October 22, 2011
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
Suppose there was a man accused of killing his wife but really was innocent. However, the media covered the trial and dug up negative things from this man’s past that swayed everyone to believe that he really was guilty. At the end of the trial, this innocent man was found guilty from being denied the right to a fair trial because of how the press made a big spectacle out of his trial. Can or does this hypothetical situation happen in courts today?
LEGAL BACKGROUND
Well, this is what the judge in the case Gannett Co. v. DePasquale did not want to happen. Judge Daniel DePasquale granted pretrial motions to exclude the public and the press
from the trial of three individuals charged with the murder of an off-duty police officer. Gannett reporter, Carol Ritter later objected to this and the judge reviewed it and s
aid the defendant’s right to a fair trial outweighed the right of the press to cover the pretrial suppression hearing.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=443&invol=368
QUESTIONS
1.Why do you think that Judge DePasquale wanted to exclude the press and the public?
2.No one objected to this motion right away. Gannett reporter, Carol Ritter, later objected. Why do you think no one spoke up at first?
3.Do you really think that the press can be held responsible for jeopardizing a defendant’s right to a fair trial?
3 thoughts on “Gannett Co. v. DePasquale”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:26 am
The judge wanted to exclude the press and the public because if they interfered with the trial too much, and the defendants were found guilty, their consequences of possibly life long jail time would be far worse than if the press simply couldn’t report on the story. No one spoke up at first because strong evidence for or against the case probably wasn’t revealed until later in the trial and therefore, the case didn’t become as interesting until later on. The press can’t be held responsible for jeopardizing a defendant’s right to a fair trial but they can definitely persuade the jurors enough to skew their decisions. However, it is ultimately the job of the juror to block out the media and only focus on the facts of the trial to make a decision.
October 28th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I think the judge thought that the murder of a police officer would draw a lot of media attention. There have been cases in the past where the media becomes almost frenzied, driven by ratings instead of respect for the justice system. There is a fine line between a public trial covered by the media and something like Shepard v. Maxwell.
If I had to guess why no one spoke up I would say that because that only the pretrial proceedings were closed.
To an extent. I believe that the media definitely has an impact on trials, especially if they are anything like Sheppard v. Maxwell, where someone has been branded before the trial is even over. I think that the media has a fair amount of power and sway.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Good points, but the Gannett case involved closing only a pretrial hearing, not the hearing itself.