Media_in_the_Courtroom_Research_Paper

Media in the Courtroom Media in the Courtr COM150 May 3, 2010 Faith Ibarra Media in the courtroom is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. The question I would answer in my paper is whether or not it should be allowed in the courtroom. I have provided some example key cases which had the media have played a huge role in the verdict. Media in the Courtroom Latoya Powell Com 150 April 16, 2010 Faith Ibarra Introduction Have you ever thought about how the media in courtrooms affects criminal cases' The public has always looked to the media to inform them of what is happening in the world, and recently with the rising growth of the criminal and court TV shows that are out today. It is sky-rocketing the public’s interest in the courtroom. Which brings me to this subject: Media in the Courtroom' Should it or should it not be allowed in the courtroom. Media is not supposed to be allowed in courtrooms, but some States have let the media inside their courtrooms under the judge’s discretion. The media in the courtroom could potential harm the media against the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment supports the rights to free press that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Mount, 1995-2010). This amendment protects the press to report news to the public. Which, I believe the people in the United States have a very unique interest for court TV available for people to watch, for example the, “Law and Order,” “Tru TV.” They are very interesting because it gives the public somewhat of an idea of what happens in the judicial system, and without the media there, the public would never receive information of the criminal activities that take place in our communities without the news press and the TV media to report the daily activities. Sixth Amendment The media in the courtroom could always violate a person’s sixth amendment of the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment is also a key factor to the media in the courtroom. When abiding to the sixth amendment the person involved has the right to a fair and speedy trial. Now, sometimes when the media gets involved in a case, it can become a very sticky situation. For example, the Dr. Sam Sheppard case. Dr. Sheppard was convicted for the murder of his pregnant wife there Cleveland suburban home. The case received a huge amount of pretrial publicity, which leads the United States Supreme Court to rule that Dr. Sheppard’s Sixth amendment rights was not considered , and they overturned the trial’s court ruling. When this happened the Supreme Court began paying more attention to the media’s First Amendment rights. Dr. Sam Sheppard Case In July 1954, Sam Sheppard wife Marilyn Sheppard was murdered in the bedroom of her home in Bay Village, Ohio. Dr. Sheppard denied any involvement in the murder. This was a very unusual case that prolonged for over half a century. Dr. Sheppard faced two trials throughout a span of 12 years. Dr. Sheppard was found guilty in one trial and not guilty in another trial. Even more than 50 years later partisans still continue the debate (Linder, 2006). When formulating their opinions, the jurors are only to consider evidence presented in the courtroom, but the jurors in the Sheppard case was not sequestered during a six week trial. The jury in this particular trial was exposed daily to extensive news coverage and editorial commentary of a prejudicial nature outside of the courtroom. Judge Edward Blythin was the presiding judge (Barber, 1987). The media took charge of the trial by demanding for the arrest and conviction of Dr. Sheppard (Overbeck & Pullen, 1992). In an effort to pressure the court for a guilty verdict, the jurors’ home telephone numbers were published, and as a result, Dr. Sheppard, was subsequently convicted of the crime (Overbeck & Pullen, 1992). In 1966, 12 years after the State (Ohio) conviction of Sheppard, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case and overturned the verdict (Overbeck & Pullen, 1992). The doctor was granted a new trial and was acquitted. Mass Media in the Courtroom The mass media’s play a huge role in reporting criminal justice issues to the public. They report new to the public by being at the crime scene, arrests, and trial proceedings (Surette, 1984). The media also reports stories that focus on the deviant and out-of-place stories such as serial killers and psychotic personalities (Ericson et al, 1991). The public has learned to recognize law as it is portrayed through television and other media of popular culture, other than formal procedure in the legal system (Ericson et al, 1991). Some people gain their knowledge of the justice system from four different sources: personal experiences, significant others, social groups, and mass media (Surette, 1992). Studies have shown that people spend roughly three hours daily watching