Television, radio, newspapers are a citizen’s eyes on the world, but when does the media cross the line?
That was the question members of the judicial system and the media tried to answer during a live video conference Friday at the U.S. Courthouse sponsored by the Federal Bar Association.
Finding the right balance between the Constitutional right to a free press and the right to a fair trial comes under fire in many high profile cases. Regardless of innocence or guilt, the likelihood of a celebrity murder case — like O.J. Simpson — escaping the limelight is very slim.
A circus of reporters camped out on the courthouse steps or hounding key players in a well-publicized trial stick in the public’s mind.
Where does the need for information clash with the pursuit of justice?
Is a completely unbiased trial even possible outside of theory? Scenes portrayed through certain mediums have the potential to sway a jury, and even sequestered jurors are exposed to some information.
“The prosecution will tell you you’re guaranteed a fair trial, not a perfect one,” said Scott Makar, an attorney with Holland & Knight and panelist for the discussion. “The defending attorney wants a perfect trial.”
Citing the trial against those responsible for the terrorist attacks as a hypothetical example, Makar pointed out the possible dilemma of selecting a jury without preconceived notions.
“What potential juror hasn’t seen those images [of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center]? All they [the courts] can do is to ensure jurors are not unduly biased,” he said.
Makar, who teaches the ethical implications of media and the law, predicts a rash of subpoenas for reporters and photojournalists to aid in the terrorist investigation.
Currently, laws are in place partially shielding journalists from having to testify or turn over notes, videotape or other property.
However, if the evidence is pertinent and cannot be obtained elsewhere, the courts can confiscate these materials and/or order the reporter to give testimony.
On the federal level, cameras are not allowed inside the courtroom, but that is not the case with state courts.
Reporters in the courtroom have to follow certain guidelines on what is appropriate to prevent their interference with the judicial process.
“Where it creates a problem is when you have a high profile trial and the ‘entertainment’ media is there emphasizing snippets, inflammatory portions,” explained Makar. “That’s where the danger is, not giving the overall context.”
On the other side, Heather Murphy, a reporter for Ch. 4, spoke about maintaining the delicate balance between coverage and intrusion.
“In good conscience you have to try not to compromise them [the legal community],” said Murphy. “You want to report as much as you can and tell the story completely but you don’t want to endanger anyone’s case, either side.”
With all the good intentions, some jurors still have their own agendas, perhaps by writing a book or attempting to gain some other notoriety. Eliminating these jurors isn’t an easy task.
The tug-of-war between reporters looking for a scoop and lawyers aiming to win their case continues every day in courtrooms across America.
The purpose of the video conference, conceived by Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich in Tampa, was to probe the practical, legal and ethical issues when the media and the justice system clash.
The secondary purpose is to allow new technology to get a trial run and possibly spill over to other applications.
Each chapter of the FBA in each division of the Middle District headed up the search for a representative number of judges, lawyers and media from their area to participate in the talks on how to improve relations between the media and the law.
“The media by and large does more good than harm,” said Michael Freed, an attorney with Smith, Hulsey & Busey. “They provide us a window to what’s going on in the world, albeit somewhat subjective at times, but at least it gives us the opportunity to see what’s going on and to investigate it further and form our own opinions.”