http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/pretrial-publicity/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_40/ <p>Did the press and members of the public have a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to attend the trial?</p><p>The Court held that members of the public had no right to attend criminal trials under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court noted that judges had "an affirmative constitutional duty" to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity, and that closure of pretrial proceedings was an effective method to do so. The Court found that the Sixth Amendment, while granting defendants the right to a public trial, did not imply a public right of access to trials. The Court added that since the suppression of the transcript was only temporary, no violation of the First Amendment had occurred.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1301/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_26/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_41/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_383/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_5116/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_95/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_630/ <p>What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial?</p><p>In an 8-to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The Cleveland television media's repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in detail to crimes he was later charged with, the blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland's radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jurors' minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_490/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_68/