Free Press v. Fair Trial in 3 Countries

Free Press v. Fair Trial: Australia, Canada, United States

This paper will discuss the problem of prejudicial publicity and the right of criminal defendants to a fair trial. The first part of the paper will introduce the problem by describing two current cases in Canada and the United States which have been accompanied by overwhelming publicity. The second part of the paper will discuss the problem in terms of the rights involved: the right of a defendant to a fair trial and the interest or right of the public to free expression and open judicial proceedings. The third part of the paper will describe the problem of conflict between the two rights and the responses of courts in all three countries to this problem. The fourth part of the paper will discuss some of the remedies utilized in all three countries for combatting the problem.

In July of 1993, Karla Homolka was convicted of manslaughter in the slayings of two teenage girls and sentenced to two concurrent 12-year terms. These simple facts were all that Canadians were allowed to hear by their government, for at the time of the trial, the trial judge imposed a ban upon the publication of any further details of the case. This ban was designed to protect the right of Paul Teale, Karla's estranged husband, to a fair trial. Teale had also been charged in the killings of the two girls and was presumed to be the prime suspect.

In spite of the ban, Canadians quickly began learning details of the case

Related Essays

Piracy and Bootlegging .... Music Industry: Piracy v. Bootlegging The terms "piracy" and .... in England feared that the printing press would be .... did not delve into the issues of free speech or .... (9326 37 )

Piracy, Bootlegging, & the Entertainment Industry .... Music Industry: Piracy v. Bootlegging The terms "piracy" and .... in England feared that the printing press would be .... did not delve into the issues of free speech or .... (9601 38 )

"US Treasury Chief Warns of Cyber Threats": Article Review .... of precautions to ensure that they're free of disease .... Rights Reserved EUN KYUNG KIM, Associated Press Writer, Judge .... The 1976 decision in Estelle v. Gamble states .... (10304 41 )

nces or personal enmity. Marshall ruled that in a capital case, the court ought to obtain jurors with "perfect freedom from previous impression," but if that was impossible, the duty of the court was to obtain as large a portion of impartiality as possible. "It is too general a question to ask whether [a prospective juror] has impressions about Colonel Burr. The impressions may be so light, that they do not amount to an opinion of guilt; nor do they go to the extent of believing that the prisoner deserves capital punishment." Marshall later said that "I have always conceived, and still conceive, an impartial jury as required by the common law, and as secured by the Constitution, must be composed of men, who will fairly hear the testimony which may be offered to them, and bring in their verdict, according to that testimony, and according to the law arising on it. This is not to be expected, certainly the law does not expect it, where jurors, before they hear the testimony, have deliberately formed and delivered an opinion, that the person whom they are to try, is guilty or innocent of the charges alleged against him." Marshall also held that an opinion formed and expressed with reference to part of the question before

Category: Government - F