Why is the media allowed to report on court cases before a verdict is reached?

Question

I know the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides for freedom of the press, but when a defendant faces possible imprisonment, loss of assets, or defamation of character due to public opinion influenced by the reportings of the press, how can one be considered "innocent until proven guilty" and in the end receive a fair trial?

Answer 1

Because jurors are instructed to not pay attention -- or even look at -- any press coverage of the trial.

It's a matter of conflicting rights. Both the 1st Amendment right to free press and the 6th Amendment right to a fair trial are nearly absolute (i.e. allowing few exceptions).

In balancing those rights, the courts have come up with the current policies, modifying those on a case by case basis.

Answer 2

I'm an attorney and I don't like it either, but in my state almost all trials except child abuse and neglect, guardianships and adoptions are open to the public. Therefore, the judges have to either sequester the jury or instruct them not to read the newspaper or listen to any media reports--which they probably ignore. Sequestering a jury is expensive. It's just a freedom of the press issue and the right of anyone to attend a civil or criminal trial. I wish the media would be more circumspect, but they're in the business to sell stories and crime sells. I never talk to the press about my cases, but they have the right to observe and report on what I say in court. I sure don't like it though. I think it taints the trial.

Answer 3

Yes, i thik that trials should be kept private until verdict is reached.

Answer 4

trials should be kept private they should never be cramas and everything should be private until the verdict is reached.

Answer 5

It is all speckleitory .They dont accually come out @ say "they are guilty " .