(DOWNLOAD) "Matter Richard Oliver Et Al. v. George Postel" by Court of Appeals of New York * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Richard Oliver Et Al. v. George Postel
- Author : Court of Appeals of New York
- Release Date : January 22, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
[30 N.Y.2d 171 Page 176] The questions posed in Matter of United Press Assns. v. Valente (308 N. Y. 71), concerning the right of the news media to
challenge an order closing the trial of a pending criminal case to the public and the press, are again before us on this appeal,
though in a materially different setting and involving altogether different considerations. Here, unlike in United Press,
the issues are presented in the context of a clash between the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press (U. S. Const.,
1st Amdt.; N. Y. Const., art. I, § 8) and the constitutional right of an accused to a trial by an impartial jury free from
the outside influences of prejudicial publicity. (U. S. Const., 5th, 6th and 14th Amdts.; N. Y. Const., art. I, §Â§ 2, 6. See,
also, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 362; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 543.) The present case stems from the prosecution
of one Carmine Persico for the crimes of conspiracy and extortion. The trial began in the Supreme Court, New York County,
before Justice Postel and a jury on November 8, 1971, and, three days later, before any evidence had been presented, The
New York Times and The Daily News published articles reciting that Persico had a criminal record and was reputed to have underworld
connections. Claiming that these articles produced a prejudicial atmosphere which would prevent his client from receiving
a fair trial, Persico's counsel moved for a mistrial. Justice Postel (hereafter referred to as respondent), noting that he
considered the articles unfair, polled the jury and, after ascertaining that no juror had read anything in the papers or seen
anything on television concerning the case, denied the motion. He did, however, warn the news media, through remarks to the
reporters present, that he would hold "in contempt" any "individual reporter" who "[reported] anything other than transpires
[30 N.Y.2d 171 Page 177]