Conflct between 1st and 6th Amendments

Great Debates
1

I don’t think this has been specifically discussed, so I would like to toss it out on the table.

The 1st Amendment says: “**Congress shall make no law **respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The 6th Amendment says: “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 defence.”

I’ve highlighted the key issues.

Scenario: Billy Badguy is running a kiddy-porn operation. He has a disagreement with his buddies and butchers them with a machete, then hauls ass. The cops make him a person of interest; he is eventually arrested and tried.

The problem: since day 1, the press has broadcast every little skeevy detail of the case, including naming Billy and showing his picture. By the time the case goes to court, everyone in the country knows about Billy, down to his shoe size, because of the sensationalism. The jury is polled and every one of them says yeah, we read about it and saw it on TV…but I haven’t formed an opinion about it. And human nature being what it is, that’s hogwash.

Should the press be prevented from reporting details about the case until after the trial, in order to preserve the defendant’s right to trial by impartial jury? They can report that a murder was committed. No details about the porn ring, the machete, etc. No mention of Billy or a picture of him or anything that could identify him in any way. When he’s arrested, they can announce that an arrest has been made, period - no details. Once the verdict has been reached, they can report whatever they want, since it’s now a matter of public record.

Which trumps - freedom of the press or individual right to a trial by impartial jury?

2

Well, Canada has a gag rule that can be invoked in cases like this. It hasn’t brought about fascism as yet.

Of course, it’s becoming increasingly irrelevant since if the case is juicy enough, American reporters will be glad to cover it and their stories easily find their way back to Canada via internet.

3

Freedom of the press wins. In widely reported cases, defendants typically move for a change of venue. Except in extreme cases (see OJ, Casey Anthony) it usually isn’t that hard to find a jury pool that doesn’t know anything about the defendant.

ETA: US courts also use gag orders, but technically they are typically unconstitutional and the press observes them voluntarily.

4

I think simply dismissing a potential juror’s ability to be impartial despite having heard about a case in the media as “hogwash” is silly. Just because people have heard about a case, doesn’t make them a prejudicial juror.

5

I think that the “impartial” part of that has had the definition expanded to such an extent that it hinders the process. Way too many jurors are excluded if they have any knowledge of the subject for example. Lawyers and doctors are regularly tossed off of the jury, as are PhDs.

The first 12 who don’t know the people on either side of the room should be the jury IMHO. In our quest for impartiality, we have ended up losing out on the jury of peers.

6

A standard of impartiality can be taken to a senseless extreme, as with any term characterizing human behavior—then no one could meet it, no matter how much you crippled the press. It’s enough that they’re reasonable people without particular prejudice. Facts will come out in the case which the press doesn’t know, or didn’t care to discover, and so on. I think it is possible the press could wield some power a bit indiscriminately here, but no more so than the police chief discussing a suspect at large, or any other public servants doing such things that would make this a run-on sentence.

7

Yes. We are saved from the apparently conflicting requirements of these amendments by the vast, deep, and strong pool of ignorance that resides in the American citizenry. :slight_smile:

8

I dunno, I’d never heard of Casey Anthony before the outrage at her acquittal. Of course, I’m Canadian and not prone to paying attention to Nancy Grace.

But even if I were American, I can see myself being disinterested in “flavor”-of-the-month recreational-outrage cases, no matter how salacious.

9

I probably wouldn’t have heard of her either if (1) she didn’t live in the same town, and (2) I hadn’t had to drive past through the mob outside the courthouse to get to school.

10

The Sixth also talks about a public trial. If everything is kept secret, it isn’t all that public. Plus, it gives the public a chance to speak up if they have evidence pertaining to the crime, both for the defense and the prosecution. Billy’s victims have a chance to come forward and say “He attacked me too”, as well as those who will testify “I saw him in the grocery store during the time he was supposed to be burying the body in Guam” or whatever.

I think the public has the right to see justice done. Certainly a good bit of the attention paid to messy trials is salacious, but there is legitimate interest as well.

I agree with this, and I would deal with it by eliminating the peremptory challenge. For both sides.

Regards,
Shodan

11

There should be some way to get rid of those who think everyone who is arrested is guilty or think police are Nazis. That being said, I was dismissed from a jury pool because I told the defendent’s attorney I could be completely impartial. I think her defence was going to be to make us feel sorry for her client. There’s something wrong with that.

12

I have always thought the word ‘impartial’ in the case means essentially that you have no direct stake in the case. You aren’t related to the victims or the alleged perpetrator nor the members of the court. In popular fiction, this is not so, and the whole selection process of jurors is supposed to mitigate this. I suppose it may do so in real life, but I am not a lawyer.

13

IANAL, but I think that is covered under challenge for cause.

No argument here.

That’s what I want to eliminate - gaming the system with peremptory challenges to find people who are not impartial, but are partial in the ways you want.

I was once told that if I didn’t want to serve on a jury, I should wear one of those American flag pins on my lapel, and the defense would bump me. No idea if it is true - both times I was called for jury duty I never got to voir dire.

Regards,
Shodan

14

I live in a town of about 6,000 on an island with no roads connecting us to any other towns. I have sat on two juries, unless you personally know someone directly affected by the case, by the time it hits trial a year later, all you really remember from the news is that a crime was committed and someone was arrested.

15

Some think, not you though, the Amendment # is the priority of rights, since the 1st is, well, the 1st, it trumps others. No such thing, since the 1st was actually the 3rd, at first.

By the impartial jury provision, as someone mentioned, we have our 2 challenges to weed out jurors, also you can not dimiss a juror because of race, I believe that is known as a Batson challenge.

Since the Vicinage clause is not applicable to the states, at least per SCOTUS, Courts can select jurors from all over, not just of the so called “peers”.

There was a case in my head about when 2 rights conflict, what right does the court have to weigh heavier, but it did NOT deal with the facts at hand.

16

I’ve always taken it to mean something closer to “disinterested” than “without opinions.” Though I think it’s easy to overestimate the penetration of any news story. I listen to NPR daily (so I was listening to news programs) and I still didn’t know anything about Casey Anthony until the acquittal.

17

When it comes to high-profile cases there are several different steps that can be taken to get an impartial jury.

For starters jurors are forbidden from reading newspaper or web accounts of the case, talking about it to others and informing others not to tell them about it.

In certain cases, such as OJ and IRCC Casey Anthony, they are sequestered.

The trial can also be transferred to another jurisdiction.

Finally, in a small number of very extreme cases, judges have simply found that the State couldn’t guarantee an impartial jury and kicked the defendant loose.

18

I’ve never served on a jury but I have a hard time believing that jury selection makes as big of a difference as it does on television, where jurors fit nicely into stereotypes that the young hotshot assistant can ferret out by their choice of shoes.

19

There wouldn’t be a conflict is the press reported only facts, that way what they hear in the trials would be the same as the press. I would like to say the press should be unbiased too but everybody knows thats just impossible.

20

What, you think everything presented in a courtroom is fact? It may shock you to learn this, but witnesses lie sometimes (or are simply mistaken).