DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving 10 JUSTICE for the Washington, DC Community CONTENTS MISSION 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Council for Court Excellence Annual Report 20 Improving 10 JUSTICE For the Washington, DC community CONTENTS MISSION 2. From the Executive Director OUR 4. Leadership Activities The Council for Court Excellence is a nonprofit, nonpartisan civic organization that since 1982 CHILDREN IN THE COURTS has worked to improve the administration of justice in the local and federal courts and related 5. Family Court Judicial Training agencies in the Washington, DC area. 6. Domestic Relations: Creating practice We accomplish this goal by identifying and promoting justice system reforms, improving public standards for attorneys in contested access to justice, and increasing public understanding of and support for our justice system. custody cases 7. Juvenile Justice: Training programs for the direct service community HISTORY 8. Juvenile Justice: Policy and performance 8. Child Welfare After the DC Bar released the ground-break- CRIMINAL JUSTICE ing “Horsky Report” in 1982 calling for improve- 9. Disorderly Conduct Arrest Legislation ments in the local court system, community 10. Trinidad (DC) Crime Survey leaders identified the need for an independent 11. Reentry: Identifying and removing barriers group to promote policy improvements and to to employment for returning citizens engage our community in justice initiatives. COURT IMPROVEMENTS To address these concerns, leaders of the 12. DC Bench-Bar-Media Dialogue Project city’s civic, legal, government and business 14. New DC Business Laws Enacted sectors founded the Council for Court CCE founder Charles A. Horsky, right, with Judge James A. Belson, center, and Judge John Steadman, left 14. Testimony Regarding the DC Office of Excellence (CCE) to help local and federal courts Administrative Hearings respond to increasing demands and escalating grand jury systems, reform of the District of PUBLIC SERVICE community expectations. Columbia probate laws and procedures, reform 15. School Jury Education Project Under the leadership of founders Charles A. of the DC administrative adjudication system, 16. CCE visits Russia to discuss jury systems Horsky and Sam Harahan, the Council set an improvement in court handling of child neglect and the international rule of law ambitious agenda of identifying, developing and and abuse cases, expansion of crime victim advocating needed justice-system reforms, and rights, proposed solutions to speed resolution of programs to improve understanding of and criminal cases and to speed resolution of civil 18. Rainey Brandt and Pauline Schneider support for the justice system. cases by the DC trial and appellate courts. Receive the Justice Stewart Award CCE has built a substantial record of success To improve the public’s access to justice and 20. Celebrating Charles Horsky at the in the major justice system reform initiatives it increase understanding of our justice system, the Supreme Court has undertaken. Council over the years has published and 22. Our Generous Donors CCE was the moving force behind adoption of disseminated more than 360,000 copies of plain- 25. Board of Directors the one day/one trial jury system in the DC language booklets and other materials explaining 28. Financial Statement Superior Court, modernization of trial jury and a wide variety of court systems. 29. Staff List 1 from the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR disorderly behavior that were more than a century out of date. We brought information and educational programs Early in 2010, at one of our weekly staff meetings, we to all quadrants of the District, training service providers in realized that this year would be the 100th birthday of the DC’s juvenile justice system, and engaging judges to lead Council for Court Excellence’s founding father, Charles programs about jury service in local classrooms. Our Horsky. We knew that a very special celebration was in order, innovative Bench-Bar-Media Dialogue has been a forum and that this event would frame the Council’s year. for discussion unlike any other program in the country. Some CCE friends know that Mr. Horsky authored a Our work this year was filled with Mr. Horsky’s spirit book titled “The Washington Lawyer,” and the essays of community service, and advanced his vision of engaging collected here were frequently assigned reading in law all neighbors in the judicial branch of our democracy. schools across the country. One of the book’s insightful Planning for the event honoring Mr. Horsky at the themes called for the unique legal community in Supreme Court was such a pleasure, as was working with Washington, DC to engage and serve the residents of this our wonderful committee of his colleagues and friends, vibrant city. This vision is built into CCE’s mission. led by Judge Jim Belson and Sam Harahan. Linda Ferren DC is often cited as the city with the most lawyers per helped us find the original recordings of Mr. Horsky’s capita in the nation. But only a handful of these attorneys oral history at the US District Court Historical Society. We are advocating for local clients, and even fewer serve the digitally remastered these cassettes, and Mr. Horsky’s many impoverished and disenfranchised in this complex voice filled our offices for a week as we all listened to community. But it was Charles Horsky who called on all him recount stories of Montana, his legal career with lawyers working in Washington to fulfill their duties as Covington & Burling, and his White House years in the public advocates for those at the fringes of the justice Kennedy and Johnson administrations. system. Mr. Horsky imagined the change we could make This year was filled with the spirit of Charlie Horsky. together if these talented advocates joined forces to Though I never met him, I have found endless occasions to support District residents at the fringes. He gathered the reflect on his goals and vision for the Council for Court very best attorneys, business leaders and judges and Excellence. And I hope that our achievements this year challenged them to build nonpartisan, consensus-based would make him proud of our organization, and of the solutions for the DC justice system. This has been CCE’s Washington Lawyers and community leaders who make strategy for success for almost thirty years. this great work possible. I thank our outstanding Board In 2010, we applied this strategy to projects to and our generous supporters for advancing these efforts improve outcomes for DC children engaged in custody with us. I hope that you enjoy reading about CCE's very disputes, to open desperately-needed job opportunities successful year in this report. for reentering citizens, and to revise laws addressing June B. Kress, Executive Director 2 The School Jury Education Project: Judge Noël Anketell Kramer with a class at Theodore Roosevelt High School 3 LEADERSHIP Caryl Bernstein receives the ACTIVITIES Charles A. Horsky Award In early 2010, CCE Chair Marie Johns Also at the June Board meeting, The Executive Committee was nominated by President Barack Obama several members of the Board were presented the Horsky Award to to a leadership post in the Small Business elected to the Executive Committee, long-time Board leader Caryl S. Administration, which required her to step including Bruce Berger, Tom Mikula, Bernstein on September 20. down from all boards. Marie had served as John Nields, Tyrone Parker, Arabella Earl Silbert, President of the CCE’s Chair since June 2008, and wished Teal, and Kurt Wimmer. Patrick Board, spoke of Caryl’s the Council every success in our future McGlone was elected to serve as Vice outstanding contributions to endeavors in her resignation letter. President, replacing David Cynamon CCE’s success since the Hon. Kathy Patterson was quickly and who will oversee the launch of his organization’s early years. unanimously elected by the CCE Board to law firm’s new office in Abu Dhabi,. Earl Silbert, right, presents the Horsky He said to Caryl, “I thank you Award to Caryl S. Bernstein, who is serve as Interim Board Chair as the The Board thanks the following accompanied by her husband George for your dedication, your Nominating Committee, led by Ron members who rotated off the Exec- generous support for our Jessamy, conducted a search for a new utive Committee in 2010: Caryl Bernstein, mission, and your visionary leadership which has Chair. Kathy presided over the Justice Linda Bostick, Bill Lawler, Joan Strand, and ensured a strong future for CCE.” Stewart Dinner in May alongside President Michael Waldman. The Charles A. Horsky Award is given on special Earl Silbert. The Board was deeply apprec- We are particularly grateful to occasions to outstanding leaders who embody Mr. iative of Kathy’s leadership. Ron Jessamy for his dedicated Horsky’s commitment to public service. The award, In June, the Board elected leadership of the Nominating named after CCE’s founder, was established by the Kathleen Walsh Carr to the Committee, and to the mem- Executive Committee in 1998. position of Chair. Kate is the bers of this committee: Beverly Caryl served as co-chair of the Resource Development President of Cardinal Bank Burke, David Cynamon, Steve Committee. She recently ended eight years of service Washington and a native of Hut, Jim Lee, Carolyn Lerner, during two periods on the Executive Committee. She the District. She has more Eric Lieberman, Tim May, Dwight remains an active member of the Finance Committee, than 35 years of experience Murray, Rod Page, Kathy Patter- continuing 20 years of participation on the CCE Board. in the finance industry and son, and President Earl Silbert. Caryl has advanced the mission of CCE by con- has an extraordinary record CCE made considerable pro- tributing her astute financial management and her of service in the local bus- gress in our work to review our keen business development skills to raise support for iness and civic community.
Recommended publications
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse

    Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse

    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
  • 2003 Iraq War: Intelligence Or Political Failure?

    2003 Iraq War: Intelligence Or Political Failure?

    2003 IRAQ WAR: INTELLIGENCE OR POLITICAL FAILURE? A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies By Dione Brunson, B.A. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. April, 2011 DISCLAIMER THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ACADEMIC RESEARCH PAPER ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICIES OR POSITIONS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OR THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. ALL INFORMATION AND SOURCES FOR THIS PAPER WERE DRAWN FROM OPEN SOURCE MATERIALS. ii 2003 IRAQ WAR: INTELLIGENCE OR POLITICAL FAILURE? Dione Brunson, B.A. MALS Mentor: Ralph Nurnberger, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The bold U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was anchored in intelligence justifications that would later challenge U.S. credibility. Policymakers exhibited unusual bureaucratic and public dependencies on intelligence analysis, so much so that efforts were made to create supporting information. To better understand the amplification of intelligence, the use of data to justify invading Iraq will be explored alongside events leading up to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. This paper will examine the use of intelligence to invade Iraq as well as broader implications for politicization. It will not examine the justness or ethics of going to war with Iraq but, conclude with the implications of abusing intelligence. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you God for continued wisdom. Thank you Dr. Nurnberger for your patience. iv DEDICATION This work is dedicated to Mom and Dad for their continued support.
  • Drowning in Data 15 3

