Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

only one example, they state that the publication of an accused's criminal record “should be considered very carefully" and "should generally be avoided." These phrases do not provide the substance of a permissible court order in the First Amendment area. If a member of the press is to go to jail for reporting news in violation of a court order, it is essential that he disobey a more definite and precise command than one that he consider his act "very carefully.” Other parts of the incorporated Guidelines are less vague and indefinite. I find them on the whole, however, sufficiently riddled with vague and indefinite admonitions understandably so in view of the basic nature of “guidelines”—that I have concluded that the best and momentary course is to stay their mandatory and wholesale imposition in the present context. The state courts, nonetheless, are free forthwith to reimpose particular provisions included in the Guidelines so long as they are deemed pertinent to the facts of this particular case and so long as they are adequately specific and in keeping with the remainder of this order. That portion of the restrictive order that generally incorporates the Guidelines is hereby stayed.

2. No persuasive justification has been advanced for those parts of the restrictive order that prohibit the reporting of the details of the crimes, of the identities of the victims, or of the testimony of the pathologist at the preliminary hearing that was open to the public. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 487– 497 (1975). These facts in themselves do not implicate a particular putative defendant. To be sure, the publication of the facts may disturb the community in which the crimes took place and in which the accused, presumably, is to be tried. And their public knowledge may serve to strengthen the resolve of citizens, when so informed, who will be the accused's prospective jurors,

[blocks in formation]

that someone should be convicted for the offenses. But until the bare facts concerning the crimes are related to a particular accused, it does not seem to me that their being reported in the media irreparably infringes the accused's right to a fair trial of the issue as to whether he was the one who committed the crimes. There is no necessary implication of the person, who has been named as the accused, in the facts suppressed by paragraphs 4 and 5 of the District Court's restrictive order, and to that extent the order is hereby stayed.

3. At the same time I cannot, and do not, at least on an application for a stay and at this distance, impose a prohibition upon the Nebraska courts from placing any restrictions at all upon what the media may report prior to trial. Restraints of this kind are not necessarily and in all cases invalid. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665, 685 (1972); Times-Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Schulingkamp, 419 U. S., at 1307; Newspapers, Inc. v. Blackwell, 421 U. S. 997 (1975). I am particularly conscious of the fact that the District Court's order applies only to the period prior to the impaneling, and presumably the sequestration, of a jury at the forthcoming trial. Most of our cases protecting the press from restrictions on what they may report concern the trial phase of the criminal prosecution, a time when the jurors and witnesses can be otherwise shielded from prejudicial publicity, and also a time when both sides are being heard. See, e. g., Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947); Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331 (1946); Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 (1941). Restrictions limited to pretrial publicity may delay media coverage-and, as I have said, delay itself may be impermissible-but at least they do no more than that.

I therefore conclude that certain facts that strongly implicate an accused may be restrained from publication

1327

Opinion in Chambers

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

by the media prior to his trial. A confession or statement against interest is the paradigm. See Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723 (1963); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961). A prospective juror who has read or heard of the confession or statement repeatedly in the news may well be unable to form an independent judgment as to guilt or innocence from the evidence adduced at trial. In the present case, there may be other facts that are strongly implicative of the accused, as, for example, those associated with the circumstances of his arrest. There also may be facts that are not necessarily implicative, but that are highly prejudicial, as, for example, facts associated with the accused's criminal record, if he has one.

Certain statements as to the accused's guilt by those associated with the prosecution might also be prejudicial. There is no litmus paper test available. Yet some accommodation of the conflicting interests must be reached. The governing principle is that the press, in general, is to be free and unrestrained and that the facts are presumed to be in the public domain. The accused, and the prosecution if it joins him, bears the burden of showing that publicizing particular facts will irreparably impair the ability of those exposed to them to reach an independent and impartial judgment as to guilt. Of course, if a change of venue will not allow the selection of a jury that will have been beyond the reach of the expected publicity, that also is a factor.

4. Paragraph 6 of the restrictive order also prohibits disclosure of the "exact nature of the limitations" that it imposes on publicity. Since some of those limitations are hereby stayed, the restrictions on the reporting of those limitations are stayed to the same extent. Inasmuch as there is no point in prohibiting the reporting of a confession if it may be reported that one has been made but may not be spoken of, the provision in para

[blocks in formation]

graph 6 that the restriction on reporting confessions may itself not be disclosed is not stayed.

5. To the extent, if any, that the District Court's order prohibits the reporting of the pending application to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and to the extent, if any, that the order prohibits the reporting of the facts of the filing of my in-chambers opinion of No vember 13, or of this opinion (other than those parts of the opinions that include facts properly suppressed), the restrictive order is also stayed.

6. Nothing herein affects those portions of the restrictive order governing the taking of photographs and other media activity in the Lincoln County courthouse. Neither is it to be deemed as barring what the District Judge may impose by way of restriction on what the parties and officers of the court may say to any representative of the media.

The District Court and the Supreme Court of Nebraska obviously are closer than I am to the facts of the crimes, to the pressures that attend them, and to the consequences of community opinion that have arisen since the commission of the offenses. The Supreme Court of Nebraska, accordingly, is in a better position to evaluate the details of the restrictive order. It may well conclude that other portions of that order are also to be stayed or vacated. I have touched only upon what appear to me to be the most obvious features that require resolution immediately and without one moment's further delay.

Opinion in Chambers

PASADENA CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. V.

SPANGLER ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

No. A-538. Decided December 22, 1975

Application to stay, pending disposition of appeal by Court of

Appeals, the District Court's order enjoining applicant school board members' creation of a "fundamental school” is granted, where certiorari has been granted in applicants' related petition presenting the issue whether the District Court still had control over the unitary school system which has been in compliance with that court's desegregation decree for four years.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.

Applicants, members of the Pasadena City Board of Education, have presented to me as Circuit Justice a request to stay an order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California pending disposition of their appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After two interim stays by single judges of the Court of Appeals, a panel of that court denied a further stay on December 2, 1975, but ordered expedited argument.

The District Court, in its ruling which applicants seek to stay, overturned applicants' action in establishing one of two "fundamental schools" in the summer of 1975. It ruled that the burden was on applicants to prove that their action did not result in resegregation. Finding that applicants had not met this burden, the court enjoined the creation of the new school and ordered its students returned to their previously assigned classrooms. The result of the District Court's order and the subsequent stay rulings of the Court of Appeals is that if I decline to stay the order there will be at least some disruption of the school system in the middle of a school year.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »