Home » Posts tagged 'law'
Tag Archives: law
Massachusetts electronic access in courts rule is in the “forefront” of state courts, SJC Public Information Officer Joan Kenney said to me this past February. The state has a history of progressive thinking when it comes to technology use in courtrooms, Neil Ungerleider has said. The state was one of the first to adopt a rule allowing use of cameras – the original Rule 1:19 made it on the books in the 1980s. While most other state courts do allow camera usage, many do not permit use of electronic devices for reporting.
“It’s easy for reporters who work in this state to forget that the access that they have is really unique and that while some states have cameras, this may be one of the few of only states that allow the use of the electronic devices,” Ungerleider said.
Meanwhile, lawyer and blogger Robert Ambrogi, who researched equivalent or similar technological access rules of other state judiciaries while on the Rule 1:19 Subcommittee, found that most states do not extend to the lengths the new Massachusetts rule does. Massachusetts is one of the few states that allow two video cameras in a courtroom at a time, and one of the few that specifically grants that permission to citizen journalists in the language of the court rule.
Massachusetts is ahead of the federal courts in terms of electronic access. Federal courts do not allow the use of cameras except in specific federal district courts that are part of a pilot program similar to OpenCourt’s project in Quincy District Court. Cameras have never been allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The federal court system is woefully behind the times in terms of allowing cameras in the courtrooms,” Ambrogi said. “We’re still guided by a U.S. Supreme Court that has said not over their dead bodies will they ever let cameras in the Supreme Court. So I think Massachusetts is ahead on this.”
Other state judiciaries’ rules on cameras in courtrooms vary widely. For example, Oklahoma, which previously banned cameras in its courtrooms in its Code of Judicial Conduct, superseded the relevant rule in April 2011. That state now has no formal rules on the books at all regarding camera usage in courtrooms.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Wisconsin, which permits three television and three still camera operators to be in courts with approval from the judge. Mississippi is also highly permissive when it comes to camera use in state courts; individual use of one television camera, one video recorder, one audio recording system and one still camera is permitted in the same courtroom given at least two days notice to the presiding judge.
Only a few states explicitly permit use of electronic devices, and even then, intended use of the device, whether for note taking or reporting, makes a difference in the permissibility of its use. Reporters in Nevada, for example, can freely use electronic devices for note taking, but need to get judge approval before using those same devices to live blog or broadcast court proceedings. In other states, reporters’ use of electronic devices is limited to cameras and audio recorders used for note taking.
Thirty-five states explicitly permit use of cameras in courtrooms, while 14 other states partially allow camera use depending upon the circumstances. In the majority of states that explicitly permit camera usage, only one videographer and one photographer can be in the courtroom at any time. (For more specifics, see the Radio Television Digital News Association’s State-by-State Guide).
The District of Columbia is the lone region of the United States that outright bans camera usage in the courtrooms in its jurisdiction. Thirty-five states allow some form of audio or video webcast from the court as well, though those 35 states are not all the same 35 that explicitly permit use of cameras; some states that only allow camera use in specific circumstances have also allowed webcasts under special circumstances.
While Joan Kenney, the SJC’s public information officer, has said that Rule 1:19 is still a “work in progress,” Massachusetts is leaps and bounds ahead of other states and sets a strong example of how a state judiciary might handle electronic access to the courtroom. Considering the successes of the OpenCourt project in particular while it lasted, regular live streaming and blogging, citizen journalism reporting and camera usage in courtrooms can become the norm of courtrooms in Massachusetts.
“It [OpenCourt] was a pilot project scheduled to last for a particular period of time, and intended to explore different issues that came up in the context of introducing full-time video recording into courtrooms,” said Jeff Hermes, director of the Digital Media Law Project. “In that regard, I think it was a tremendous success,”
While Massachusetts might lag behind some states in terms of access to the courts, the new updates to Rule 1:19 have ultimately been a victory for Massachusetts press freedom.
“I think the SJC, that court, started to come to the realization that the rules on technology in the courts were outmoded if not even nonexistent for the most part,” said Ambrogi of the Rule 1:19 updates. “I think this was seen as an opportunity to modernize the rules to apply to the kind of technology that reporters are using today. I think it’s also an attempt to recognize that even the definition of a reporter is changing and to acknowledge the idea that … bloggers and citizen journalists can also be members of the news media as well.”
