AMERICAN PRESS AND BAR AT LOGGERHEADS

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31621, 6 March 1968, Page 21

AMERICAN PRESS AND BAR AT LOGGERHEADS

(From FRANK OLIVER. N.Z PA. special correspondent > WASHINGTON. A quarrel between the American press and the American bar has been simmering for a long time and now has developed into open conflict. The issue concerns news of crime but its basis is a conflict of constitutional rights.

The segments of the Constitution involved are the first amendment which protects the freedom of the press and the sixth amendment, which guarantees a fair trial. The house of delegates of the American Bar Association recently voted overwhelmingly to adopt rules which would forbid lawyers, prosecutors I and judges to participate in the release of information about criminal records, the existence or contents of confessions or the identity of witnesses before these things are introduced into court proceedings.

American newspapers across the country are up in arms about the recommendations, which are put forward as a model. However, if State bar associations, which set standards of conduct in their areas, adopt the rules they will be in a position to discipline lawyers who do not abide by them.

The trouble the rules seek to remedy dates mostly from 1954 when information concerning a murder trial got into the press and what has been described as “flamboyant stories” influenced the outcome of the trial. In that case the defendant was found guilty and sentenced, served several years, won a new trial and was declared innocent. The American Bar Association set to work to frame rules which would put a stop to such “flamboyant stories” and thus help towards ensuring the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment. What seems to have upset a lot of newspapers is the recommendation of the American Bar Association that its suggested rules for lawyers, prosecutors and judges should be adopted by police departments across the country. Most infonnation about crime before arrest and trial comes

|ta the press from police sta--1 tions, and this will continue—i unless police departments abide by the association’s recommendation. However, as at the local level the press has much more influence than the local bar association, it seems doubtful that many police departments will do as I the American Bar Association I suggests. The A.B.A. recommenda--1 tions have been given a pressj reception that appears to be I unanimous because, says one i newspaper after another, they ! infringe on the First Amend--1 ment ' Freedom of the press is one of the most important factors in American public life, and 'it is always defended, by the press, with a fervour of an old-fashioned religious revival meeting conducted by a Billie Sunday. It is, with the newspapers at least, a religion.

“What the Bar Association now proposes,” says the "Maimi Herald,” “is to man-

age the news about crime which is at the heart of the : domestic crisis . . . the press 1 must be freed to investigate [and expose; to audit govern- ! ment at all levels,” i A St Louis, Missouri, paper . says- “This is an arrogant and I presumptive move,” and the [“Washington Post” says, “What is needed in the coun--1 try is not less but more 1 scrutiny of its police, prosecutors and judges.” 1 One Chicago paper argues |that the A.B.A. handed down “a prefabricated verdict for (Which evidence was and is 1 lacking,” while another in the i same city asks what gives the i A.B.A. its belief that it is I empowered to legislate regulations on another profession I which has a reputation for (fairness and honesty equal to | that of the legal profession. 1 A third Chicago paper says that without downgrading 1 the importance of a defend--1 ant’s rights, or denying that the press has sometimes infringed them, it cannot concede that the situation was so bad as to warrant a major restriction on the public’s right to know.” Newspapers in such cities as Milwaukee, Baltimore, Nashville, Denver and Portland (Oregon) have all denounced the A.B.A. recommendations. The A.B.A. has come down with “fair-trial fever” says one and seeks to obstruct the free flow of public information which is vital to a working democracy. An-

I other charges that the A.B.A. jis setting fire to the house in order to heat it, while yet [another says the A.B.A. recommendation should be re- ! sisted “with all the force of [public opinion and the authi ority vested in the state [courts and legislatures.” [ An article in the Knight chain of newspapers says e.x- -: cesses have occurred but the [ A.B.A. tends to ignore the j many cases in which newspaper investigations have freed men unjustly convicted of crimes they did not commit. “The problem,” it adds, “is how to improve the present system without unduly restricting the free flow of information to which the public is entitled.” The “New York Times” agrees that the reporting of crime does sometimes interfere with the execution of justice and something has to be

done about it. The collision between the First and Sixth Amendments to the Constitu-

tion, it says, “takes place when newspaper accounts, usually based on statements by police, district attorneys or lawyers, inflame public opinion or run the risk of prejudicing juries against a defendant.” It thinks the fault sometimes lies with officers of the court talking too much in a deliberate search for publicity. It winds up by suggesting the press “play it cool” and that at the local level press and bar and bench try to achieve the end all elements have at heart, “the protection of the citizen’s constitutional rights.” The comments of the “New

[York Times” are the kindest Ito the A.B.A. recommendaition that I have seen, but while it applauds the fact that the A.B.A. has now remanded the issue to each of the 50 states for local implementation, other comment is worried by this because there could be great disparity in the endeavours of 50 States to comply with or ignore the recommendations, that the decision made locally will lack uniformity and. as one newspaper says, “Therefore the rules of justice may not be evenly applied throughout the nation.”

And it adds. “The danger lurks in acceptance of restrictive rules which would impair the function of a free press and make it important to serve the public welfare.”

Some comment from newspaper ranks has been somewhat wild, such as that of a spokesman of an organisation of newspaper editors suggesting political reprisals against elected judges and district attorneys who might try to put the A.B.A. recommendations into effect.