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
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
Purpose of the Study. News coverage of judicial proceedings is frequently seen by judges as a deterr...
As a growing number of attorneys seek and receive more media attention during trials, the days in wh...
This Note considers court-ordered limitations on the extrajudicial speech of trial participants in h...
In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from ...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
The paper explores the history of trial publicity rules in the United States. Part II discusses the ...
Gag orders directed at trial participants do not directly intrude into the media\u27s editorial proc...
To what extent does the First Amendment limit the ability of prosecutors to offer evidence of a defe...
Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury...
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide a...
Although the voir dire of jurors is one of the most significant mechanisms by which an impartial jur...
A gag order on a criminal defendant infringes the accused\u27s first amendment rights in the name of...
While political speech - speech intended to influence political decisions - is afforded the highest ...
Justice Blackmun\u27s commercial speech and public forum opinions reflect a distinctive balancing ap...
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
Purpose of the Study. News coverage of judicial proceedings is frequently seen by judges as a deterr...
As a growing number of attorneys seek and receive more media attention during trials, the days in wh...
This Note considers court-ordered limitations on the extrajudicial speech of trial participants in h...
In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from ...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
The paper explores the history of trial publicity rules in the United States. Part II discusses the ...
Gag orders directed at trial participants do not directly intrude into the media\u27s editorial proc...
To what extent does the First Amendment limit the ability of prosecutors to offer evidence of a defe...
Defendants, however, have raised serious constitutional objections to the introduction of grand jury...
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide a...
Although the voir dire of jurors is one of the most significant mechanisms by which an impartial jur...
A gag order on a criminal defendant infringes the accused\u27s first amendment rights in the name of...
While political speech - speech intended to influence political decisions - is afforded the highest ...
Justice Blackmun\u27s commercial speech and public forum opinions reflect a distinctive balancing ap...
This Comment provides a guide to the current constitutional framework concerning in-court compelled ...
Purpose of the Study. News coverage of judicial proceedings is frequently seen by judges as a deterr...
As a growing number of attorneys seek and receive more media attention during trials, the days in wh...