Case: Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart 427 U.S. 539
Decision: 9-0, delivered by Chief Justice Burger
Facts: Erwin Charles Simants was a suspect of sexual assault and the murdering six members of the Kellie family in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska. Simants had confessed to law enforcement officers and had disclosed information to other private parties. This murder attracted attention to the town from local and nation news broadcasters. Simants’ attorney and the county attorney met before a judge to enact restrictions on what matters the press can report on to ensure a fair trial, due to its mass coverage. This enraged a group of Nebraskan reports and broadcasters who claimed this infringed on their First Amendment rights and took the matter to court.
Procedural History: At the trial court the judge …show more content…
Also, the court decided the precise terms of the restraining order are important because the court deems the Nebraska Supreme Court’s term “strongly implicative” vague and overly broad. There was no evidence to show that these measures as opposed to other less restrictive measures would better ensure a free trial. The court also points out that this crime occur in a very small town where it was likely to have news spread even without the publication or broadcasting of information. Also, the information had an immediate impact on this community, which means that have the right to know.
Concurring Opinions: Justice Brennan, with Justice Stewart and Justice Marshall concurring, expresses his opinion that it is impermissible to use Prior Restraints to ensure a fair trial because it is wrong to infringe on one right to protect another. Brennan also brings up the point that the courts are capable of ensuring a fair trial without Prior
Decision: 9-0, delivered by Chief Justice Burger
Facts: Erwin Charles Simants was a suspect of sexual assault and the murdering six members of the Kellie family in their home in Sutherland, Nebraska. Simants had confessed to law enforcement officers and had disclosed information to other private parties. This murder attracted attention to the town from local and nation news broadcasters. Simants’ attorney and the county attorney met before a judge to enact restrictions on what matters the press can report on to ensure a fair trial, due to its mass coverage. This enraged a group of Nebraskan reports and broadcasters who claimed this infringed on their First Amendment rights and took the matter to court.
Procedural History: At the trial court the judge …show more content…
Also, the court decided the precise terms of the restraining order are important because the court deems the Nebraska Supreme Court’s term “strongly implicative” vague and overly broad. There was no evidence to show that these measures as opposed to other less restrictive measures would better ensure a free trial. The court also points out that this crime occur in a very small town where it was likely to have news spread even without the publication or broadcasting of information. Also, the information had an immediate impact on this community, which means that have the right to know.
Concurring Opinions: Justice Brennan, with Justice Stewart and Justice Marshall concurring, expresses his opinion that it is impermissible to use Prior Restraints to ensure a fair trial because it is wrong to infringe on one right to protect another. Brennan also brings up the point that the courts are capable of ensuring a fair trial without Prior