LAW

Munywoki, N. G (2020) Nebraska Press Association Versus Stuart. A

Review of the U.S Supreme Court Decision

Free press in the United States has stood firm against the old days that were characterized by official

suppression to the media, publication, and reporting. The role of the press ranges from educating,

entertaining, preventing, and even acting as a public watchdog. Therefore, the media changes to assume

different spheres of life, such as economy, politics, culture, science, and justice (Kastrati, 2016).

Whenever it comes to the criminal justice system, the media is instrumental in scrutiny and holding the

judicial system to book. However, the press has often faced controversial accusations, such as interfering

with the progress of the criminal process. There are several case laws involving the media as hindrances

to the operation of a criminal trial by violating privacy or sharing highly sensitive information. One of

the hallmark court decisions made by the highest court in the United States is the case between the

Nebraska Press Association versus Stuart in 1976.

The Case: The 1976 criminal law case involved Nebraska Press Association as plaintiff and

Nebraska state trial judge by name Hugh Stuart as the defendant. The Supreme Court in a firm

stand ruled that a trial court judge violated the constitution by issuing pretrial restrictions on

press coverage during criminal trials. The victims of the criminal activity were six members of

the Henry Kellie family, and police found them killed in their residence Sutherland, Nebraska,

which is a remote town with less than a thousand inhabitants. The police report revealed the

suspect to be one Erwin Charles Simants. Mr. Simants was arrested, and the following day he

appeared before Lincoln County Court. The crime sparked a lot of curiosity and widespread

media coverage in regional and national newspapers.

Later after three days had elapsed, the County Attorney and Simants' attorney pleaded with the

County Court to issue a restraining order relating to a reasonable probability that may be

unforgiving to the accused on his right to free trial. The County Court admitted to the plea for the

order and entered it the next day. The order prevented people from releasing information

concerning any confession to the public domain. With the magnitude of the case, Judge Stuart

was in fear that the publicity and news that were spreading the crime was an impediment to find

an impartial jury. He, therefore, issued a restraining order the press on coverage until a jury was

impaneled. The bone of contention was whether or not the media may be barred from releasing

information through the publication, which was thought to impose an "implicative of guilt" to the

defendant. On October 23, several press and broadcast groups moved to the District Court to

intervene about the restrictive order.

The petitioners' motion to intervene was granted four days after, and the district Judge entered

his restraining order on the grounds that the accused person's right to a fair trial may be violated.

The petitioners further made an application to the supreme court in Nebraska for a possible

correction for the issued order. Certiorari was released to address some of the concerns raised by

the local court order as altered by the supreme court at Nebraska. The Supreme court made a

verdict by concluding that the burden requirement for securing a prior restriction was not

satisfied. The decision led to the reversal of the ruling made by the Supreme court in Nebraska.

The Decision: Warren E. Burger, the Chief Justice, asserted that though the restrictions on

freedom of the press are possible under some particular circumstances, any prior restrictions are

presumed as a gross violation of the First Amendment. The case has contradictory rights. There

is the right to freedom of press and speech, as well as the right to a fair trial. It is worth noting

that, however, that reporting on criminal proceedings will always see the light of day in the court
of law. The Supreme court ruled that it was a misguided idea according to the constitution to

restrict the press from covering the proceedings of a criminal case even before the trial itself.

However, in some situations, the media is barred where reporting will elicit a potential danger

that may stand on the way to an impartial hearing.

According to the court, the press has an indispensable role in checking on the way criminal

processes are carried out in the judicial administration. Burger further adds that the media does

not merely write about public news that concerns trials but instead gives credit to the role of the

press by being faithful guardians against the denial of justice by doing public scrutiny on the

police, prosecutors, and court processes. The Supreme court also commented on the trial court's

order, which put a delay on the dissemination of information to the public, and further added that

a swift reporting is essential. The conventional role of the press is to offers prompt press

coverage and spread the news to the public. The Supreme court ruled out that the trial court

could have adopted other mechanisms to ensure a fair trial is attained. For example, the trial

court should have at least considered changing the location of the trial to an area where there is

less heightened publicity as compared to Nebraska.

Alternatively, the trial court should have deliberately delayed the criminal proceedings until the

issue of media attention had subsided. Also, the court had the capacity to ask the jurors to ensure

they remain as neutral as possible, and to only consider the evidence as tabled in the trial. Burger

also did a critical analysis of whether the court would even be bold enough to hold onto the

status of its prior restraint order outside its location of jurisdiction. Another aspect of why the

court reversed the restraint order was by looking at the likely harm of media reporting versus its

absolute absence, which would create an atmosphere of rumors in the town.

In the analysis, the court ruled that the rumors that would come out due to lack of press reporting

could cause more harm than a reasonable account of the press reporting. The Supreme court

conclusion added more weight on the priority of the right of liberty of the media as compared to

the right to an equitable trial (Jones, 2014). The court insisted that a whole community cannot be

prevented from talking about a particular subject that strongly touches their life.

Ethical part of the case: In the United Student, the case is significantly a turning point as far as

the First Amendment is concerned, especially in the criminal justice system. The first

acknowledgment would be that a capital offense involving six murders was committed whose

retribution calls for life imprisonment or a death sentence. The second acknowledgment is that

the accused would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and this is where ethical issues

arise. Judicial ethics holds that in cases where the magnitude of the matter beforehand is

weighty, telecasting such a trial would be unethical. In this case, live television coverage would

serve to abrogate the right to a just hearing to the accused. Telecasting would lead to physical

distractions because of being nervous, with respect to the Hawthorne effect.

Also, there is an ethical issue that Mr. Simant's psychological wellbeing would be compromised

for being televised, and this may also affect the accuracy of the testimony, consequently

hindering the jurors' capacity to reach a settled and well-thought-out verdict. Although the

controversy of televised trials will infringe on the right of freedom of the press, also it is good to

look on the ethical side of the case. The televised trial will be going against the defendant's right

by subverting his right to a fair trial. Before trial, the widespread reporting by the press will lead

to violation of the because ethically, his private life as a person would be rendered to the public

spectacle. The State District Judge, issuing a restrictive order to the press to bar them from

disseminating information on the killing of six persons, served to sustain the image of Mr.
Simant ethically. Concerning the type and magnitude of the case, the widespread publicity can

significantly degrade the accused, lower his human dignity, and also expose his privacy. If the

press were granted the freedom to broadcast the trial, the news would reach a far greater

audience as compared to regular news coverage.

The Decision: In my opinion, the court's decision was right because the chances of pretrial

publicity intruding on the right to a fair trial are very minimal. In this regard, the state district

judge had no constitutional authority to issue a prior restraint order to the police because the case

was not even at the trial stage. Also, the decision served as an unlawful infringement of the First

Amendment, of which the enshrined liberty of speech and press are part. In this case, therefore,

the media had a constitutional role in disseminating the news and commentary on the current

news, of which the murder of the six would be inclusive. By issuing a prior restraint order to the

press, public scrutiny and criticism of the judicial system would be lowered in the criminal

process.The conventional rule, however, says that an accused person is stripped of his privacy

rights when he or she faces a trial in a court of law (Kulwin, 1977). So, in this regard, the

privacy rights of the defendant are not compromised when public information surrounding him is

released to the people, as evidenced in the court ruling between Cox Broadcasting Corporation

versus Cohn. It is also worth noting that, at times, privacy interests are sometimes subjugated by

other compelling constitutional considerations. For example, we should consider the fact that the

right to privacy is not absolute on itself, thereby we cannot argue that courtroom cameras are

violating the rights to privacy, and therefore they should be removed from the courts of law.

There is less harm to the media reporting the incidence following the provisions of the First

Amendment as compared to rumormongering that will arise due to the absence of reporting.

Such rumors could be more damaging as compared to a relatively accurate account of the news.
The Nebraska versus Stuart is a very persuasive criminal case following the previous legal

precedents and even in the future where such related cases will have to be consistent with the

1976 rulings. Systems of prior restrictions, such as film regulation panels, have functioned with

less or no constitutional limitations. The idea that pretrial restrictions being conflicting with the

First Amendment, was endorsed in 1931, Near v. Minnesota, and in 1971 the New York Times

Co. versus United States (Lively & Broyles, 2016). The court laid down a fundamental

proposition that a pretrial restriction carries great potential as being unconstitutional.

In that particular case, the court came clear against the trial judge's opinion of cushioning the

defendant from pretrial publicity. The federal commitment in safeguarding the First

Amendment, and the detestation against prior restrictions, disallows a trial court from ordering

restraints on any form of spreading information in cases where there are alternatives to enhance

fair trial to the defendant. The media coverage on criminal trials can cause some contradiction

between the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, which safeguards the defendant's criminal

defendant's right to an equitable trial, as well as the First Amendment, which guarantees the right

to freedom of speech and press. In some circumstances, media publicity has the ability to impact

the case to the losing end of the defendant by creating unfair pretrial. In 1966, the Supreme

Court's verdict in Sheppard v. Maxwell clearly showed the ambiguity between the right to a just

trial of the accused and free press. In that particular case the court ruled in favor of Mr. Sheppard

by insisting that the accused was subjected to unfair trial and the trial was inconsistent according

to the Due Process Clause. However, the court has always being consistent in its rulings.
 References

Jones, R. A. (2014). What the Supreme Court Thinks of the Press and Why It Matters. Ala. L.

Rev., 66, 253.

Kastrati, R. (2016). Mass Media and Their Relationship with Criminal Law in Albania. European

Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 309-314.

Kulwin, S. B. (1977). Televised Trials: Constitutional Constraints, Practical Implications, and

State Experimentation. Loy. U. Chi. LJ, 9, 910.

Lively, D. E., & Broyles, D. S. (2016). Contemporary Supreme Court Cases: Landmark

Decisions since Roe v. Wade, [2 volumes]: Landmark Decisions since Roe v. Wade.

ABC-CLIO.