|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Winter
1994 (11:1) The
Right to an Impartial Today many criminal cases receive extensive media coverage. The public and prospective jurors are often aware of the details of a crime even before a trial has begun. This has led many to question if the defendant in these cases can receive a fair trial. In this issue, we present three articles on the mass media and its influence on criminal trials. U.S. Government: Is a Fair Trial Possible in the Age of Mass Media? World History: The Dreyfus Affair and the Press U.S. History: Sex, Crime, and Jazz-Age Journalism Is a Fair Trial Possible in the Age of Mass Media? In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . Television stations broadcast again and again the videotape showing Rodney King being beaten by police officers. Tabloid magazines pay witnesses to publish their stories before they testify in the O.J. Simpson trial. Newspapers, magazines, "instant books," television, radio, and online computer services spread details about countless other crime stories—often before any trial takes place. Does this media saturation make it impossible to find impartial jurors? Is a fair trial possible in the age of mass media? When juries were first introduced in England about 800 years ago, most of the population lived in small villages. When people served on a jury, they would know those involved in the case and often the circumstances. In fact, for one to serve as a juror, such knowledge was required. Over time, in both England and America, this concept changed. To assure fairness, jurors were supposed to be more neutral, with little or no knowledge about the case they heard. Today, however, due to mass communications, jurors once again often know facts about criminal defendants and their alleged crimes before hearing any evidence in court. Does this intense media coverage influence how jurors decide their verdicts? Does it prevent them from deciding cases solely from the evidence presented at trial? A recent study has concluded that "there is substantial data in this as well as other studies to demonstrate that pretrial publicity prejudices jurors and [there is] little reason to believe that this prejudice is removed before jurors hear testimony and reach verdicts." This suggests that in heavily publicized cases, jurors may ignore the basic principle of American criminal law that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. What Is An "Impartial Jury"? How do we ensure fair trials? Do we eliminate all jurors who have heard about a case? How can we make sure a jury is impartial? Courts have grappled with these questions for years. In 1807, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall sat as the trial judge in Aaron Burr’s treason case. Newspapers covering the case had spread many stories of Burr’s guilt. Burr’s attorneys called on Marshall to exclude jurors with knowledge or opinions of the case. In ruling on this request, Marshall wrote a carefully considered, and surprisingly modern, explanation of who should and who should not serve on a jury. Building upon earlier English law, Marshall stated that jurors should enter the courtroom with "minds open" to the testimony. They should not hold "strong and deep impressions which will close the mind against the testimony." At the same time, Marshall continued, simply having some knowledge of the case ("light impressions") would not necessarily disqualify a person from serving on a jury. Finally, Marshall cautioned judges against trusting individuals who claim they can give a fair verdict even though they hold strong opinions on the case. Such persons, said Marshall, should be questioned carefully by the judge before being accepted as jurors. For 150 years, Chief Justice John Marshall’s words guided judges in the selection of juries. Few people questioned the discretion of judges in deciding what constituted an "impartial jury." Then, in the 1960s, a sensational murder trial resulted in new rules for judges to follow to ensure that jurors are not prejudiced by publicity before and during a trial. When Sam Sheppard, a wealthy Cleveland doctor, was accused of murdering his wife, national press coverage became intense. During his trial, reporters, photographers, and TV cameras continually interfered with the proceedings. The trial judge did little to weed out jurors who had formed opinions from the pretrial publicity or to shield them from the media circus that took place during the trial. Sheppard was convicted, but he eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that he had been denied a fair trial. The Supreme Court agreed, saying that "bedlam reigned at the courthouse." The court held that when there is a "reasonable likelihood" that a fair trial will not occur, judges must take legal steps to protect their courts from outside influence. The court then listed a number of "remedies" judges could use to counter the prejudicial effects of publicity on jurors. Under these new conditions, Sheppard was retried and acquitted. [Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).] At the time of the retrial, Sam Sheppard had served 10 years in prison. In February 2000, Sam Sheppard's son filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of the state of Ohio’s wrongful incarceration of his father. Sheppard’s son argued that Richard Eberling, who had died in prison in early 1998 while serving time for another murder, was the person responsible for his mother’s death. A Cleveland jury decided that Sheppard’s son was unable to meet the high burden of proof required to convince the court that his father was "innocent" in addition to being "not guilty." Do the Remedies Work? Since the Sheppard case in 1966, judges have relied on six major remedies to combat the effects of press publicity on jurors. 