Media in the Courtroom

According to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “… the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury…” (Hornberger, 2005). The First Amendment guarantees freedom of press, but at what point do these two amendments begin to contradict each other? Since people can now communicate via the internet and television, a luxury never dreamed of by the Founding Fathers, is being tried by an impartial jury even possible once media coverage begins in a high-profile case? First and Sixth Amendments grant inalienable rights, but the presence of news media in the courtroom has the potential to negatively affect the outcome of high profile cases. Drew Peterson does not believe so. Drew Peterson is charged with killing his third wife Kathleen Savio by drowning her in the family’s bath tub (Drew Peterson, 2009). When Peterson’s fourth wife went missing, the police and the media started to investigate. At almost any point in the days following the announcement of the investigation, members of the media were posted outside the Peterson residence. Believing they are fully supported by the First Amendment, the media chooses what information to exploit and sensationalize in high-profile cases, but this act can leave the public with preconceived notions about the case. Once Peterson is presumed guilty and presented that way by the media, only a fool would believe potential jurors have not been influenced by coverage.
Freedom of speech for the media has been debated for a long time. The media believes they should not be shut out of any court proceedings, because of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.   However, a “defendant has the right to a fair trial” and may not have one if his or her case is exploited by the media (Hornberger, 2005). The media has addressed freedom of the press issue with the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. The Supreme Court has addressed cases with regard to freedom of the press. However, the... [continues]

Read full essay