After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court approached the judiciary-media committee a few years ago requesting recommendations for updates to Rule 1:19, the Rule 1:19 subcommittee focused in on two fundamental points, said Neil Ungerleider, who co-chaired the subcommittee with Justice John Curran, now retired from Leominster District Court.
“One is that the nature of who is a journalist has changed, and secondly, the change in technology has allowed the use of electronic equipment in a way that was never before possible, and how if at all were we going to accommodate that,” Ungerleider said in a March 12 interview. “The second part was actually a little easier to deal with than the first part, the question of electronic access … The larger issue became deciding who is a journalist, and how was some order going to be brought to that process so that the people who claimed to be journalists actually were, as opposed to people just showing up off the street saying they were a journalist.”
Ungerleider, the general judiciary-media committee co-chair and the manager for WCVB-TV Digital, said it was important to extend access to citizen journalists. He sees professional and citizen journalists as the same.
“There really shouldn’t be a difference,” he said. “They [professional journalists] may reach more people, but why is a reporter for the Boston Globe more important than someone writing a weekly community blog or column or runs a community website in Winchester? Why should that person be less important? It’s kind of contrary to the First Amendment, if you will. Freedom of the press applies to everybody.”
Massachusetts has historically been progressive when it comes to cameras in the courts, having the original Rule 1:19 on the books since the 1980s, Ungerleider said. The subcommittee therefore tried to make the language in the rule as inclusive as possible, to define “even the smallest journalist,” he said.
Ultimately, the SJC approved a rule defining the “news media” as “organizations that regularly gather, prepare, photograph, record, write, edit, report or publish news or information about matters of public interest for dissemination to the public in any medium, whether print or electronic, and to individuals who regularly perform a similar function.”
Taking that view, the Rule 1:19 subcommittee then debated how to accommodate journalists of all kinds, Ungerleider said. Some subcommittee members favored a credentialing process, especially expressing fears that gang members could intimidate witnesses, he said. The subcommittee eventually chose a registration approach instead, requiring news organizations and citizen journalists to fill out a form and submit it to the Public Information Office.
“There is that safeguard, if you will, that the registration process was designed to put in place so that a gang member can’t bring an iPhone into the courtroom,” he said. “A reporter can because they’ve showed the registration when they go in if they’re asked for it.”
Since the updates went into effect in September 2012, Ungerleider has said he’s seen a positive reception from WCVB-TV readers and viewers who can get live updates from the courtroom. Since reporters can use electronic devices such as laptops, cell phones and tablets in reporting from the courtroom, live blogging and Tweeting a trial as it is in progress can put news consumers in the middle of the judicial proceedings as they happen.
“The ability of our reporters to do that is very much welcomed and appreciated on our website because [readers] come … in pretty significant numbers,” Ungerleider said. “The expectation on the part of people who are looking for news has changed. They expect it in real time. They expect it with immediacy. They expect it when it’s happening. And the rule change has allowed us to do that.”
The ability to live blog judicial proceedings is somewhat unique to Massachusetts, Ungerleider said. Blogging, citizen journalism of proceedings and other new reporting ventures possible thanks to technology have transformed Massachusetts reporters’ expectations of covering the courts.
Additionally, the updates to Rule 1:19 coincidentally lined up with the emergence of Twitter and live blogging in reporting, coming at “just the right time,” he said
“It’s easy for reporters who work in this state to forget that the access that they have is really unique and that while some states have cameras, this may be one of the few of only states that allow the use of the electronic devices,” Ungerleider said. “That’s something that’s not happening anywhere else in the country. So this is a very unique set of circumstances that exist in this state.”
This is somewhat old news, but OpenCourt, a pilot cameras in the courtroom project based out of Quincy District Court, has shut down its operations in the courthouse because the funding from the 2010 Knight News Challenge grant has run out.
I previously covered OpenCourt’s beginnings and some of its legal challenges, but at the time of that post, the project’s executive director, John Davidow, told me that the Quincy part of the project was merely on hiatus, and that he hoped it would expand into other courtrooms. He mentioned he and other OpenCourt staffers were working on other projects under the OpenCourt umbrella, tracking certain kinds of cases, for instance. Davidow told Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer who writes the LawSites blog, that, in conjunction with the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, he will write a report about the OpenCourt Quincy experiment that will later be published in the National Law Review.
