Free Speech vs Due Process/Fair Trial

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
MtG... what's you take on this matter?

Real answer:

It depends.

Defense lawyers often argue against pre-trial and trial publicity, but then, any good defense lawyer looks for excuses for appeal before the verdict comes in, just in case.

IMO, it's really questionable as to how often the defense is really hindered by press coverage compared to the extent that press coverage of the judicial process is helpful to defendants in general.

Certainly the Illinois DP moratorium and sentence reversals and exposure of the LAPD CRASH unit misconduct came about as a result of press coverage, and there are a lot more cases like that, where press attention about gaps in evidence, or police or prosecutorial misconduct, has helped defendants in a large number of cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IMO, it's really questionable as to how often the defense is really hindered by press coverage compared to the extent that press coverage of the judicial process is helpful to defendants in general.

Good point. Usually the press seems to be on the side of the defendant to get him off. Sometimes they may go against the defendant for some evil thing he or she has done, but a vast majority of the time they are trying to see where the government ****ed up.

[SlowwHand]

Wait until they do away with Miranda.

[KrazyHorse]

Why, so you can really live in a dictatorship?

[SlowwHand]

Well, Mr. Confrontation, I didn't say I wanted it; but they're talking about it.

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry for the misinterpretation, but that turn of phrase usually means you do want it in my mind.

Who's talking about it?

[SlowwHand]

All the law enforcement agencies.
We "know", it's said.

[KrazyHorse]

Doing away with Miranda, along with every other constitutional guarantee of due process has been the wet dream of law enforcement agencies since those rights were enumerated.

Is there any political or electoral will to do this (i.e. are senators talking about it), and more importantly is there any jurisprudential will (i.e. are 3 or 4 of the crustier old bastards on the SC talking about it).

[GePap]

MtG: how many of those stories you mention have anything to do with coverage during the trial? All of them sound primarily as investigations after trials have been concluded and stuff entered into the public record: no ones rights are even in danger of being damaged. The rpess is free to do what is whishes with public records, sucha s those out of concluded trials.

As for defense attorneys going on camera: you can;t help it: if the prosecutor is on camera often, then you have to porvide an counterarguement in the press.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
MtG: how many of those stories you mention have anything to do with coverage during the trial? All of them sound primarily as investigations after trials have been concluded and stuff entered into the public record: no ones rights are even in danger of being damaged. The rpess is free to do what is whishes with public records, sucha s those out of concluded trials.

As for defense attorneys going on camera: you can;t help it: if the prosecutor is on camera often, then you have to porvide an counterarguement in the press.

You'd have to have some kind of comprehensive survey - unfortunately, I think we'd be a lot better off if "mundane" cases got press coverage - right now, people get routinely convicted and acquitted on half-assed lawyering on both sides, plus half assed performance on the bench.

Unless a case is spectacular, nobody pays much attention during trial. Trial coverage doesn't bother me, because any public attention focused on judicial and police performance is good, and the defense has multiple remedies, from seeking gag orders to changes of venue, and failure by a judge to grant those motions is reversible error if it can be shown there's a reasonable likelihood a jury reaching a different conclusion on the evidence.

[Sava]

Good point. Usually the press seems to be on the side of the defendant to get him off. Sometimes they may go against the defendant for some evil thing he or she has done, but a vast majority of the time they are trying to see where the government ****ed up.

it's really irrelevant if press coverage helps the defendant... in that case, I would simply argue that media restrictions would help the justice system work properly, regardless of who would have normally been advantaged.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it's really irrelevant if press coverage helps the defendant

Why? Aren't we supposed to be helping to set innocent people free?

There are just somethings that defense counsel simply can't find out, but the media can. No justice system is perfect, and I'm not claiming ours is (even though some others might).

[SlowwHand]

What's really bad is when the judge plays solitaire on his computer during the trial.

[Sava]

Why? Aren't we supposed to be helping to set innocent people free?

It wouldn't just help the innocent

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What's really bad is when the judge plays solitaire on his computer during the trial.