Sheppard V. Maxwell Revisited: Do the Traditional Rules Work for Nontraditional Media?

Hengstler examines the Supreme Court's decision of four decades ago, in which the Court held that "massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity" had deprived Dr. Sam Sheppard of a fair trial on charges that he had murdered his wife. As Hengstler emphasizes, the Supreme Court in Shepp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law and contemporary problems 2008-10, Vol.71 (4), p.171-180
Main Author: Hengstler, Gary A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attorneys
Broadcasting stations
Conduct of court proceedings
Criminal justice
Criminal procedure
Ethics
Fair trial
Free press and fair trial
Freedom of the press
Gag orders
Historical analysis
Homicide
Journalism
Judges
Jurors
Laws, regulations and rules
Litigation
Media
Media coverage
News content
News media
Prejudice
Profits
Public opinion
Publicity
Supreme Court decisions
Supreme Courts
Trials
U.S.A
World Wide Web
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Hengstler examines the Supreme Court's decision of four decades ago, in which the Court held that "massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity" had deprived Dr. Sam Sheppard of a fair trial on charges that he had murdered his wife. As Hengstler emphasizes, the Supreme Court in Sheppard placed responsibility for safeguarding the fairness of the criminal proceeding solely on the trial judge, rather than on the media responsible for generating the publicity. Because prejudicial publicity, including that at issue in Sheppard itself, often occurs before a trial judge takes jurisdiction of the case, the tools traditionally employed by trial judges to protect the trial process--such as protective orders, changes of venue, sequestration, and jury admonitions--often come too late. New forms of media, evolving definitions of journalism, increased market pressures to make news entertaining, and the existence of a World Wide Web all diminish the effectiveness of traditional methods for safeguarding a defendant's right to a fair trial.
ISSN:0023-9186
1945-2322