Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantregulation

defendantappealregulationsustained

Related Cases

In re Mack, 386 Pa. 251, 126 A.2d 679

Facts

The defendants took photographs of J. Wesley Wable, a convicted murderer, as he was being escorted to the courtroom for sentencing on December 28, 1954. This act was done surreptitiously and without the consent of Wable or the court, in violation of Westmoreland County rule No. 6084, which prohibits taking photographs within 40 feet of the courtroom entrance. The defendants argued that their actions were justified under the right to free press, believing they had a duty to inform the public about Wable, who was a figure of significant public interest.

On December 28, 1954, the defendants participated in a photographic operation which resulted in the taking of several pictures of John Wesley Wable, convicted murderer, while he was on his way to and from a courtroom in the Westmoreland County courthouse.

Issue

Did the defendants violate the Westmoreland County court rule prohibiting the taking of photographs in the courthouse, and is that rule constitutional in light of the First Amendment rights of the press?

The seven defendants severally appeal from judgment and sentence by the court below finding each of them guilty of contempt, and imposing upon each a fine and five days imprisonment in the county jail.

Rule

The court rule No. 6084 prohibits taking photographs in the courthouse within 40 feet of the courtroom entrance and requires consent for photographing any party involved in a court proceeding. The court held that such rules are valid as they serve to maintain the dignity of the court and the orderly administration of justice.

The respective judgments and sentences were sustained by the court below upon findings that defendants violated Westmoreland County rule of court No. 6084. The rule provides: (a) No pictures or photographs shall be taken, immediately preceding or during sessions of this court or recesses between sessions, in any of the court rooms or at any place in the court house within forty feet of the entrance to any court room.

Analysis

The court analyzed the defendants' actions in light of the established court rule and the constitutional implications of freedom of the press. It concluded that while the press has rights, these rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulations aimed at preserving the court's dignity. The court found that the defendants' actions undermined the decorum of the court and that the rule was a reasonable restriction in the interest of public order.

To be valid, such rule must be reasonable. Thus in American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399, 70 S.Ct. 674, 684, 94 L.Ed. 925, it was held: ‘When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional, partial abridgment of [freedom of the press] * * *, the duty of the courts is to determine which of these two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented.’

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences by removing the imprisonment provisions, leaving intact the fines and costs. The court upheld the constitutionality of the court rule prohibiting the taking of photographs in the specified areas.

With the determination that the rules, so far as involved here, are reasonable, and not an abuse of the Court's discretion, the judgment and sentences, as so modified, are affirmed.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case as the court upheld the contempt convictions against the defendants, affirming the validity of the court rule they violated.

The majority of this Court has now affirmed the conviction. In doing so, it has struck a stinging blow against Freedom of the Press.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 101 Pa.Super. 455, 1930 WL 3809

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, nan

Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1

Hersh v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2022 WL 214842

U.S. v. Bergonzi, 214 F.R.D. 563