Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Literature/writing

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Literature/writing

Closure of pre-trial hearings on death penalty case upheld

Article Abstract:

The Georgia Supreme Court found in Southeastern Newspapers Corp. v. Georgia that the trial court did not err in closing certain pre-trial hearings because the moving parties, the defendants, had made an adequate showing of clear and convincing evidence that there was a clear and present danger that fair trial rights would be prejudiced. The newspaper requesting access argued that findings supporting the ruling were not sufficiently specific. The Court noted that Georgia's closure standards are in fact stricter than federal standards and found that closure was the only remedy.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1995
Georgia, Capital punishment, Pre-trial procedure, Pretrial procedure

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Denial of access to summary jury trial in riot case upheld

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals in In re Cincinnati Enquirer denied the newspaper access to a summary jury trial brought in federal court by prisoners in Ohio against prison officials. The summary jury trial was an expedited non-binding proceeding intended to facilitate settlement. The Court found that the press had no right of access because settlement negotiations are traditionally closed proceedings. The press argued that the prison riots that triggered the summary jury trial were a major news event and that such summary proceedings should be presumed to be open to the public.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1996
Media coverage, Prison riots, Summary jury trial

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Camera access to courts gains favor in more states, feels friction from some judges

Article Abstract:

The use of still and video cameras in state and federal courtrooms are at varying stages of acceptance in different jurisdictions. New York state has extended a pilot program allowing cameras but has still not made their presence permanent. In Minnesota and Idaho, state supreme courts will be considering the issue. In Maryland, still cameras were barred but video cameras were allowed to record a trial involving the 1994 gubernatorial election. In California, Judge Lance A. Ito has limited coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial.

Publisher: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Publication Name: News Media & the Law
Subject: Literature/writing
ISSN: 0149-0737
Year: 1995
California, Texas, Idaho, Cameras in the courtroom, Cameras in court, Maryland, Minnesota, New York (State)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Free press and fair trial, Pretrial publicity, Right to fair and impartial trial, United States
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Court overturns closing of trial, sealing record. Newspaper wins access to parents' trial in juvenile court. Judge's decision to seal transcripts in governor's fraud trial overturned
  • Abstracts: Casualty of tanker wars: army sealift leases. Boeing's penalties to have minimal impact on sector
  • Abstracts: Court allows disclosure of portions of criminal investigative reports. Giving away the store: state court adopts controversial business exemption precedent
  • Abstracts: Court extends fair comment privilege. Utah Supreme Court sends libel case back to trial. $550,000 verdict against Fortune reversed
  • Abstracts: You can change your genes. The terrestrial search for extraterrestrial life. If a tree falls...or the secret history of global environmental catastrophe
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.