1. Changes of Venue. The defendant may ask for a change of venue. If granted, the judge will remove the trial from the area where the crime took place (and where heavy press coverage has occurred) to a location in another part of the state. This may work in situations where only local interest is high, but it would not be effective in widely publicized cases such as O.J. Simpson’s. Judges rarely grant changes of venue because they are expensive to arrange and inconvenient to all those involved. Also, in large cities most judges believe they can find impartial jurors from the diverse population. 2. Continuances. When asked by the defense, judges will sometimes delay trials in order to lessen the heat of publicity on jurors. But this remedy puts a burden on witnesses whose memories may begin to fade. One recent academic study found that while jurors do tend to forget factual news accounts over time, they are apt to still remember stories with emotional content such as descriptions or pictures of mutilated victims. 3. No-Comment Rules. Judges may severely restrict what prosecution and defense attorneys may say about a case outside of court if a "substantial likelihood" exists that talking about certain kinds of information would undermine a fair trial. No-comment rules, sometimes called "gag orders," not only may clash with freedom of speech but are difficult to enforce. It’s usually extremely difficult to trace the source of information leaked to the press. 4. Voir Dire. This refers to the examination of prospective jurors by the judge and attorneys during jury selection. Judges will exclude those who have been overly influenced by pretrial publicity. In routine cases, voir dire questioning may be hasty and superficial. In high-profile cases, jurors may be required to complete lengthy written questionnaires as well as undergo extensive oral questioning. But those called for jury duty often will not publicly admit to holding prejudiced views. They also tend to underestimate the influence of the media on them. An experimental study reported in 1992 that even an extensive voir dire fails to reduce the impact of pretrial publicity on jurors. 5. Instructions. Before jurors meet to discuss a verdict, the judge will instruct them in what the law requires. In highly publicized cases, judges will often make a point of cautioning jurors to disregard anything they have heard or seen about the case outside the trial. Studies by social scientists have found that this remedy has the least effect on jurors. 6. Sequestering. In cases with a great amount of press attention, judges will frequently isolate jurors from any outside contacts. Sequestered jurors are usually housed in a hotel where they also eat their meals. They typically are forbidden to use the telephone. Newspapers, television and radio news, and even mail may be censored. Sequestering is effective once the jury is formed and the trial begins, but it does nothing to eliminate the influence of publicity that has come before the trial. Restricting the Press Instead of relying entirely on remedies that sometimes do not work, judges have occasionally attempted to restrict the press itself. In 1975, Edwin Charles Simants was arrested for murdering six family members (including small children) in Sutherland, Nebraska. To counter the potential prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity, the judge issued a court order that prohibited any reporting of Simants’ statements to the police or others, including what had already been presented as evidence in pretrial hearings. Nebraska news organizations challenged this gag order arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s free-press guarantee. In striking down the judge’s order, the Supreme Court stated that "pretrial publicity—even pervasive, adverse publicity—does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial." The court then ruled that gag orders should only be used as a last resort after all the other traditional remedies have been tried. Finally, the Supreme Court held that anything occurring in open court is fair game for the press to report. [Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).] In another highly publicized murder case, a Virginia judge tried a different approach to stop the publicity. At the request of the defendant, he closed the trial to the press and public. In declaring this tactic unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled that the press and public have a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials except in rare cases. [Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).] So if trials can only rarely be closed, what about pretrial hearings where much evidence is discussed? Some of this evidence may be very prejudicial to the defendant and not even be admissible at the trial itself. In a California case in which the defendant was accused of administering a lethal drug overdose to 12 hospital patients, the judge closed the preliminary hearing. The judge also denied the local newspaper’s request for transcripts of the hearing. But again the Supreme Court ruled that the press and public have a right under the First Amendment to attend and read transcripts of pretrial hearings except under strictly defined conditions. [Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986).] In summary, U.S. courts have long recognized the potential dangers of publicity to criminal cases. When jurors are exposed to news reports, they may prejudge a case. In highly publicized cases, judges can use various remedies to make sure the defendant gets an impartial jury. But the Supreme Court has resisted remedies that restrict the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and a free press. For Discussion and Writing
