Turning Point: Balancing Free Press and Fair Trial Rights after Sheppard v. Maxwell

• Autores: Erin K. Coyle
• Localización: Journalism history, ISSN 0094-7679, Vol. 44, Nº. 3, 2018, págs. 150-161
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • In 1966, the US Supreme Court overturned a conviction after pervasive coverage of a crime and court proceedings deprived a defendant’s fair trial rights. Two North Carolina judges subsequently issued a rule of court restricting the information trial participants, court workers, and law enforcement officers could publicly release between the time of an arrest and the end of a trial. Journalists indicated a virtual blackout on crime news followed as law enforcement officers cited the rule when refusing to release crime and accident reports. Editors initially presented the rule as a threat to press freedom, which undermined the press’ responsibility to scrutinize criminal justice. News editorials criticized the rule, reflecting journalists’ fears that the North Carolina experience exemplified the potential for police and judges to create broad blankets of secrecy. Members of the press and bench, however, ultimately came together to address ways to protect free press and fair trial rights. This article uses interviews of Judge E. Maurice Braswell and historical analysis of the archival paper collections of Judge Raymond B. Mallard, Samuel T. Ragan, and Elmer Oettinger, Jr. This article aims to describe the North Carolina judges’ motivation for issuing the order, judges’ reactions to the order, press reactions to the order, judges’ reactions to that press coverage, and methods that one of the judges and one of the journalists ultimately recommended to address free press and fair trial rights.