![]() Only a few years after the cession of the territory by Spain to the TO FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS (1968) ABA ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS, RECOMMENDED COURT PROCEDURE TO ACCOMMODATE RIGHTS OF FAIR TRIAL ANDįREE PRESS (Revised Draft, 1975) Landau & Roney, Fair Trial and Free Press: A Due (3)Ĥ50 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol.4:449įlorida's first statutory limitation on contempt dated from 1828, State, 67 A.2d 497 (Md.ġ949) ABA ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS, STANDARDS RELATING Viewpoint, but were unwilling to adopt it unless later cases showed the necessity ofĭoing so. In separateĬon-curring opinions, Justices White and Stevens indicated that they leaned to the latter Prohibi-tions on the reporting of judicial proceedings constitute prior restraints and areĬonstitutionally impermissible under any circumstances. In aĬon-curring opinion, Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stewart stated their view that The opinion formulates standards which will be almost impossible to meet. Of the court, left open the possibility that such bans on press coverage might beĪppropriate under some circumstances that possibility, however, seems slight because Chief Justice Burger, writing for a majority To restrain press coverage of a murder trial. 2791 (1976), the Supreme Court un-animously invalidated a "gag" order which had been issued by a Nebraska trial judge 615 (1900) Worth, Contempt of Court, 37 CENTRAL L.J. 292 (1900) Larremore, Constitutional Regulation of Contempt ofĬourt, 13 HARV. 141 (1913) Hughes, Contempt of Court and the Press, 16 L. THOMAS, THE LAW OF CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT (1904) Beale,Ĭontempt of Court, Criminal and Civil, 21 HARV. THOMAS, PROBLEMS OFĬON-TEMPT OF COURT (1934) J. RAPALJE, A TREATISE ON CONTEMPT (1884) C. For a recent treatment of contempt in all its facets, see R. A.B., Davidson College (1964) M.A., Princeton University (1966) Ph.D., Princeton University (1967).ġ. *Associate Professor of Government, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Or imprison for remarks concerning him or his court made outside the Question, simply put, was whether a judge had the authority to fine Jurors, from scandal, pressure, and attack. Of pretrial and trial publicity on potential and empaneled jurors,Īmerican state and federal court reports confirm that the power ofĬonstructive contempt was historically employed to protect judges, not The debate over the authority of judges to restrict out-of-courtĬom-mentary has occurred in the arena of the fair trial-free press dispute.2īut if contemporary discussions revolve around the probable effects Politics.' Florida has been no exception to this rule. Since the earliest years of the Republic, the legal issue ofĬonstruc-tive contempt has pitted personality against principle and piety against
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |