.jpg)
FORT WORTH -- Visiting Judge Elizabeth Berry issued a sweeping gag order Friday in a capital murder trial that prohibits the news media from reporting or disseminating anything that happens in open court outside the presence of the jury . . . . Among other restrictions, Berry's order states that the media may not interview attorneys, litigants, employees of the district attorney's office, parties, witnesses, victims or relatives of victims until the trial ends.
That's baloney, and I'm proud the Star-Telegram is going to fight it. We have conflicting constitutional rights of giving someone a fair trial vs. freedom of speech, but this is insane. You'll often hear of "gag orders" which prevent lawyers from discussing the case (which I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever addressed) and that makes some sense when one party is trying to influence a trial or potential trial. But telling a newspaper how it will gather and report news is downright frightening.
19 comments:
Would her order apply to bloggers (private citizens unconnected to the trial)? Barry, this may be your window of opportunity.
My Other Brother Darryl
And public trials are guaranteed. There is a lot that happens outside the presence of a jury that affects a trial. Many times a case is won or lost on issues a jury never hears.
That jackwagon judge needs a refresher on the Constitution.
Rage
Of all judges, she ought to appreciate her Constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. (illegal blood draw on her in Johnson County)
I'm just sayin'
Skippy, Obammy skirts the Constitution all the time and we don't hear you bitching about it.
I disagree with you on most things, BG... but you're damn right on this. That's BS.
Now, if you'd just ask yourself about the hypocritical nature of Obama and Reid re: signing statements and recess appointments.
Probably wouldn't have that order if we had responsible newspapers.
Just the facts maam.
The Startlegram is a joke. The DMN should fight this instead.
Uhhhh.....this Judge?
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/64819747.html
10five8 please list examples of how Obammy skips the Constitution so I can just hate him that much more.
Public trials means the government can't close the actual courtroom to the public, including the news media. That's ALL it means, Rage. That's why judges can prevent cameras from filming their courtrooms. The Constitution only requires the doors to be open.
Day Old Hard Corn Dog Conservatives are really not into free speech so much. Free Speech is probably on their "Liquid Paper white out" list for revising the Constitution.
FiveO4, There are so many I'll just cite the big one. Forcing Americans to buy health care.......
It would seem that the judge is going to run into Prior Restraint issues.
Oh, look. Here's Rage to come explain it all to us.
The Star-Telegram is a liberal propaganda rag. They will try and taint this to save this murdering worthless black scumbags life if they can. The judge is right.
Some clarification:
As for signing statements and recess appointments - Obama has made far fewer than Bush did in a similar time. So was it ok for Bush (and others) but not Obama? As for the requirement to purchase medical insurance - that was a law passed by both houses of congress.
How about Obama killing US citizens without any due process?
I guess that is not as bad as limiting free speech.
2:23, Just because both houses passed his bill, doesn't mean it is constitutional. You'll see this summer. You're the one that brought up recess appointments. And what statements that he signed are you referring to?
2:23;
The problem is that the Senate is NOT in recess. The opposite chamber of Congress must recognize the adjournment of the other chamber. The House has not done so. Therefore, the Senate is holding pro forma sessions, and is NOT in recess.
The "Honorable" Judge Berry has overstepped her authority. She has sway over those in her courtroom and under her control (prosecutor, defense, court officials, etc...), but not a member of the general public once he/she leaves that courtroom. This woman should be removed from the bench.
The appointment of the Consumer Protection Bureau administrator has been before the congress for some time but the Republicans won't even allow an up or down confirmation vote. Real democratic, huh? And which of ya'll is afraid of some additional protections from predatory bankers and insurance companies?
Post a Comment