A C T I V I T Y What Is the Best Remedy in High-Publicity Cases? To assure fair trials, some nations, like Great Britain, prohibit most news stories about pending or ongoing criminal trials. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits press censorship. When publicity threatens a defendant’s right to a fair trial, courts must use remedies other than censorship to protect the defendant’s right. In this activity, students role-play judges deciding what the best remedy is to reduce the effect of high publicity in three criminal cases. 1. Break the class into small groups. Each group will role-play judges. The judges should discuss each of the three cases below and decide on the single best remedy for each case. The remedies are; change of venue, continuance, no-comment rule, voir dire, instructions, or sequestering. Judges should refer to the article for information on these remedies. 2. After the groups have decided on each case, discuss each case in turn with each group of judges reporting back. 3. When the activity concludes, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each remedy. Cases a. Mary Smith. Smith, a world-famous singer who each year puts on a major concert to raise money for a charity, is charged with stealing large sums of money from the charity. The police and prosecution have not spoken with the press, but since Smith is a superstar, the press has spent a lot of time digging up information from other sources. The story has run in all the media throughout the country, and the trial promises to be a major media event. b. Roger Anthony, Susan Burke, Yolanda Perkins, and Sam Samson. These four are charged with murdering 20 people in a cold-blooded shooting spree in a park. The viciousness of the crime has attracted nationwide media attention. Various stories have appeared in the media claiming that Roger Anthony manipulated the others into committing the crime. Although no source is given for these stories, many believe one of the attorneys is the source. c. Peter Jones. Jones, a stranger to the small town of Canberry, is charged with robbing and murdering a convenience store clerk. Shocked by the brutal crime, almost everyone in the town has contributed to a fund to help the clerk’s spouse. Because of the upcoming trial, the Canberry prosecutor and police have not talked with the press. But a prosecutor from another state, where Jones is wanted for a similar crime, has spoken extensively with the media. This story has played prominently in the local media. The Dreyfus Affair and the Press In the summer of 1894, a French army officer, Major Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, walked into the German embassy in Paris and offered his services as a spy. Esterhazy was deeply in debt from playing the stock market and could see no other way to raise cash quickly. Over the next few months, Esterhazy passed on French military secrets to the Germans. One of his unsigned handwritten memos told about an artillery device and a new field manual. Somehow, this memo fell into the hands of the French espionage (spy) office. French military officials did not think the memo revealed important information. But they became alarmed that a spy, probably an artillery officer, was operating inside their own general staff. Army investigators decided to compare the handwriting on the spy document with samples of writing from suspected officers. Investigators saw a similarity in the handwriting on the memo and that of a 35-year-old officer assigned to the General Staff, Captain Alfred Dreyfus. Dreyfus made an easy target for the investigators. A stickler for military rules and regulations, Dreyfus had not gained many friends among the officer corps. More importantly, he was a Jew. Anti-semitism (anti-Jewish attitudes) infected much of French society. It was particularly strong in the tradition-bound military. The army secretly arrested and interrogated Capt. Dreyfus, but top army leaders were unsure how to proceed. They knew the case against Dreyfus was weak. Then on November 1, 1894, a Paris newspaper broke the story with the headline, "High Treason: Arrest of the Jewish Officer, A. Dreyfus." The newspaper, La Libre Parole ("Free Speech"), was well-known for its strong anti-semitic views. The newspaper’s editor, Edouard Drumont, stated that his information about Dreyfus had come from an anonymous source within the army. Drumont wrote that Dreyfus had made "a full confession" and that there was "absolute proof that he sold our military secrets to Germany." The sensational revelations in the press pushed the army to prosecute Capt. Dreyfus. His court martial and the events that followed tore France apart for 12 years. To a large extent, the highly competitive French press created, continued, and finally brought to an end the Dreyfus Affair. The Dreyfus Affair Unfolds News of Dreyfus’ arrest and upcoming court martial produced a storm of newspaper stories. Newspapers bombarded the public with details of supposed evidence, unfounded charges, wholly invented events, rumors, and gossip. Leading this press frenzy were a number of anti-semitic journals like Drumont’s paper. Drumont wrote on November 3, 1894, "What a terrible lesson, this disgraceful treason of the Jew Dreyfus!" By the time of the court martial, most of the public believed Dreyfus