a ten inch mic stuck its nose into the jury box" (way off limits)
-new trial, Estes is still convicted.

Front 19

(CAMERAS IN THE COURT)


Florida vs Chandler

Back 19

-Chandler is a cop arrested for robbery
-Chandler is convicted
- Atty attempt to appeal the case based on the claim that the cameras interfered with the case.
-Supreme court says not a chance.