Issues
Cases
Resources
FootnoteTV ®
No Frames
Footnote Comics™
 Mirror Law™ |
Site FAQ | Search
B.B. | Shop
Author FAQ
| Newsaic ® | FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board | By Stephen Lee |
|
Issues |
Cases |
Resources |
FootnoteTV ® No Frames |
Footnote Comics™ |
|
Site FAQ | Search B.B. | Shop |
Author FAQ |
|
Beulah and Belva (last updated January 25, 2003) (back to top) Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, the stars of Chicago's Murderess Row, were based on Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner, two real-life women who faced trial in 1924 for killing their respective lovers. Maurine Watkins, who wrote the play which was the basis for the musical and movie versions of Chicago, wrote about Gaertner and Annan for the Chicago Tribune and then used their stories as the basis for her playwriting. According to Watkins' articles, Annan was the "prettiest" woman on Chicago's Murderess Row, while Gaertner was the "most stylish." Both, of course, were found not guilty.
 How Courts can deal with Pre-Trial Publicity (last updated February 4, 2003) (back to top) Faced with the media "circus" surrounding high-profile trials, courts have the power and obligation to try controlling the extent and effect of such publicity. Courts can switch venues, delay the trial, and sequester the jury or keep it anonymous. Courts also can regulate what lawyers say about a pending trial through general court rules and through case-specific protective orders, commonly referred to as "gag orders." For example, Bruce Cutler, a lawyer representing mobster John Gotti, was found guilty of criminal contempt in the early 1990s for violating a New York federal court rule that prohibited lawyers from making certain public statements about an impending case if such statements were reasonably likely to interfere with a fair trial. Cutler was put on probation, had his license temporarily suspended, was placed under house arrest, and was ordered to pay a fine and perform non-legal community service. "We are not unaware that it has become de rigeur for successful criminal defense lawyers to cultivate cozy relationships with the media," the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote in 1995 in affirming Cutler's conviction. "As Seneca once observed, "quae fuerant vitia mores sunt" ("what once were vices are now the manners of the day"). The Bruce Cutler case must now stand as a caution that enough of the 'old ethics' survive to bar flouting the Canons of Professional Conduct." The trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh presents an example of the steps courts can take to control publicity. First, the case was moved from an Oklahoma federal court to a federal court in Denver because of the high publicity surrounding it and the court's finding that McVeigh could not face a fair trial there. Then, District Court Judge Richard Matsch in Denver issued orders barring attorneys and people under their control from speaking with the press, and placed limits on McVeigh's ability to give interviews as well. The result was a trial that was seen by many as controlled, orderly and fair, despite the massive public attention brought to bear on it. In regulating lawyers' and non-lawyers' out-of-court statements, courts must balance people's First Amendment rights of free speech against the need to run courtrooms effectively and to uphold the defendant's right to a fair trial against. Non-lawyers such as plaintiffs, defendants, victims, and relatives generally cannot be restricted from making out-of-court statements. A broad rule barring such statements in a civil case stemming from the 1970 shootings at Kent State University was struck down in 1975; "A more restrictive ban upon freedom of expression in the trial context would be difficult if not impossible to find," the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. Similarly, when Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki issued a broad gag order in the wrongful-death civil case brought against O.J. Simpson, that order was reportedly subsequently modified so it would not bar people such as Nicole Brown Simpson's father from speaking about broader topics such as domestic violence. Lawyers, on the other hand, are subject to greater restrictions in what they can say, owing to their role within the criminal justice system. In a 1991 decision, Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, five justices of the United States Supreme Court agreed that lawyers could be barred from making out-of-court statements to the public when there was a "substantial likelihood" that such statements could cause "material prejudice." "Because lawyers have special access to information through discovery and client communications, their extrajudicial statements pose a threat to the fairness of a pending proceeding since lawyers' statements are likely to be received as especially authoritative," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in an opinion joined by four other justices. Three other justices, however, agreed with Justice Anthony Kennedy when he wrote that "only the occasional case presents a danger of prejudice from pretrial publicity." Kennedy agreed that "a court can require an attorney's cooperation to an extent not possible of nonparticipants," but would have required a higher standard for doing so. Moreover, such rules and orders must not be too vague or overbroad. In the Gentile case, a defense lawyer had been reprimanded under a local rule for giving a press conference hours after his client was indicted; the lawyer had accused the police of being crooked and of using his client as a scapegoat. While the justices agreeing with Rehnquist upheld the rule in general, a majority of justices agreed with Kennedy that the rule when applied was still too vague and imprecise that selective enforcement was "a real possibility." Sources: Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991). CBS Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. 1975). United States v. Cutler, 58 F.3d 825 (2nd Cir. 1995). United States v. McVeigh, 964 F.Supp. 313 (D. Colo. 1997). Steven A. Holmes, Pondering 2 trials, judges lean to one conclusion, New York Times, June 7, 1997. Gag order over Simpson reflects shift in attitude, New York Times, August 26, 1996. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on-line here, also has a chapter on gag orders in its First Amendment handbook here. Female Murderers (last updated January 25, 2003) (back to top) Women are far less likely than men to commit murder, but are more likely to murder intimates or family members than men, according to statistics collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The estimated rate of murder was 1.3 per 100,000 women, compared to 11.5 per 100,000 men. Of the murders committed between 1976 and 1997, about 60 percent of those committed by women were against intimates or family members, whereas 20 percent of those committed by men were against such known victims. Women represented 16 percent of the total population under the care, custody or control of adult criminal justice authorities in 1998. Women reportedly receive shorter sentences than men for almost all types of offenses, though that may reflect differences in men's and women's criminal backgrounds. Sources: Women Offenders, a Bureau of Justice Statistics report by Lawrence A. Greenfield and Tracy L. Snell and published in December 1999, is on-line here. |
||||||||||||||||||
| DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained. (C) Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004 Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Mirror Law and Footnote Comics are service marks of Stephen Lee. More information available here. Comments or suggestions to the Site Editor. |
| Newsaic ® | FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board | By Stephen Lee |
