October 24, 2011
Situation:
If a person is accused of something, it would be ideal for that person not to be ridiculed until they are proven guilty of what they were accused of. Otherwise, it is only a rumor that they actually did something wrong. Think about a situation where a BGSU student was accused of murder and the press was allowed to be involved in all aspects of the trial process. Rumors spread through local publications about the student’s past and thoughts from people directly involved in the trial are released so that the public is forming opinions of what the student did before the trial is over. The student’s reputation on campus is ruined regardless of whether he did the crime or was just accused of it by someone whose motives were unclear and that’s before the courts officially try his case.
Legal Background:
A petitioner’s wife was found bludgeoned to death in 1954. People became suspicious of the petitioner and he was arrested and indicted for it. With his case, Sheppard v. Maxwell, the news coverage blew up and made the case notorious. Before the trial, the media published information about his past and he was under close speculation by the public. The trial was also two weeks before an election where two people involved with the trial were candidates for judgeships, making the media even more interested in the actions involved in the trial. Reporters occupied 20 seats during the trial and more reporters moved around the room and the entire building where the trial was to cover all aspects of it. This made the jurors into celebrities basically and they started to receive letters and phone calls from the public. The trial judge made no efforts to counteract this activity although he recognized it was an issue. Habeas Corpus was filed saying Sheppard did not receive a fair trial after he was convicted. The District court granted it. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Questions:
1. What are some things the judge should have done to protect Sheppard and counteract some of the activity of the media?
2. What are the arguments in favor and against reporters having free reign over the information involved in a trial?
3. What should the role of the press be in releasing information about trials?
6 thoughts on “Sheppard v. Maxwell discussion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 27th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Some things that the judge could have done to protect Sheppard are limiting the press attendance, giving cautionary instructions to the jurors to ignore media coverage and not speak with the media, and changing the venue. By limiting press attendance, the judge could have avoided so much chaos in and around the court room during the trial. I think it is important that the press has its place in the court room to cover a trial like this, but they need to be respectful doing so. The actions of the journalists should not be disrupting the trial, and hunting down members of the jury should not be acceptable until after the trial and sentencing are complete. Also, changing the venue in this case may be a way to avoid the chaotic press coverage at the time. Finally, giving specific instructions to the jurors may be a way to control the situation even more in this particular case.
October 27th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
The judge could have done a number of things to improve a fair trial in this case. For one he could have sequestered the jury. This is a taxing thing on jury members; however in a trial in which there is as much media scrutiny as in this case, it is necessary. This way the jurors are not as swayed by the coverage that the media has on the case. While this means that the jurors may not see their families for an extended period of time, it is a way to maintain a balance. What I mean by balance is that the fairness of the trial would be upheld because the jurors would not be as likely to be swayed by sensational media coverage and the public still receives the information that the media is compiling. It is mostly a win-win situation for both the 6th and 1st amendments.
The judge could have also changed the venue for the trial. If the judge felt that the area was affecting the fairness of the trial, then he should have moved the trial to another location where the media coverage was not is such a frenzy.
I feel that I do not always side with the reporters in cases like this. I think it is often less about informing the public of the happenings within a trial and more about being the first to break a story and be sensational. I think that this is one critique of the media that I agree with; the over-sensational reporting of news. I think I would often question the motives of reporters and would often find that they are trying to just make more money. I understand people need to make a livelihood, but when the lives or safety of people in a trial are in question, I think the judge should have the right to protect the people within the trial from any harm. With that said, I do not feel an over-broad law should be made that decides this issue once and for all because there is often too much of gray area. I think the relationship between the courts and the media should be left open to discussion as it is now.
October 27th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
The judge could have done several things for the media not to be so involved with this particular case. The judge is the one that needs to keep control of the courtroom. With keeping control of the courtroom, the judge could have changed venues, limiting press attendance and communicating with the jury to make sure the media does not play a role in swaying their decisions.
Arguments in favor of the media having free reign over the information involved in a trial is that they can be honest with the readers. Since several individuals are not in attendance in the trials, they rely on the reporter to seek the truth and report it. However, in a negative sense, the reporter could interfere with confidential business, that could harm families involved in the trial.
Lastly, the role of the press should be to seek the truth and report it in releasing information about trials. The judge should make sure that only appropriate information is out for the readers.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:23 am
I don’t think its the medias duty or right to pass judgment on the husband in this case. His past is not relevant to the case and to do play by play and speculation is not being accountable or taking responsibility. This could ruin someones life and then tehy move on to the next story with no regard for the person.
October 28th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
1. In a case like this the judge could have done a number of things to prevent media from having such a large impact on the verdict. This first being, changing the location of the trial. By doing this it would make it harder for the media to find out where they are and could in turn decrease the amount of coverage. Next, the jury can be changed, at the point where the judge believes jurors were receiving outside information and such he could have also selected a whole new jury. Finally, the judge could have secluded or sequestered the jury by putting them in hotels with no outside communication.
2.Arguments in favor of the media having freedom in the courtroom of course are freedom of press. Also, that they should be able to cover the trial just in case there is some unfair judgement taking place. Finally, its vital to the general public especially in criminal trials because the information is news worthy.
3. In my opinion the press should be able to cover information as they please. My only issue is when they stick to one phenomenon and allow that to be the base of their coverage. Not allowing for new opinions and suggestions to emerge.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
1. What are some things the judge should have done to protect Sheppard and counteract some of the activity of the media?
The judge should have limited the amount of media in the courtroom. There should have been a number limit for the amount of journalists allowed in the courtroom. He also should have made more of an effort with limiting the attention the jurors got.
2. What are the arguments in favor and against reporters having free reign over the information involved in a trial?
The first amendment allows journalists to have free reign over the information involved in a trial. The sixth amendment, however, allows for a fair and speedy trial and if journalists have access to that information it could affect the trial.
3. What should the role of the press be in releasing information about trials?
The information should be unbiased. Information should only be revealed if it is relevant to the trial.