Aedrys thank you for yours above, and Flakes, as for your words RBBM above, yes it can and does happen in the US of A, and it does not at all preclude impartial juries, and those juries make judgments that stand. Jurors in states with and without Sunshine laws are in fact expected to make their judgments based on the evidence presented by prosecution and defense teams. No courtroom in this nation is, or has ever been, a "controlled vacuum."
Wow. Thanks
ynotdivein and
Aedrys for the explanations. The legal/media/access to information in the USA is certainly quite different to that in Australia. As I've posted in a certain NG thread, to reveal key information regarding a case in Australia is considered to place you
In Contempt of Court. This particularly applies to reporting in the media. I'll try and explain the Australian system
for anyone who's interested. It will explain how bewildered I am by the extent of information coming out in the Zahra Baker case, and why I ask so many questions. My comments may also serve to illustrate how alien the legal system will appear to AB. Fact is, he's required to co-operate and accept the US legal system, so I guess he's getting accustomed to it pretty fast!
The charge of being
In Contempt is designed to prevent interference with the "proper course of justice". It's considered that reporting of critical information relating to the persons involved (perpetrator/victim/witnesses) or events, etc, may prejudice the judge, magistrate or jury against the defendant. eg. the divulging of previous convictions this would be seen to reduce the chance of a fair trial. Such information is publicly released once the verdict has been reached.
For journalists there are five main risks for committing a criminal Contempt:
* Publishing matter likely to prejudice a fair trial
From the time somebody is arrested, charged or a warrant is issued, up to the moment when the court finishes dealing with it, the case is said to be
sub judice. This is a Latin phrase meaning "under judgment". While a case is
sub judice, you're strictly limited as to what you can report. eg. publishing details of a defendant's previous convictions; broadcasting details of background of the case. You may only give details of what's happening officially within the legal process. In practice this means only information which is part of a charge or details which are part of actual court proceedings.
* Interfering with the course of justice
This applies to interviews with witnesses, for instance. As soon as a person has been arrested or charged in connection with the crime, no potential witness should be approached for an interview. The reason for this is that witnesses may later change their evidence in court to fit in with what they have told reporters.
* Scandalising the court
Anything reported which is likely to lower the authority of the court or bring it into public derision and contempt may be held to scandalise the court. You may discuss the issue, but you may not attack the person eg. you may criticise a judgment on the grounds it is inconsistent with other judgments; or that it's out of touch with the public mood regarding the crime; however you may not claim that a judge deliberately made an unjust decision, that he was biased, drunk, or incapable of carrying out his/her job.
* Refusing to name a source of information
Individuals such as priests, lawyers and doctors are considered to have professional ethics which prevent them from revealing information gained in confidence, but the law does not recognise that journalists have a similar professional demand.
* Photography or electronic recording within the court precincts
Journalists are prohibited from taking photos or making sound recordings in the precincts of the court without special permission. Such recordings cannot be published or broadcast. The reason usually given is such practices will be likely to encourage witnesses and defendants to perform for the media rather than to concentrate on the real business at hand. Some courts allow recording of the judge's delivery of judgement. Hand sketches of court are permitted in the place of photographs. It's also not legal to publish a photograph of a person who's suspected of a crime if visual identification is likely to be critical to the trial.
Prue Innes, Courts Information Officer at the Victorian Supreme Court, wrote this list of things journalists should avoid in covering court proceedings:
* Revealing prior convictions
* Reports which imply guilt or innocence of the accused
* Reports including interviews which could affect witnesses
* Comments, as distinct from reports of the court case
* Reporting alleged confessions
* Pictures of the accused where identity is an issue
* Reporting evidence etc in the absence of the jury
* Any contact with jurors.
The above is my précis of information available at:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_03.html
In Australia the notion of Contempt of Court is clearly understood. It's about having utmost respect and faith in our legal system and the courts this notion is based on the English model. The idea of Sunshine laws, which I had never heard of prior to now, and the extent to which material appears to be available to the public and media in the USA, is quite astonishing to me.
It's not necessarily better or worse, just different. Given the system under which I have lived all my life, I admit that I can't help but wonder how a fair trial can be held if jury members may have been exposed to highly prejudicial and subjective material presented by the media (again I can't help but think of NG). Yet somehow both systems clearly function within the social, cultural and political systems. Both have functioned for considerable time, with dedicated and expert minds streamlining the systems to achieve the best possible outcome. I can only imagine how astounded Americans would be about a trial held in Australia!