was a traitor. The military excluded the press and public from his trial. It kept the written accusation against Dreyfus secret even from him. Despite the weak evidence, seven army-officer judges unanimously found him guilty. He was sentenced to life on Devil’s Island, a fortified prison off the coast of South America, where he would be held in solitary confinement. Before being shipped to Devil’s Island, the army put Dreyfus through a humiliating ceremony known as a "degradation." In front of assembled troops, scores of journalists, and 20,000 citizens, he was stripped of his military insignia and his sword was broken in half. Dreyfus’ family, particularly his brother, Mathieu, refused to give up. Mathieu and a helpful army officer began to turn up evidence pointing to Major Esterhazy as the real spy and traitor. In November 1897, a newspaper published a copy of the original spy memo alongside samples of Esterhazy’s writing. The writing on both appeared to be identical. As the case against Dreyfus began to unravel, the army officers responsible for his prosecution closed ranks. After all, they reasoned, the credibility and honor of the entire French army were at stake. One of the officers, Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry, had perjured himself at Dreyfus’ court martial. He now created false documents incriminating Dreyfus and leaked them to sympathetic newspapers. A Press War Erupts Unable to ignore the mounting evidence against Major Esterhazy, the army was forced to court martial him in January 1898. But if Esterhazy were found guilty, this would mean that important army officers had either made a terrible mistake, or even worse, had lied. Unwilling to accept these consequences, the court martial unanimously found Esterhazy—the real spy—innocent. A few days after Esterhazy was acquitted, one of the country’s most famous novelists, Emile Zola, published a letter to the president of France accusing high-ranking army officers of conspiring to convict an innocent man. Zola’s now famous letter entitled "I accuse" was printed in a pro-Dreyfus newspaper published by Georges Clemenceau (who would become the premier of France during World War I). The publication of Zola’s letter provoked a violent reaction. Fist fights broke out on the floor of the French national legislature. Riots occurred all over France. Mobs stoned Jewish shops and homes. Men fought duels, including one between Clemenceau and Drumont, the anti-semitic newspaper editor (all six shots missed). Zola himself was convicted of libel, but he fled to England to avoid imprisonment. Zola’s "I Accuse. . . !" also proved to be the opening shot in a bloodless press war that pitted pro- and anti-Dreyfus journalists, illustrators, and photographers against one another. The pro-Dreyfus press emphasized getting at the truth, reason, and justice for the prisoner of Devil’s Island. The anti-Dreyfus journalists viewed themselves as defenders of the army and the security of the nation. Many of the anti-Dreyfus forces believed that a "Jewish Syndicate," which supposedly wanted to destroy France, was behind the Dreyfus Affair. The press war erupted when a new style of journalism was beginning to flourish in France (and in other parts of the world including the United States). High-speed presses enabled newspapers to be printed in large numbers. In Paris, nearly 100 newspapers and journals competed for readers. "Dueling newspapers" emerged specifically to attack and counterattack one another over the latest revelations in what now was simply called "The Affair." Newly invented graphic processes allowed newspapers and other publishers to mass-produce photographs and other types of illustrations. The press war generated numerous posters, cartoons, caricatures, comic strips, picture postcards, board games, and other items that were often little more than pro- or anti-Dreyfus propaganda. One famous poster portrayed Dreyfus as a snake-like monster with a sword labeled, "The Traitor," piercing his body. The Affair Ends Through the summer of 1898, most of the press and the public still remained anti-Dreyfus and pro-army. But in August one of the false documents manufactured by Colonel Henry was shown to be a forgery. Colonel Henry confessed and then committed suicide. Hearing about this, the spy Esterhazy panicked and fled to England. In June the following year, a Paris journalist found and interviewed Esterhazy in London. Esterhazy admitted that it was he who had written the spy memo that had started the whole Dreyfus Affair. But he claimed that he had done this on orders from his superior to prove that Dreyfus was a traitor. On June 3, 1899, the day that Esterhazy’s confession appeared in the Paris papers, the government decided to bring Dreyfus back from Devil’s Island for a new court martial. Dreyfus had been in prison for four-and-a-half years. Dreyfus’ second court martial was probably the world’s first big media event. Hundreds of journalists, photographers, celebrities, and ordinary people from many nations wanted to witness the trial. Reporters covering the proceedings tried, but were not permitted, to take motion pictures (invented a few years earlier). On September 9, 1899, in a 5-2 judgment, Dreyfus was again found guilty. This time he was sentenced to only 10 years in prison due to "extenuating circumstances." About a week later, amid a storm of international protest over the guilty verdict, the French government decided to pardon Dreyfus. For the next half-dozen years, Dreyfus and his supporters in the press continued to try to prove his innocence. Finally, he was granted another court hearing. In 1906, the highest court in France cleared Dreyfus and reversed his convictions. The army reinstated Dreyfus and, to make amends, made him an officer in the Legion of Honor. He received this high military honor in a ceremony that took place on the same grounds where he had been degraded nearly 12 years before. Dreyfus, who eventually rose to the rank of major, stayed in the army until retirement and even returned to serve his country during World War I. He died on July 11, 1935, and was buried on Bastille Day, the French patriotic holiday. