Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Miller5/10/2000
hat may injure the accused. But information not so obviously prejudicial may emerge, and what may properly be published in these 'gray zone' circumstances may not violate the restrictive order and yet be prejudicial. 427 US at 566-67, 96 SCt at 2806-07, 49 LEd2d 683.
CONCLUSION
[ ] "When the exercise of free press rights actually tramples upon Sixth Amendment rights, the former must nonetheless yield to the latter." Dow Jones, 842 F2d at 609 (citing Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 US 331, 347, 66 SCt 1029, 1037, 90 LEd 1295 (1946)). See Estes, 381 US at 540, 85 SCt at 1632, 14 LEd2d 543 (Sixth Amendment right to fair trial is the "most fundamental of all freedoms" and "must be maintained at all costs"). Courts are duty-bound to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial by an impartial jury. United States v. Noriega, 917 F2d 1543, 1549 (11thCir 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Noriega, 498 US 976, 111 SCt 451, 112 LEd2d 432; United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 497 F2d 102, 104 (5thCir 1974).
If publicity during the proceedings threatens the fairness of the trial, a new trial should be ordered. But we must remember that reversals are but palliatives; the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception. The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function. Collaboration between counsel and the press as to information affecting the fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation, but is highly censurable and worthy of disciplinary measures. Sheppard, 384 US at 363, 86 SCt at 1522, 16 LEd2d 600.
[ ] The trial court did not err in entering the order. It made all the findings required of it under the Dow Jones standard. The December 17, 1999 order does not violate Media's First Amendment rights nor does it exceed the trial court's authority. Given the circumstances surrounding this case and the constitutional rights at issue, the trial court may have been remiss had it not entered the order.
To safeguard the due process rights of the accused, a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. And because of the Constitution's pervasive concern for these due process rights, a trial judge may surely take protective measures even when they are not strictly and inescapably necessary.
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 US 368, 378, 99 SCt 2898, 2904, 61 LEd2d 608 (1979) (internal citation omitted). In Patterson v. Colorado, 205 US 454, 462, 27 SCt 556, 558, 51 LEd 879 (1907), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated " he 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." That is all that is being done here.
[ ] The application for peremptory writ of prohibition is denied.
[ ] MILLER, Chief Justice, and SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, participating.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|