recognizing that “[t]he free press has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public officers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences, including court proceedings”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “[t]he free press has been a mighty catalyst in awakening public interest in governmental affairs, exposing corruption among public officers and employees and generally informing the citizenry of public events and occurrences, including court proceedings”
- holding that trial publicity, failure of trial judge to control proceedings, and televising of hearing "inherently prevented a sober search for the truth"
- holding that a plea-bargain proceeding in which no issues are contested is still a trial
- holding that a defendant had been denied due process because a pre-trial hearing had been televised live and then rebroadcast, and because the court proceedings had been disrupted by the presence of the media
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Jaime, 233 P.3d 554 (2010)
While this proposition is true, Estes is inapposite.
Distinguished by Thompson, Al v. State (2004)
Estes, however, is easily distinguishable.
Distinguished by People v. Manson, 61 Cal. App. 3d 102 (1976)
Both Estes and Sheppard are distinguishable on several grounds.
Distinguished by Scatena v. Brierley, 310 F. Supp. 406 (1970)
The eases of Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed.2d 600 (1966), and Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965), are distinguishable from and inapplicable to the instant facts and circumstances.
The opinion
*631 Mr. Justice Brennan.
I write merely to emphasize that only four of the five Justices voting to reverse rest on the proposition that televised criminal trials are constitutionally infirm, whatever the circumstances. Although the opinion announced by my Brother Clark purports to be an “opinion of the Court,” my Brother Harlan subscribes to a significantly less sweeping proposition. He states:
“The Estes trial was a heavily publicized and highly sensational affair. I therefore put aside all other types of cases .... The resolution of those further questions should await an appropriate case; the Court should proceed only step by step in this un-plowed field. The opinion of the Court necessarily goes no farther, for only the four members of the majority who unreservedly join the Court’s opinion would resolve those questions now.” Ante, pp. 590-591. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus today’s decision is not a blanket constitutional prohibition against the televising of state criminal trials.
While I join the dissents of my Brothers Stewart and White, I do so on the understanding that their use of the expressions “the Court’s opinion” or “the opinion of the Court” refers only to those views of our four Brethren which my Brother Harlan explicitly states he shares.