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information J’accuse: The Dreyfus Affair: A web site containing extensive hisotrical background of the Dreyfus affair, including biographies of the principal players, a brief history, a biblography, and more. A C T I V I T Y Visualizing the Dreyfus Affair In this activity, small groups will each prepare a visual presentation to the class on a person, event, or theme related to the Dreyfus Affair. A. Each group should decide what person, event, or theme will provide the subject for its visual presentation. Group members should also agree on the type of visual they will create. This might be a large poster, series of political cartoons or caricatures, comic strip, game, illustrated postcard set, photo essay, role play, video, or multi-media presentation. B. Group members should assign one another various responsibilities for the project, e.g. director, researcher, artist/actor, writer, narrator. Sex, Crime, and Jazz-Age Journalism The 1920s were an exciting, shocking decade in America’s cities. Although Prohibition laws outlawed alcohol, people flocked to speakeasies, private clubs where they could drink bootleg liquor and dance to the latest jazz. Gangsters battled in the streets for control of the alcohol trade. Women put on lipstick and rouge, wore short skirts, and smoked in public. Ground-breaking novels and plays focused on the once-taboo subject of sex. People poured into sporting events and movie houses and worshipped new-found celebrities like Babe Ruth and Charlie Chaplin. This raucous decade was known as the jazz age. Newspapers reflected the era, attracting readers with sensational stories. Throughout the decade, many newspapers drew readers by focusing on stories involving sex, crime, and celebrities. This was known as "jazz-age journalism." In 1921, a story broke that involved all three elements—sex, crime, and a celebrity. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, one of Hollywood’s most famous stars, was accused of sexually assaulting and killing a movie actress. The press pounced on the story, printing detail after lurid detail. The case of "Fatty" Arbuckle raised the question of whether a celebrity could get a fair trial amid enormous national press coverage. The Rise of the Tabloids On June 26, 1919, a new kind of newspaper called a tabloid hit the streets of New York City. Half the size (15 x 11 inches) of other newspapers, the Daily News typically displayed a front page with a screaming headline and large pictures. Inside, short, sensationalized news articles sat alongside photos, illustrations, and feature stories about the lives, loves, and misfortunes of both ordinary and famous people. Stories were intentionally written to startle, excite, and even mislead the reader. By 1924, the Daily News had the largest circulation of any paper in the country. The success of the Daily News attracted the attention of major publishers like William Randolph Hearst, who established his own tabloids. Soon other tabloids appeared in most of the country’s big cities. Facing serious competition from these upstarts, traditional newspapers began to imitate the tabloids’ large front-page headlines, splashy photos, and sensational stories. "Fatty" Gets Into Trouble Along with Charlie Chaplin, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was one of the great comic stars of silent pictures. Between 1913 and 1916, he made over 100 short films for the Mack Sennett Studio. By 1917, he was directing as well as acting in comic short movies in his own studio. He made his first feature-length film in 1919. Its success led to several feature-length comedies. Earning an incredible $5,000 a week, the 34-year-old Arbuckle completed three films in quick succession during the spring and summer of 1921. Then on Labor Day weekend, he took a break. With some of his Hollywood friends, he drove his Pierce Arrow touring car to San Francisco. Arbuckle checked into a suite of rooms at the posh St. Francis Hotel. Numerous friends, city officials, and assorted freeloaders came around to see the Hollywood star. He ordered food and, despite Prohibition, managed to get three cases of liquor. Throughout the day, people came and went, ate and drank, listened and danced to records. Arbuckle, dressed in his pajamas and a robe, was the life of the party. One of Arbuckle’s guests was Virginia Rappe a 25-year-old aspiring actress. In the late afternoon, Arbuckle went to his bedroom to dress for the evening. He later testified that he found Virginia Rappe on his bathroom floor writhing in pain. He said that he carried her to his bed. Others testified that they heard angry shouting coming from Arbuckle’s bedroom. At some point, Arbuckle apparently put some ice on her body. Others then came into the room and saw the delirious actress thrashing about on the bed grabbing at her torn clothes. Finally, Arbuckle called for a doctor, and Rappe was taken to a hospital. She died there a few days later without fully regaining her senses. Shortly after Virginia Rappe died, San Francisco police arrested Arbuckle and charged him with murder. He was jailed and denied bail. Newspapers throughout the nation ran screaming headlines:
