Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsCourts

Judges Dim the Media Spotlight

Seeking to keep high-profile trials under control, jurists often restrict access to data. But the strategy leaves the public in the dark.

March 22, 2004|Paul Pringle, Times Staff Writer

Cochran and others noted that the courts tightened up after sensational trials in the more distant past. They included the 1935 prosecution in the murder of aviator Charles Lindbergh's son, the wife-killing case of Ohio osteopath Sam Sheppard in 1954, and the 1962 fraud trial of Texas financier Billy Sol Estes.

The American Bar Assn. persuaded courts to prohibit cameras and radio after the Lindbergh case, an edict that lasted nearly two decades. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Sheppard and Estes after finding that prejudicial publicity had interfered with their right to a fair trial.


Advertisement

Gradually, the courts relaxed. They determined that judges could safeguard justice in media-saturated cases by changing the trial venue, sequestering jurors and admonishing them to avoid the coverage.

Then came the Simpson hangover.

"There has to be some restraint," said Marquis, the Clatsop County, Ore., district attorney. "I completely understand what Tom Sneddon is doing."

He was referring to the Santa Barbara County district attorney who is heading the Jackson prosecution. Early in the case, Sneddon held a freewheeling, somewhat jokey news conference on the charges against Jackson.

His on-camera performance drew fire from Jackson's attorneys and legal commentators. Later, when the gag order arrived, Sneddon welcomed it.

And he would confirm nothing about the Calabasas search.

Los Angeles Times Articles
|