television (Hans & Dee, 1991). Which makes television and visual media an advantage over print media, because it is easier to understand. Television cameras continue to be banned in most American courtrooms—State and Federal—despite the fact that each state has a law permitting camera’s in the courtroom (Thompson, 2004). Which usually happens at the judge’s discretion' Many opponents of cameras in the courtroom also argue cameras are disruptive to the judicial process, a concern that has changed but not necessarily lessened with the advances in technology (Thompson, 2004). The effect of media in the courtroom Whenever the media has some involvement with court cases, they have to be sure that they do not let the media persuade the judges, lawyers and, even the jury. The O. J Simpson case is an example of which the media as somewhat at fault for the verdict. O.J Simpson was ultimately found not guilty. There are a majority of defendants in murder cases that are convicted for their crimes and there were no cameras involved. Research seemed to validate the idea that influences outcomes (William & Jon, 2004). It was found that researchers studied more than 300 murder cases over a three year span and examined how much news media coverage these trials received. The trials studied ranged from crimes that involved drug kingpins, killings of law enforcement officers, killings that may have taken during a kidnappings and bank robberies. Half of those cases received no media coverage, and in those cases the defendant was found guilty 79% of the time. The other half that did receive media coverage was intense, these defendants were found guilty 81% of the time (Montaldo, Free press Vs. Fair trials: Book Challenges media influence on trial verdicts). In trials that had received media attention, the defendant was found guilty 82% of the time (Montaldo, Free press Vs. Fair trials: Book Challenges media influence on trial verdicts). The difference, between the odds of being found guilty in the non- publicity and high-publicity trials is not that much different. Conclusion Media in the courtroom has some up’s and some down’s. Even with statistics showing there is not much of a difference with the conviction rate, even with media involvement. Media has the rights to free press, and well as a defendant has the right to a fair trial. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done on the topic, but one would believe that after hearing both sides of effects media has in the courtroom. It still makes your question again whether or not media should be allowed in the courtroom. It has been known to give the people what they want, especially when what they want is public information. The general public is in a frenzy about the high profile cases, such as, the Devonni Benton case, and the Casey Anthony case. Devonni Benton is on trial and his case is actually being aired on TruTv. The defendant is on trial for the murder of a young female college student who was trying break up a fight. The media could either harm this young man’s case or it can correct the case and help the prosecution convict the right killer. Casey Anthony is currently awaiting trial for the murder of her own daughter. This particular case is getting insane media coverage. Which is giving the public aware to cases that gets national media coverage an inside aspect of what happens afterwards. So the question is still at large should or should media be allowed in the courtroom. References Barber, S. (1987). News cameras in the courtrooom. A free press-fair trial debate . Norwood, NJ : Ablex Publishing Corporation. Charles, M. (n.d.). Free press Vs. Fair trials: Book Challenges media influence on trial verdicts . Retrieved from About.com Crime/ Punishment : http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/blosu041226.htm Linder, D. O. (2006). The Dr. Sam Sheppard Trial. Retrieved from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/sheppard/samsheppardtrial.html Mount, S. (1995-2010). U.S Constitution Online. Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 Overbeck, W., & Pullen, R. (1992). Major principles of media law. Fortworth: Harcourt Brace Jovanivich College Publishers . Thompson, E. (2004). Courtroom Cameras: Issues moves in and out. Quill , 7-9. William, L., & Jon, B. (2004). Free Press Vs. Fair Trials: Examining Publicity's Role in Trial Outcomes. Lawerence Eribaum. Erickson, R., Cutler, Baranek, P., & Chan, J. (1991). Representing order: Crime, law, and justice in the news media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hans, V.P, & Dee, J.L. (1991). Media coverage of law: Its impact on juries and the public. American Behavioral Scientist. 35, Pg. 136-149. Surette, R. (1984). Justice and the media: Issues and research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Surette, R. (1992). Mass media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole