Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

defendantattorneytrial

Related Cases

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490, 63 USLW 4303
View Case »
Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 694
View Case »
In re Disciplinary Action Against Edin, 697 N.W.2d 727, 2005 ND 109
View Case »
Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99
View Case »
In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 265 F.Supp.2d 385, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74,099
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683, 1 Media L. Rep. 1064

Facts

On October 18, 1975, six members of the Henry Kellie family were found murdered in Sutherland, Nebraska. The crime attracted extensive media coverage, prompting the County Attorney and the defendant's attorney to request a restrictive order to prevent prejudicial publicity that could affect the defendant's right to a fair trial. The County Court granted the order, which was later modified by the Nebraska Supreme Court to limit the media's ability to report on certain aspects of the case, including confessions and other implicative facts.

On the evening of October 18, 1975, local police found the six members of the Henry Kellie family murdered in their home in Sutherland, Neb., a town of about 850 people.

Issue

Did the Nebraska state trial judge's order restricting the media's ability to publish information about the defendant violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press?

The order expired by its own terms when the jury was impaneled. There were no restraints on publication once the jury was selected, and there are now no restrictions on what may be spoken or written about the Simants case.

Rule

The Supreme Court held that while freedom of expression is not absolute, the barriers to prior restraint are high, and the presumption against its use remains intact. The Court emphasized that prior restraint on the press must meet a heavy burden of justification.

While the guarantees of freedom of expression are not an absolute prohibition under all circumstances, the barriers to prior restraint remain high and the presumption against its use continues intact.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the Nebraska trial judge's order in light of the First Amendment, concluding that the heavy burden required for prior restraint was not satisfied. The judge's concerns about pretrial publicity were speculative, and there was no evidence that less restrictive measures would not suffice to protect the defendant's rights. The Court noted that the order was overly broad and vague, particularly regarding the prohibition on reporting facts 'strongly implicative' of the accused.

The heavy burden imposed as a condition to securing a prior restraint was not met in this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the prior restraint imposed on the media was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment.

Reversed.

Who won?

The petitioners, which included various media organizations, prevailed because the Supreme Court found that the prior restraint on their reporting was unconstitutional.

The petitioners several press and broadcast associations, publishers, and individual reporters moved on October 23 for leave to intervene in the District Court, asking that the restrictive order imposed by the County Court be vacated.

You must be