NCJ Number
55875
Date Published
1978
Length
20 pages
Annotation
A U.S. ATTORNEY DISCUSSES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE DEFENDANTS WITH FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIALS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE ATTRACTED PUBLIC ATTENTION.
Abstract
PROSECUTORS ARE CHARGED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF PROVIDING CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITH FAIR TRIALS THAT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS. COURTS HAVE OVERTURNED CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE ATTRIBUTED TO STATEMENTS MADE BY PROSECUTORS TO THE PRESS AND WHICH WERE PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN SHEPHARD V. MAXWELL (1963) HELD THAT APPELLATE COURTS ARE BOUND TO REVERSE CONVICTIONS IF A FINDING IS MADE THAT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY HAD A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PREJUDICING THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. IN RESPONSE TO THIS HOLDING, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS AMENDED TO BAR ATTORNEYS FROM MAKING PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE PARTIES OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS. MOST JURISDICTIONS ALSO ADOPTED LOCAL RULES WHICH PROHIBIT ATTORNEY'S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION. THE 'NO-COMMENT' RULES AND 'GAG ORDERS' HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED AS INFRINGING THE ATTORNEY'S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, BUT LAWYERS MUST STILL REFRAIN FROM EXTENDING THEIR COMMENTS BEYOND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN PUBLIC RECORD. WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO EXTENSIVE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, THE VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION MUST BE CAREFULLY USED TO SCREEN JURORS WHO ARE UNWILLING TO DECIDE THE CASE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT. A CHANGE OF VENUE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO ASSURE AN IMPARTIAL JURY FREE OF LOCAL PREJUDICES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)