Responsiblejournalist.files.wordpress.com



Free Press/Fair Trial Outline These issues require a balance between the First Amendment guarantee of a free press and the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.Concerns about pre-trial publicity have to do with trying a case in the media instead of in the courtroom. Such publicity can prejudice potential jurors to the extent that a fair trial is not possible.This is called contaminating the jury pool.Jurors do not have to be ignorant of a case or even completely unbiased, but they must promise that they can set aside any biases and decide the case based on the evidence presented in court.About half the states, including Massachusetts, have free press/fair trial guidelines created by press-bar committees that suggest voluntary standards that should be followed to avoid contamination of jury pools.These voluntary guidelines uniformly suggest that certain types of information should not be publicized until a jury has been selected and the trail is in progress because the information is often inadmissible in court.That information includes:ConfessionsPrior RecordsTest ResultsIn several instances, the Supreme Court has set aside verdicts because of pre-trial publicity. Irvin v. Dowd (196l): Build-up of pre-trail coverage was “clear and convincing”Rideau v. LA (1963): Video of confession aired locally WAS the trialSheppard v. Maxwell (1966): “Circus-like atmosphere deprived defendant of “the judicial calm and serenity to which he was entitled,” and the judge was responsible.Once pre-trial publicity occurs, the judge has several ways to attempt to remedy it.Change of venue (location)PostponementVoir Dire or Examination of Potential Jurors Jury Pool QuestionnairesChallenges for Cause: People removed for obvious bias Peremptory Challenges—challenges for no stated reason—with the prosecution going first, then the defenseThe Curtis Flowers case argued before the Supreme Court in March 2019 challenges a local MS district attorney’s peremptory challenges as unconstitutional, saying he used all of them to remove African-Americans from the juries in Flowers’ six murder trialsIf there is such a pattern, Batson v. KY (1986) requires attorneys to provide a non-discriminatory reason for challenging all blacksPodcast “In the Dark” devoted its second season to this case, focusing part of its research on jury selection and finding; In 225 trials, Prosecutor Doug Evans used peremptory challenges against 50% of black jurors and 11% of white onesEvans asked whites an average of one question and blacks, 29 questions Several of Flowers convictions already have been over-turned for this reason: the DA struck every black juror in Trials #1 and #2 and only black jurors in #3 and #4.This appeal was in court for nine years, and Flowers had been imprisoned for 23 yearsIn June 2019, the Court said 7-2 that Evans had violated the Constitution by eliminating jurors on the basis of race.In his dissent, Justice Thomas said Batson challenges were just an invitation to criminals to appeal their convictions: “If the court’s opinion today has a redeeming quality, it is this: the state is perfectly free to convict Curtis Flowers again.” (In the Dark, Season 2, Episode 13) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download