Through the course of researching OpenCourt, I managed to dig up a lot about Commonwealth v. Barnes, a 2011 case that revolved around OpenCourt’s ability to post recorded footage to its online archives. Though the project is pulling out of Quincy District Court, OpenCourt’s legacy will last in the Barnes case, which legitimizes Rule 1:19 and the ability of an independent journalistic organization to publish however it wants footage of judicial proceedings in open court it had permission to record.
Specifically in the Barnes case, the District Attorney’s office and a group of public defenders filed petitions with the SJC requesting redaction of the name of a minor kidnapping victim in one case and the full video recordings of a defendant’s arraignment and later hearing on a motion in a second case. Counsel for OpenCourt’s opponents argued that OpenCourt operated only with Quincy District Court’s permission, and that its operation was so tied to the courthouse that videotapes constituted court documents, not documents belonging to a separate journalistic entity, and therefore, requesting redaction could not constitute prior restraint.
The SJC ruled 5-0 for OpenCourt (two justices on the judiciary-media committee recused themselves). The court declared OpenCourt an independent journalistic organization that deserved all the First Amendment protections normal news organizations enjoy. The SJC explicitly declared that the any court banning OpenCourt from publishing proceedings conducted in open court constituted prior restraint. Furthermore, wrote Justice Brotsford for the court, “Once a proceeding is recorded, the ability of the judge or an appellate court to control what media organizations do with the recording is highly constrained. Thus, even if an appellate court should conclude that there was an abuse of discretion in permitting the proceeding to be recorded, there can be no restraint on publication of the recording unless the court also determines that such a restraint is necessary to protect a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive reasonable method to do so.”
The court allowed OpenCourt to continue its operations given that the SJC’s judiciary-media committee would develop guidelines for the project that OpenCourt would abide by in the future. Later on, OpenCourt decided to wait two business days before posting video recordings of proceedings to have time to redact names of minors and sexual assault victims and to allow anyone to request a video not be published. Even after the footage has been posted, OpenCourt would take it down if someone flagged the video and explained the issue.
The project’s legacy as a pilot cameras in the court project that pushed the boundaries of the newly updated Rule 1:19 and survived two separate legal challenges that made it to the state’s highest court will survive as an example of Massachusetts’s openness to technology use in the courtroom. To Davidow, the greatest impact of OpenCourt was its ability to test the limits of Rule 1:19 while the changes to the rule were implemented.
“The new Rule 1:19 … was rewritten almost on a parallel track while Open Court was going. It allowed for a non-mainstream videographer in the courtroom. It talks about a number of the issues that came up. It also talked about what would be required of someone who did come in and cover the courts,” Davidow said to me in February. “We pushed that it would be a very low bar to get into the courts, almost like the registration of a new piece of software. So we offered a real-world example of what could be when 1:19 was rewritten … and then further clarif[ied] what rights the media had in terms of prior restraint.”
Jeff Hermes, the director of the Digital Media Law Project, a part of Harvard’s Berkman Center (as is the Cyberlaw Clinic Davidow is producing his report about OpenCourt with), agrees with Davidow’s assessment. In an interview earlier this week, he said that OpenCourt accomplished what it set out to do in the fixed period of time it ran.
“I think it was a tremendous success,” Hermes said. “It very clearly brought to the front tensions between the different parties in the court in terms of the creation of a video recording which would be in the hands of the press or in the hands of others that would not be subject to court orders barring publication of information.”
It’s not the inclusion of citizen journalists or the expansion of permissible technology usage in courtrooms for reporting that makes the recent updates to Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) Rule 1:19 so worthwhile. The most important thing is the existence of a rule about technology usage itself, said judiciary-media committee member Bob Ambrogi.
“There really hadn’t been [a set rule] before, and so what that meant was that, from courtroom to courtroom, from judge to judge, you’d get different standards being applied,” he said. “It wasn’t that you couldn’t do this stuff before, but there was no easy way to know how to do it, and the judges would have their own standards on this.”
A lawyer and blogger, Ambrogi has been a member of the judiciary-media committee for about 9 years. He is also the executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, and was on the subcommittee that researched and proposed potential updates to Rule 1:19.
