Reporters face unusual limits at Padilla terror trial

Security officers might prevent reporters from asking questions of defense lawyers or federal prosecutors under certain circumstances.

from the May 14, 2007 edition

Page 3 of 3

Page 1 | Page 2 | 3

Media interviews conducted in the courtroom – even during recesses – are disruptive and distracting, they say. Interviews conducted in the lobby outside the courtroom might be overheard by jurors or witnesses and taint the trial.

"We are not keeping you from talking to anybody, you just cannot do it on this floor," says Tamara "Tammy" McIntyre, an assistant to Cooke. "We are all for freedom of speech and for you getting whatever story you can, but there have to be boundaries to protect the rights of these defendants."

Legal experts say the judge clearly has the authority to create and enforce rules to protect the integrity of a trial.

Courtroom decorum orders are fairly routine, says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But such orders must come from the judge, not from courtroom officials enforcing an unwritten rule, she says.

"In general, there has to be a reason for it, and it has to be on the record, and it has to be reasonable," Ms. Dalglish says. "It can't be more invasive of your First Amendment right to speak to people than is absolutely necessary to maintain order in the courthouse."

Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA law school and founder of the law blog The Volokh Conspiracy, says the key test is whether the restrictions are reasonable.

"The big picture is that the courthouse is government property and a wide range of restrictions are permissible on government property that wouldn't be permissible elsewhere," he says.

"There have been occasional cases where the [US Supreme Court] has said that even in government buildings certain kinds of restrictions are just so broad as to be unreasonable," Professor Volokh says. "My suspicion is that at least as to the concern about jurors overhearing something, that is a plausible enough concern that at the very least the restriction would not be considered unreasonable."

1 | 2 | Page 3