Free Press and Fair Trial: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-ninth Congress, First Session, on S. 290, Parts 1-2U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966 - 762 pages |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accused action affect the outcome amendment American Bar Association arrest Attorney General's Bar Association bill Billie Sol Estes broadcast canon 20 Chairman charged committee concerned Constitutional Rights convicted coverage CREECH crime defendant defense counsel Department of Justice editor effect ethics evidence fact fair trial Federal feel files free press freedom going Government grand jury guidelines guilty hearings indictment innocent issue Jimmy Hoffa John Cye Cheasty Judge Miller Judge Smith jurors Kennedy law enforcement lawyers legislation matter McClellan committee ment mistrial Nashville NEVENS newspaper officers opinion Partin person police prejudicial president press and fair pretrial publicity problem proposed prosecution prosecutor published question radio record responsibility Robert Kennedy rule Senator ERVIN Senator FONG SHENKER sixth amendment statement statute story Sun-Telegram Supreme Court Teamster television things tion U.S. attorney U.S. Senate U.S. Supreme Court VINSON violation voir dire Warren Commission witness ZAGRI
Popular passages
Page 663 - Newspaper publications by a lawyer as to pending or anticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial in the courts and otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. Generally they are to be condemned. If the extreme circumstances of a particular case justify a statement to the public, it is unprofessional to make it anonymously. An ex parte reference to the facts should not go beyond quotation from the records and papers on file in the court; but even in extreme cases it is better...
Page 588 - The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to SCHNEIDER V.
Page 140 - In the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere directly with the administration of justice...
Page 178 - Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all ; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.
Page 588 - What finally emerges from the "clear and present danger" cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.
Page 420 - To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
Page 218 - Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public ; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press ; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.
Page 408 - English common law in this field became ours is to deny the generally accepted historical belief that "one of the objects of the Revolution was to get rid of the English common law on liberty of speech and of the press.
Page 331 - The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.
Page 637 - This Court has not yet decided that the fair administration of criminal justice must be subordinated to another safeguard of our constitutional system — freedom of the press, properly conceived. The Court has not yet decided that, while convictions must be reversed and miscarriages of justice result because the minds of jurors or potential jurors were poisoned, the poisoner is constitutionally protected in plying his trade.3 1 Ibid., at 347.