The SJC approached the judiciary-media committee to explore possible changes to the rule after many citizen journalists inquired about technology usage in the courtroom, Ambrogi said.
“The SJC started to come to the realization that the rules on technology in the courts were outmoded if not even nonexistent for the most part. Although there was a rule on camera in the courts, it didn’t really address newer technologies that were being used in the courts,” he said. “So I think this was seen as an opportunity to modernize the rules to apply to the kind of technology that reporters are using today.
“I think it’s also an attempt to recognize that even the definition of a reporter is changing, and to acknowledge the idea that the news media aren’t just necessarily people who work for formal news organizations like the papers and television stations, but bloggers and citizen journalists can also be members of the news media as well and should be covered under the rule.”
While subcommittee members eventually agreed on the include of citizen journalists, some expressed concerns that allowing anyone to use cameras in the courts might make it easier for gang members to identify and intimidate witnesses, Ambrogi said.
“Judges are very cognizant of that,” he said. “I think that’s why to some extent the concern with this rule is it’s really much less about the mainstream media than it is about the fact that the definition of the media is changing so much that if you’re going to allow wider use of technology and photography in the courtroom, you have to put some constraints around it to prevent the possibility of abuse by people who are not really journalists but who are there for some other reason.”
The solution came in the form of a registration system: If a journalist fills out a registration form and submits it to the SJC’s public information office, then that journalist can bring a camera or electronic device into a courtroom as long as he or she shows an acknowledgment form upon entering the courthouse. The registration system allows the SJC to keep track of everyone who uses cameras and electronic devices in Massachusetts courtrooms without requiring journalists to have professional credentials to gain electronic access.
“Journalists in general have a strong resistance to any kind of formal credentialing system in the sense that no journalist wants the government deciding who is a journalist and who has the right to report the news, and the First Amendment treats everybody equally in terms of their ability to cover what’s going on in the courts,” Ambrogi said. “There’s not even a distinction between journalists and average citizens. Anywhere a journalist has access, it’s the same access any citizen has to the courts and to report on what’s going on in the courts.”
But judges also have to address concerns about potential harm to testifying witnesses and protecting defendants’ rights, he said.
“At the same time, under this rule, the court system really felt it needed to have control over the use of technology because technology is something that can be abused in the courtroom in some ways,” he said.
The rule forms a balancing approach between the two concerns. The updates were “probably overdue,” Ambrogi said, and he’s not sure if they go far enough in granting liberty to journalists. However, he also noted that Massachusetts courts are quite progressive in granting electronic courtroom access.
“In the process of drafting this rule, I did personally look at what other states were doing and try to find examples from other states of rules that they had drafted to speak to this issue of technology and bloggers and whatnot in the courtroom, and very few states have really done it,” he said. “Of course the federal court system is woefully behind the times in terms of allowing cameras in the courtrooms. We’re still guided by a U.S. Supreme Court that has said not over their dead bodies will they ever let cameras in the Supreme Court. So I think Massachusetts is ahead on this.”
In his capacity as the MNPA executive director, he brings concerns of journalists in the field to the judiciary-media committee. He said he hasn’t heard of any issues with the rule since it went into effect last September.
“I think it’s going well,” he said. “Time will tell.”
The media’s use of technology has evolved since the ‘60s, but on the federal level, courts have struggled to keep up with the rapidly changing industry. The courts are naturally more slow-moving than the media, whose success hinges on having the latest information as soon as possible. Even today, the use of cameras in federal criminal courtrooms of all levels is strictly prohibited, except in the Second and Ninth Circuit Appeals courts and in rare pilot programs the federal system has implemented, once in the ‘90s, and once again for a three-year trial period starting in 2011 in 14 federal district courts.
I’ve previously explored the U.S. Supreme Court’s extreme hesitancy to allow use of cameras during the ‘60s, but one particular case deserves reexamination from that post.
In the 1965 case of Estes v. Texas, the court threw out a conviction because a trial judge had allowed about a dozen reporters to videotape a pretrial hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court played up the self-consciousness cameras can create for everyone involved – lawyers, judges and witnesses posturing to the camera, trying their best to impress rather than to get at the truth. At that point in time, 48 state courts and the federal courts had banned camera use in courtrooms.
