Free Press v. Fair Trial in 3 Countries

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

. . .
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
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Australia Canada, Conflict Rights, Colonel Burr, Court Court, Canada Courts, Homolka Simpson, Dr Sheppard, Criminal Code, Sixth Amendment, fair trial, trial judge, supreme court, common law, public trial, voir dire, prejudicial publicity, freedom expression, trial court, court held, defendant's fair trial, supreme court held, court criminal appeal, defendant fair trial, section 1 charter,
Approximate Word count = 10588
Approximate Pages = 42 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Free Press v. Fair Trial in 3 Countries