Pictures of Arbuckle and others involved in the incident covered the front pages of many newspapers. The Los Angeles Times, hardly a tabloid, ran a spread of front-page photos with the headline, "Three Striking Poses of Virginia Rappe, Victim in Arbuckle Orgy." In many cities, movie houses canceled the showing of "Fatty" Arbuckle films. On September 13, 1921, a San Francisco grand jury indicted Arbuckle for manslaughter. Not satisfied, San Francisco District Attorney Matthew Brady announced that he would not proceed on the indictment but would seek a first-degree murder charge against the actor at a preliminary hearing. In the meantime, newspapers reported the findings of the coroner’s jury. The jury concluded that Virginia Rappe died from a ruptured bladder and peritonitis "caused by the application of some force which, from evidence submitted, was applied by one Roscoe Arbuckle." The preliminary hearing took more than a week. The district attorney attempted to convince the judge that Arbuckle, who weighed over 300 pounds, had sexually assaulted Virginia Rappe causing her injury and death. The judge, however, found evidence supporting only a trial for manslaughter. He ordered Arbuckle released on $5,000 bail. Arbuckle returned to a shocking reception in Los Angeles. More than a thousand people, described by one witness as a "hate-frenzied mob," met Arbuckle at the train station. "Murderer!" some yelled. "Beast!" jeered others. Police had to protect him as he made his way to a waiting car. "Fatty" On Trial Newspaper reporters from all over the country and crowds of curious onlookers came to see "Fatty" Arbuckle on trial. The trial began on November 14, 1921, and lasted for three weeks. Arbuckle denied attacking Virginia Rappe. His attorneys introduced evidence that the actress had long-suffered from a bladder disease. The prosecution played up the "wild orgy" in Arbuckle’s hotel suite and described him as a depraved emperor "sitting on his throne and pouring wine." On December 5, after 40 hours of deliberation, the jurors reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked 10–2 for acquittal. The district attorney called for an immediate retrial. Arbuckle did not testify at his second trial. The jury deadlocked 10–2 for conviction. Again the district attorney demanded a new trial. The third trial opened on March 6 and continued for over a month. Arbuckle testified, as did more than 70 other witnesses, including doctors who testified about Rappe’s chronic illness. In the end, the jury barely met for five minutes and found Arbuckle not guilty. "Fatty" Is Banned The verdict did not end Arbuckle’s troubles. Several groups, concerned with immorality in Hollywood’s movies, had mounted efforts to get the government to censor movies. To prevent government censorship, the movie industry set up its own clean-up campaign. Just six days after Arbuckle was found innocent, the newly appointed head of the campaign banned the screening of his films. With all the negative press Arbuckle had gotten, he became the perfect scapegoat to prove the industry was cracking down on immoral behavior. "Fatty" Arbuckle did eventually return to the movies as a director (under a pseudonym) and even acted again in some comic shorts. But his career as a movie great ended in the storm of publicity surrounding his three trials. He died in his sleep at age 46 in 1933, leaving an estate valued at $2,000. Nobody will probably ever know exactly what happened in "Fatty" Arbuckle’s hotel room in San Francisco. But two juries heard evidence in the case and failed to convict him of any wrongdoing. A third jury acquitted him and even issued an extraordinary statement saying, "...We...hope that the American people will take the judgment of 14 men and women who have sat listening for 31 days to evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame." But many people in America judged Arbuckle from the sensational allegations raised in newspapers across the country, and Arbuckle suffered greatly. Even today, you can read many accounts of the Arbuckle scandal that seem to be based on wild accusations printed at the time. For Discussion and Writing
A C T I V I T Y Should Witnesses Be Prohibited from Selling Their Stories? In this activity, students role-play advisers to the governor (played by the teacher). A recent development in tabloid-style news is the payment of fees for exclusive stories. This practice has drawn heavy criticism, especially when tabloids pay prospective witnesses in criminal trials. Critics fear both that people might make up sensational stories for tabloids and that juries might not believe witnesses who have been paid by tabloids. Imagine that your state legislature is considering a bill that will make it illegal for witnesses in criminal matters to "receive payment for providing information obtained by witnessing an event or having personal knowledge of the facts." The governor, unsure about this bill, asks your advice. The governor particularly wants your opinions, supported with reasons, on the following questions:
Officers: Knox Cologne, President; Alan Friedman, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Paul Cane, Gerald Chaleff, Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Lois Thompson, Susan Troy, Daniel H Willick; Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Associate Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Marvin Sears, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1994, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|