The use of cameras in the criminal courtroom is an inherent denial of due process, the court said:
The television camera is a powerful weapon. Intentionally or inadvertently it can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public … We have already examined the ways in which public sentiment can affect the trial participants. To the extent that television shapes that sentiment, it can strip the accused of a fair trial.
The court refused to consider the possibility of a future where camera usage did not automatically render a judicial proceeding inherently unfair. Instead, the court wrote, “Our judgment cannot be rested on the hypothesis of tomorrow but must take the facts as they are presented today. The judgment is therefore reversed.”
But in the next decades that followed, camera technology rapidly improved and even American ownership of televisions increased dramatically.
This set the scene for the 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision Chandler v. Florida. A criminally convicted defendant challenged a Florida state law that allowed camera usage in criminal courtrooms, charging that camera use had resulted in an unfair trial.
Upon decision, the Supreme Court declined to directly overturn Estes, concluding that it “did not announce a constitutional rule that all photographic or broadcast coverage of criminal trials is inherently a denial of due process.” But in practice, the court did in fact overturn the spirit of the Estes decision. The court also declined to establish a First Amendment right to use cameras in a criminal courtroom. Instead, the court rooted its decision in the concept of federalism, that federal government and state governments are both sovereign. Painting the decision as a states’ rights issue instead of a First Amendment issued, the court said:
It is not necessary either to ignore or to discount the potential danger to the fairness of a trial in a particular case in order to conclude that Florida may permit the electronic media to cover trials in its state courts. Dangers lurk in this, as in most experiments, but unless we were to conclude that television coverage under all conditions is prohibited by the Constitution, the states must be free to experiment. We are not empowered by the Constitution to oversee or harness state procedural experimentation; only when the state action infringes fundamental guarantees are we authorized to intervene.
Currently every state in the U.S. allows some use of cameras in courtrooms. Mississippi and South Dakota, the last holdouts, changed their camera use policies in 2001. Currently the federal courts allow the public access to audio recordings, and all the 14 district courts (for example, the Northern District of California) have archived copies of some videotaped judicial proceedings accessible online. The federal Cameras in Courts project will last up to 2014, which the Federal Judicial Center will conduct a study of that will determine the fate of camera usage in federal courtrooms in the future.
Massachusetts is one of the 10 states without a shield law on the books, joining a small minority that interpret the so-called “reporter’s privilege” under case law. While the U.S. Supreme Court has denied the existence of a constitutionally protected reporter’s privilege, states legislatures are free to enact laws that give more rights to journalists than the baseline fundamental rights granted in the United States Constitution. Currently 40 states and the District of Columbia have statutory shield laws in effect.
The Massachusetts reporter’s privilege is confusing and open to interpretation, but ultimately Massachusetts courts have acknowledged a limited reporter’s privilege. Massachusetts common law protects reporter’s privilege when the reporter’s interest in protecting his source’s identity outweighs the government’s or private lawsuit party’s interest in procuring evidence. Courts are more inclined to protect information gathered from confidential sources than sources who have spoken on the record, however.
A First Circuit appellate court decision from 1998 acknowledged the existence of a limited reporter’s privilege to protect his sources. In Cusumano v. Microsoft, the First Circuit court determined that Microsoft Corporation could not compel two academic researchers to produce research materials for a book concerning an antitrust lawsuit Microsoft was involved in. The court established a balancing test for a limited First Amendment privilege of protecting confidential information.
Quoting United States v. LaRouche Campaign, the court said when district courts must decide whether to enforce requests for discovery production of materials used “in the preparation of journalistic reports,” the courts should “be aware of the possibility that the unlimited or unthinking allowance of such requests will impinge upon First Amendment rights.” To determine how discovery requests should be limited, if at all, those courts “must balance the potential harm to the free flow of information that might result against the asserted need for the requested information.”
Importantly, the court also declined to limit the applicability of the protection to the traditional definition of journalists. The court noted that academic researchers and journalists share many trade similarities and therefore must both enjoy a First Amendment privilege to protection of confidential sources and information:
Courts afford journalists a measure of protection from discovery initiatives in order not to undermine their ability to gather and disseminate information. Journalists are the personification of a free press, and to withhold such protection would invite a “chilling effect on speech,” and thus destabilize the First Amendment. The same concerns suggest that courts ought to offer similar protection to academicians engaged in scholarly research. After all, scholars too are information gatherers and disseminators … Just as a journalist, stripped of sources, would write fewer, less incisive articles, an academician, stripped of sources, would be able to provide fewer, less cogent analyses. Such similarities of concern and function militate in favor of a similar level of protection for journalists and academic researchers.
