Trial By Media And The Denial Of A Fair Trial

In recent history, there have been many cases of rape all over the world that have been sparking public outrage, not only because of the perverse acts but also for the way that society has responded to these attacks. The Steubenville, Ohio case is one account, where a sixteen year old girl was raped by two high school football players. Instead of focusing on the tragedy of the rape, the public and the media chose to speak about the two rapists - the boys - and how their promising football careers were over. It was suggested that the girl was at fault for being drunk, and that she was known for lying in the past, and could possibly be lying about the case (Poladian, 1). This is only one example of

Grimes, J. N. (2010 January-December). The social construction of social problems: "Three Strikes and You 're Out" in the mass media. Journal of Criminal Justice and Law, 2(1-2), 39-56. doi:Ebscohost database

Petitioner’s appeal from a denial of that motion was dismissed by the Court of Appeals without any prejudice to relief under the Maryland. The petition for post- conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.

The trial portrays the absurdist ideal that absolute truth does not exist. This ideal destroys the very purpose of the trial, which

In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.

The Constitution states that a person has the right to publish or print any news or opinions that they deem worthy. Yet today some laws prohibit this freedom, by creating laws in order to protect the individual’s privacy, we are limiting ones ability to report facts. Furthermore many records previously available for the public to view are now sealed. On the opposite end of the spectrum new freedoms are being allowed. In a court case, “Justice Joseph Teresi has struck an important blow for constitutional rights and an open judicial process by allowing cameras to televise the murder trial.”[3] By allowing a camera into the courtroom people are better able to get a grasp on our judicial system in the United States. This decision also allows citizens to view first hand news in action, without any biases created by reporters. As some of our freedoms are revoked other are being ratified. These changes

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an

while at the same time not talk over the reader’s head or bore them to death with legal writing. Mr. Forsythe has collected original research that has exposed new pieces of evidences about important problems dealing with the legal reasoning choices and the pieces of evidences mentioned in the people’s majority opinions.

| |to decide whether or not the case has enough legal |come into a trial with no personal biases or prejudices. |

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial

This is to determine the defendant’s plea of the charges they have been accused with and to repeat their constitutional rights again. For the pleas the defendant can either plead guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere. If the defendant pleads guilty then they are accepting they have committed the charges that were presented to them. They are also giving up their rights to remain silent and right to a trial. If they plead not guilty then they have are saying that they have not broken the law and feel that they can dismiss the charges for them then he/she should plead not guilty. The defendant is not given a more severe sentence if they are declared guilty at trial after a not guilty

The issue before the court is whether or not the respondent should be tried even though

Smith and Dean state that ‘publication contempt includes any publications that interfere with the conduct of particular legal proceedings and publications that undermine the judiciary through scurrilous abuse, or by allegations of bias and partiality’ (2011). ‘Scandalising the court’ is a contempt issue that addresses and describes publications that tend to undermine the judicial system (NZLC IP36). In this essay, both ‘publication contempt’ and ‘scandalising the court’