October 24, 2011
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)
Posted by Matthew Nye under 10, Case Briefs, Contributors[7] Comments
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)
To see all the details go here:
Facts of Case:
The Richmond Newspapers (Appellant), wanted to have a judicial order of a criminal trial to all of the press and the public (Virginia) overturned and said it would be a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees both the public and the press the right to attend criminal trials, but this right is not set in stone and may be overturned by a judge that finds an overriding interest that cannot be accomodated.
It all started when a criminal named Stevenson was on trial and the trial was moved to have the proceeding closed to the public. The judge of the case acting based on a state statute authorized the court in his own discretion to exclude from the trial any person whose presence would influence the conduct of a fair trial, ordered the courtroom to be kept clear of all parties except the witnesses who would be testifying. Stevenson argued that he did not want any information leaked out and be published by the media and that could maybe be seen by the jurors of his case.
Legal Issue: It is whether an order excluding public and press from a criminal trial has violated their rights protected by the First Amendment.
Decision:
The decision from earlier was reversed because the right of the public and the press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constituition.
Analysis: In this case the judge failed to show overriding interest for excluding the public and press making the the ruling to close the courtroom reversed. Even with all the risk of having the media getting ahold of this news and everything about the case, it is still infringing on our right under the First Amendment and the judge could not show enough to shut out the public and press in this situation. Another fact is that the right is not absolute, so that is why they tried to shut out the press, but the court didn’t see it that way after the judge didn’t show enough overriding interest.
Questions:
1. Do you agree with the media being able to be in the courtroom and not be excluded?
2. What is the significance of this case to journalists?
3. How does this case compare to
7 thoughts on “Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 26th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
`Yes, media should have access and the ability to be present in the courtroom. As the Sixth Amendment states, we have the right to a “speedy trial by the public”. Therefore, the media is a watchdog the justice system, making sure justice is served. In rare cases, where media is not allowed, there are certain guidelines that must be completely outlined and followed out by the judge, such as if the publicity would violate the defendant’s rights guaranteed in the 6th Amendment. Yet, this is the last resort, when instead the courts should turn to other alternatives to still inform society, act as a watchdog and report the truth.
`The significance of this case is huge for Journalists’. The Supreme Court ruled that the media is protected under the Sixth Amendment right to media being present at a “public trial”. It outlined how there is the First Amendment right to, as the media, has the right to be present at court.
October 27th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Yes I think that this was the right decision made by letting the press in the court room because the judge and stevenson’s reason for excluding them was not good enough.This is significant in that journalists in future cases like this can refer back to this case in a court of law.
October 27th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Yes, I agree with the decision. In courtrooms, journalist work as a watchdog to make sure justice is being served. So media should be allowed in courtrooms . This case can always be referenced back to for journalist for future cases.
October 28th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Yes I think media should be allowed in the courtroom. However the ethics of how they take this freedom is debatable. As jouralists we are taught in the classroom to be ethical and fair. That is something that is uncontrollable but neverthe less is a freedom that the press should have.
The press must know what influences and to check with staf members on what is correct to publish to see the big picture.
It allows the press to avoid the chilling effect however the writings are rather not monitored.
mportant people for example should not get special treatment for the media not being present. It is the right of the media to be there and this case lays the foundation in future conflicts.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:40 am
1. I understand the concern with privacy and trial fairness but I think prevented journalist in the court should be allowed to make sure the trial proceeds appropriately.
2. This protects journalist rights to be in the court room.
3. How does this case compare to
October 31st, 2011 at 12:45 am
I agree with the decision to let the media participate in courtroom coverage. This case seems to be something of a milestone and precedent in journalism law.
The media acts as the fourth estate and should continue to do so in order to hold politicians to their words and to keep judges and the judicial system in line too.
November 4th, 2011 at 3:06 am
I agree with the decision to let the media cover the trial. Journalists serve as watch dogs to ensure officials — including judges — are acting fairly and in the public’s interest. Keeping journalists out of courtrooms could start a slippery slope of injustices.
This case is significant because it sets a precedent in journalism law as it pertains to courtroom coverage. If journalists are kept out of courtrooms in the future they can cite this case to make a point of their right to gain access.