Weighing justice and fanfare in Jackson trial

Still, the difficulties of balancing constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press against the right to a fair trial are worth it, says Roberta Brackman, a Minneapolis lawyer formerly with the NBC News legal team. "While I'm certainly not going to tell you that in the past decade there haven't been some excesses of coverage ... I think most of the coverage and most of the behavior has been appropriate," she says. "Covering a trial from inside and outside has far more benefits to society and to our judicial system than any possible disadvantages."

Experts say the media's rising role has complicated the quest for justice. For one thing, lawyers are often forced to take crash courses in media relations - partly because even if they win in court, their clients may be damaged in the court of public opinion. Some seek help from public-relations firms, set up websites to post case details, or put their clients in front of the camera before trial - a move long considered taboo.

Still, "all of this never totally offsets all of the negative commentary," says Robert Morvillo, the lawyer who defended Martha Stewart in her obstruction of justice case.

One area where the media frenzy is keenly felt is in the search for an impartial jury, he says. "As much as [jurors] want to be fair and follow the judges' instructions, it becomes virtually impossible to ... make their minds a blank."

In the Martha Stewart case, for instance, one juror called the verdict "a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions" - even though Ms. Stewart was not charged with insider trading itself.

The issue of jury impartiality first got a high-profile airing during the treason trial of Aaron Burr. But as other issues arose, defense lawyers clamored for media restrictions, too. In 1935, for example, coverage of the trial of the man charged with the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby marked the first time newsreel cameras were allowed in court - and prompted the American Bar Association to enact rules for press coverage of criminal trials.

But perhaps no case has been cited more for media missteps - and the lessons to be gleaned from them - than that of Samuel Sheppard, accused of killing his wife in a Cleveland suburb in 1954. The coroner held an inquest in a school gym with reporters and photographers present. The names of the jurors were leaked and printed in the local papers. And members of the press were given all the seats in the courtroom, except those reserved for Dr. Sheppard's family.

The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, finding that the judge has a responsibility to prevent press coverage from interfering with the case.

Since then, the media has made substantial gains in responsible coverage. But the growing intersection of news and entertainment has complicated matters, says Cynthia King, director of the Center for Entertainment and Tourism: "The lines have been so blurred that our entertainment is becoming more news-like - witnessed by the rash of reality shows - and our news is becoming more entertainment-like."

Page: 1 | 2