Balancing Freedom of the Press and the Right to a Fair Trial Term Paper

Balancing Freedom of the Press and the proper to a Fair Trial - Term Paper ExampleOver the past several years, the US Supreme Court has decided a number of cases involving the effects of publicity before and during a earreach on the suspects right to a fair and impartial adjudication process (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2003, p. 462). In doing so, the US Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance for endeavor judges to follow to provide a honest balance between the right to a fair and impartial adjudication process and the right to free/ brainsick press. One popular pre- rivulet mechanism is a change of venue. However, the US Supreme Court has emphasized that a change of venue will not automatically be necessary because of frequent or negative reports in the media indicating the defendants culpability or guilt. The determining factor is whether or not it is realistic to empanel a board that is capable of listening to and evaluating the evidence impartially (Neitzel, 1999).An other safeguard against the latent harmful effects of media reports prior to a trial is for a continuance/ dissipation. It is believed that a continuance/ profligacy may allow for the prejudicial information to die out. However, psychologists do not believe that delaying a trial will have an appreciable effect on the ability to recall particularly unpleasant facts (Nietzel, 1999). Moreover, delays bathroom have an impact on the integrity of the evidence and canister unfairly prejudice either the defendant of the states right to a fair and impartial adjudication process. ... However, when inadmissible evidence is available to the jury by virtue of the press either during prior to the trial or during the trial, it is unrealistic to expect that the jury will be able to totally ignore external sources of information. Over the past several years, the US Supreme Court has decided a number of cases involving the effects of publicity before and during a sense of hearing on the defenda nts right to a fair and impartial adjudication process (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2003, p. 462). In doing so, the US Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance for trial judges to follow to provide a liable balance between the right to a fair and impartial adjudication process and the right to free/ aroused press. One popular pre-trial mechanism is a change of venue. However, the US Supreme Court has emphasized that a change of venue will not automatically be necessary because of frequent or prejudicial reports in the media indicating the defendants culpability or guilt. The determining factor is whether or not it is thinkable to empanel a jury that is capable of listening to and evaluating the evidence impartially (Neitzel, 1999). Another safeguard against the say-so prejudicial effects of media reports prior to a trial is for a continuance/adjournment. It is believed that a continuance/adjournment may allow for the prejudicial information to die out. However, psychologists do not believe that delaying a trial will have an appreciable effect on the ability to recall particularly unpleasant facts (Nietzel, 1999). Moreover, delays can have an impact on the integrity of the evidence and can unfairly prejudice either the defendant of the states right to a fair and impartial adjudication process. For example,