This Note considers court-ordered limitations on the extrajudicial speech of trial participants in high-profile cases. After providing a history of Supreme Court decisions, informative though not dispositive of the topic, it presents the divergent approaches lower courts take when faced with trial participants\u27 extrajudicial speech. The Note highlights the extreme legal uncertainty facing trial participants who desire to speak publicly about court proceedings. Finally, it concludes that courts would better balance First Amendment and fair trial values by rejecting the reasonable likelihood of prejudice standard
In Mu\u27Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask juror...
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may b...
This Note considers court-ordered limitations on the extrajudicial speech of trial participants in h...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from ...
In a time when more and more criminal trials are saturated in news coverage, media outlets race to g...
Gag orders directed at trial participants do not directly intrude into the media\u27s editorial proc...
The 1990s produced a number of sensational criminal and civil trials. The media and public avidly fo...
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide a...
The note examines the current law regarding media coverage of jury trials and the effect of such pub...
A gag order on a criminal defendant infringes the accused\u27s first amendment rights in the name of...
Professor Lonnie Brown explores the issue of lawyers making extrajudicial comments about their clien...
Justice Blackmun\u27s commercial speech and public forum opinions reflect a distinctive balancing ap...
This Note advocates recognition of a constitutional right of press access to evidentiary recordings ...
In Mu\u27Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask juror...
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may b...
This Note considers court-ordered limitations on the extrajudicial speech of trial participants in h...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from ...
In a time when more and more criminal trials are saturated in news coverage, media outlets race to g...
Gag orders directed at trial participants do not directly intrude into the media\u27s editorial proc...
The 1990s produced a number of sensational criminal and civil trials. The media and public avidly fo...
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide a...
The note examines the current law regarding media coverage of jury trials and the effect of such pub...
A gag order on a criminal defendant infringes the accused\u27s first amendment rights in the name of...
Professor Lonnie Brown explores the issue of lawyers making extrajudicial comments about their clien...
Justice Blackmun\u27s commercial speech and public forum opinions reflect a distinctive balancing ap...
This Note advocates recognition of a constitutional right of press access to evidentiary recordings ...
In Mu\u27Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask juror...
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may b...