There have been a few recent attempts to pass a shield law in Massachusetts. An attempt in 2007 failed in early 2008, as well as a more recent attempt by the Massachusetts Broadcasters Association in 2010. Last year, another possible shield law called the “Free Flow of Information Act” that offered protection to journalistic bloggers made the rounds in the news media before it too failed. Massachusetts still doesn’t have a shield law on the books.
While Congress has repeatedly failed to pass a federal shield law statute and the courts have ruled that the Constitution doesn’t protect a reporter’s privilege, 40 states have passed shield laws. Some may prefer legislation about reporter’s privilege at the state level. State level shield laws can account for cultural and geographic differences and conform more to the culture of the state.
The vast variety in state shield laws, however, can make things very difficult for reporters who plan to travel anywhere outside their home state to cover a story. Theoretically, a reporter would be responsible for knowing the specific laws in each state he or she covers news in. This could place an undue burden on the reporter and can hinder or discourage him from branching out and covering stories outside of his home state. Adding more to the confusion is the question of who legally qualifies as a journalist and can enjoy protection under state shield laws.
University of Oregon Professor Kyu Ho Youm wrote a brief editorial for the New York Times website following an Oregon judge’s December 2011 determination that a blogger did not qualify for shield law protection. Youm noted that a First Circuit court in a recent decision declined to dispense First Amendment protections on “professional credentials or status” alone.
“The federal court ruling reinforces the judicial reluctance to read bloggers and other journalistic outsiders (“outliers”?) into state shield law,” Youm wrote. “Judges are more likely to continue with their traditional journalist-oriented approach to source protection unless their state laws are ambiguous enough to allow them creative interpretations.”
The freedom of the press. The right to a fair trial. Both constitutionally guaranteed; both of equal import. When they two conflict, how can courts or others resolve the tension between them?
Pretrial publicity of high-profile criminal cases can bias jurors against the accused, making his or her trial unfair. Yet the First Amendment protects pretrial publicity. The Supreme Court confirmed its presumption of constitutionality in the ’70s, making it extremely difficult, but certainly not impossible, for a judge to issue a gag order of the press. There are other indirect methods of restricting press access to the courtroom that judges can use.
Judges, rather than silencing the media, can impose gag orders on court officials and involved parties if they want to control what goes to the press. If, for example, a lawyer leaks something to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, the judge can subpoena the reporter and demand to know the source of the leak. If the reporter stands by his word and refuses to give up his source, he may be sent to jail or otherwise sanctioned. Grand juries may also compel journalists to testify if they have witnessed the commission of a crime firsthand.
While 49 states have laws or judicial rulings that provide some protection to journalists, there is no federal law or Supreme Court precedent that safeguards the reporter’s right to maintain the confidentiality of his source. Post-publication sanctions on reporters could discourage them from writing about high-profile criminal cases. Some argue that gag orders on court officials have become an indirect way of preventing media coverage of criminal cases.
Apart from arguably indirect press restrictions, challenges to the legitimacy of press coverage of criminal cases are common. Despite 40 years of presumptive constitutionality, defendants still appeal convictions on claims of juror bias due to media coverage.
In 2010, for example, former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling’s appeal based on juror bias made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In September 2012, convicted murderer and kidnapper Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, known under his alias “Clark Rockfeller,” appealed his conviction in a Massachusetts appeals court; his appeal was based upon juror bias due to pretrial publicity. A district attorney challenged Quincy-based group Open Court’s freedom to film proceedings in Quincy District Court this past summer.
Even though pretrial publicity enjoys constitutional protection, it remains an issue today, through both challenges from defendants and indirect restriction of press freedom in gag orders of involved parties. Exposure to pretrial publicity can prejudice jurors. On the other hand, the cost of restricting press freedom could outweigh any benefit to society through protecting the accused.
What, then, is the resolution to this struggle?
That’s the thing I’m aiming to find out over the course of the Spring 2013 semester. It’s the main point of my directed study project under the supervision of Northeastern Assistant Professor of Journalism Dan Kennedy.
For now, let’s say the jury’s out on this one.