Sheppard V. Maxwell Revisted—Do the Traditional Rules Work for Nontraditional Media

This article appeared in The Court of Public Opinion: The Practice and Ethics of Trying Cases in the Media, an issue of Law and Contemporary Problems which examine the complicated, sometimes conflicting, constitutional, ethical, and practical considerations that can arise when a case draws the attention of the public and the media. Attorney and Professor Gary A. Hengstler grew up in a small town in Ohio and, as a boy of seven, can remember his family and friends being transfixed with the 1954 murder and trial. Here, Hengsler asks if the suggestions to control publicity that the Court made in Sheppard v. Maxwell are still effective, given the changes that have occurred in media

The Role and Responsibility of the Court

In the final panel of the conference, three judges and two media relations officials discuss the role of the court in protecting the judicial process. The three judges presided over a plethora of high-profile cases including that of the D.C. sniper, John Wayne Bobbitt, Kobe Bryant, and Lewis Scooter Libby and they share their experiences with those cases and the methods they used to ensure fair trials. The media relations officials analyzed the changes in the media landscape and what appear to be some effective solutions for providing the media with information, but at the same time protecting the trial procedure. Questions/themes/discussion topics Tools judges may use to protect the trial process from corruption--change of venue, gag orders, anonymous juries, sequestering juries, etc Are these traditional tools appropriate when the media is no longer traditional