Each of these Sixth Amendment Court Cases is somehow significant to the way
the Supreme Court has interpreted the Public Trial Clause in the
Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. Well, most are significant, some are just interesting! You can read about the history and meaning of the Sixth Amendment here.
Because the right to a public trial has been agreed to by nearly everyone in America's judicial and political history, the Supreme Court has had few times it has had to deal with a violation of the Public Trial Clause. The cases that have arisen have mostly dealt with circumstances dealing with the reasons an otherwise public trial might be closed, or dealing with access issues.
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Public
Trial Clause cases -
Estes vs. Texas
In Estes vs. Texas, 1965, the Supreme Court found that media presence in a courtroom could
affect the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. The case
involved an accused swindler who received national news media
attention. The trial was moved to another jurisdiction to try to ensure
that potential jurors had not been tainted by media coverage in the
home jurisdiction.
When the case was moved, excessive media coverage also occurred in the
new jurisdiction. Cameras and reporters were all over the courtroom.
The judge eventually placed restrictions on reporters, designating a
certain spot in the courtroom where they were confined, and limited the
amount of audio and video coverage that they could take.
The defendant claimed in the case that his right to receive a fair
trial had been violated by the media coverage. The Court agreed. The
case also relates to the Public Trial Clause, in that the press
believed its right to attend should be unrestricted due to the fact
that trials must be held in public. The Court ruled that media coverage
by its nature may taint potential jurors and damage a defendant's
ability to receive a fair trial. This, therefore, made reasonable
restrictions on media activities in the courtroom necessary.
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Public
Trial Clause cases -
Waller vs. Georgia
In Waller vs. Georgia, 1984, the Court ruled that the Public Trial Clause could be waived in
certain circumstances if there are other overriding interests that will
be damaged by a public trial. The Court also ruled that the Public
Trial Clause can be waived only if there are very specific reasons to
do so.
In this case, the state had conducted judge authorized wiretapping of
people suspected of being involved in an illegal lottery operation.
Before the trial, the defendants moved to suppress the wiretap evidence
in court. In order to consider this, the court had to hold a
suppression hearing. The state moved to hold the suppression hearing in
private because situations would be revealed in the wiretaps involving
people that were not yet indicted, and of some who were indicted, but
were not yet on trial. The state claimed that this would cause the
evidence to be tainted and unusable in later trials regarding these
people.
The court agreed and the suppression hearing lasted for seven days.
During that time, wiretaps were played for only 2 1/2 hours
and very little of that had anything to do with participants who were
not already in the courtroom. Later the defendants were convicted.
The defendants appealed their case up to the Supreme Court on grounds
that their right to a public trial, guaranteed by the Public Trial
Clause, had been violated by the private
suppression hearing.
The Court agreed with the claim. In its unanimous verdict, the Court
specified four things that must take place in order for an otherwise
public trial to be held in private. Justice Lewis Powell, writing the
Court's opinion, said:
"Under
the Sixth Amendment, any closure of a
suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the
following tests: the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an
overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; the closure must
be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; the trial court
must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing; and it
must make findings adequate to support the closure."
Justice Powell said that the court's closure of the entire suppression
hearing was completely unjustified. The state did not specify whose
privacy interests would be violated if the tapes were made public, what
part of the tapes might damage those interests, or what portion of the
evidence consisted of the tapes. The state's claim was broad and
general. The state also did not attempt to consider alternatives to the
hearing. All of these violated the Public Trial Clause.
The court reversed the convictions and sent the case back to the lower
court, instructing them to hold a new suppression hearing. A new trial
was necessary only if the new suppression hearing actually suppressed any
evidence used in the original trial.
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Public
Trial Clause Cases -
Press-Enterprise Co. vs. Superior Court
In Press-Enterprise Co. vs. Superior Court, 1986, a murder suspect moved to have
his pre-trial hearing held privately. He claimed that media publicity
would damage his right to receive a fair trial and wanted to waive his
right to a public trial guaranteed by the Public Trial Clause. The
Court granted his request.
After the trial, the Press-Enterprise Co. requested a transcript of the
hearing, but this was refused. The company filed suit alleging that it
had a First Amendment right to have access to the transcript.
Eventually the case was taken up by the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled in favor of Press-Enterprise Co. The Court
stated that at times, trials may be closed if having a public trial
will damage the defendant's ability to have a fair trial. After the
hearing was over though, the possibility of tainting the hearing was
over, and giving out a transcript of the completed proceedings would
not jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The Court said that two considerations must be made before the
Public Trial Clause guarantee can be waived. 1) There must be a substantial
probability that the defendant cannot get a fair trial without closing the trial and 2) reasonable
alternatives to closing the trial must be considered.
Read
more about the history and meaning of the Public Trial Clause here.
Read
more about the history and meaning of the 6th Amendment here.
Learn more about Sixth Amendment Cases relating to the
following Sixth Amendment clauses:
Sixth Amendment Court Cases -
Speedy
Trial Clause
Sixth Amendment Court Cases -
Right
to Trial by Jury Clause
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Arraignment
Clause
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Confrontation
Clause
Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Compulsory
Process Clause
Sixth Amendment Court Cases -
Right to Counsel Clause
© 2008 - 2022 Revolutionary-War-and-Beyond.com Dan & Jax Bubis
Facebook Comments