Newspaper Blocked From Publishing Photo of Murder Suspect

[n2doc]

By David Kravets August 11, 2010

We’re not sure what’s more alarming: that a local California judge has barred the Los Angeles Times from publishing lawfully obtained photos of a murder defendant, or that an appeals court has just decided not to immediately reverse this clear exercise of prior restraint.

Prior restraint smacks at the heart of the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has never tolerated it, even in the 1971 “Pentagon Papers” case. Then, the justices refused to block The New York Times from publishing sensitive documents concerning the nation’s involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.

At the time, Justice William Douglas said in a concurring opinion that to win a prior restraint motion the government must show that a material’s publication would “inevitably, directly and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea.”

That’s not even close to what’s happening in the case of quadruple slaying suspect Alberd Tersargyan. Superior Court Judge Hilleri Merritt’s decision last week threatens frightening precedent, and could undermine the rights of journalists, pajama-clad bloggers and the public’s right to know in future cases.



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/prior-restraint/

[rocktivity]

1. "...(T)he defendant’s...fair-trial rights could be prejudiced

because he was photographed wearing jail garb in a courtroom lockup."

Well, I don't know about that--I see real suspects in jail garb on TV all the time! Or is this happening because the pic wasn't taken with a movie camera?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[HEyHEY]

2. Where's Walter Sobchak when you need him?

"For your information, the supreme court has ROUNDLY REJECTED prior restraint! I'm staying, I'm finishing my coffee....enjoying my coffee..."

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I didn't see any mention if there has already been a jury selected

for this trial.

If someone is called for jury duty and he has already seen the defendant in prison garb he could be unconsciously prejudiced against the defendant.

The article did note that other photos WERE published earlier - it is only the prison garb photo which was banned.

I think this was nothing more than an attempt to close off a line of appeal after conviction - undue influence on a jury.

(ON EDIT)

It is on these grounds that defendants are not brought to court in jail uniforms, but dressed in normal street clothes.