    Drowning in Data 15 3

    BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES WITH AMERICANS’ DATA Rachel Levinson-Waldman Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law about the brennan center for justice The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. about the brennan center’s liberty and national security program The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program works to advance effective national security policies that respect Constitutional values and the rule of law, using innovative policy recommendations, litigation, and public advocacy. The program focuses on government transparency and accountability; domestic counterterrorism policies and their effects on privacy and First Amendment freedoms; detainee policy, including the detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorist suspects; and the need to safeguard our system of checks and balances. about the author Rachel Levinson-Waldman serves as Counsel to the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, which seeks to advance effective national security policies that respect constitutional values and the rule of law.
  • Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties

    Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties

    112 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 6 ARTICLE Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap __________________________ Margo Schlanger* * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan. I have greatly benefited from conversations with John DeLong, Mort Halperin, Alex Joel, David Kris, Marty Lederman, Nancy Libin, Rick Perlstein, Becky Richards, and several officials who prefer not to be named, all of whom generously spent time with me, discussing the issues in this article, and many of whom also helped again after reading the piece in draft. I would also like to extend thanks to Sam Bagenstos, Rick Lempert, Daphna Renan, Alex Rossmiller, Adrian Vermeule, Steve Vladeck, Marcy Wheeler, Shirin Sinnar and other participants in the 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop, participants at the University of Iowa law faculty workshop, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan Legal Theory Workshop and governance group lunch, who offered me extremely helpful feedback. Jennifer Gitter and Lauren Dayton provided able research assistance. All errors are, of course, my responsibility. Copyright © 2015 by the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Margo Schlanger. 2015 / Intelligence Legalism and the NSA’s Civil Liberties Gaps 113 Abstract Since June 2013, we have seen unprecedented security breaches and disclosures relating to American electronic surveillance. The nearly daily drip, and occasional gush, of once-secret policy and operational information makes it possible to analyze and understand National Security Agency activities, including the organizations and processes inside and outside the NSA that are supposed to safeguard American’s civil liberties as the agency goes about its intelligence gathering business.
  • District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission Report Of

    District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission Report Of

    District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission Report of Recommendations and Chief Judge Designations and Presidential Appointments to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia May 8, 1975 to September 30, 2013 INTRODUCTION On October 31, 2011, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (“JNC” or “Commission”) published an historic report of JNC recommendations made to the President of the United States, Presidential appointments to the District of Columbia courts, and the JNC’s designations of the Chief Judges for those courts, with the commitment to update the report annually. The report relies on available records, including Congressional and District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission records, as well as notices published in the Daily Washington Law Reporter. This is the second annual update of the report. The Commission Chair, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, gives special recognition and expresses his appreciation to Executive Director Kim M. Whatley and Summer Intern Joseph R.A. Fruth for their tireless and meticulous efforts in researching and compiling the initial report, which spans forty years and encompasses the various branches of both the federal and District of Columbia governments. Judge Sullivan also expresses his appreciation to Addy Schmitt, Esquire, for first suggesting this project more than five years ago and devoting many hours since then to its completion, and to Executive Assistant Eunice Holt-Martin for her assistance and support in this endeavor. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia were established by Congress on July 29, 1970 (Public Law 91-358, 84 Stat.
  • SPRING 2020, Vol. 34, Issue 1 SPRING 2020 1

    SPRING 2020, Vol. 34, Issue 1 SPRING 2020 1

    SPRING 2020, Vol. 34, Issue 1 SPRING 2020 1 MISSION NAWJ’s mission is to promote the judicial role of protecting the rights of individuals under the rule of law through strong, committed, diverse judicial leadership; fairness and equality in the courts; and ON THE COVER 19 Channeling Sugar equal access to justice. Innovative Efforts to Improve Access to Justice through Global Judicial Leadership 21 Learning Lessons from Midyear Meeting in New Orleans addresses Tough Cases BOARD OF DIRECTORS ongoing challenges facing access to justice. Story on page 14 24 Life After the Bench: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Honorable Sharon Mettler PRESIDENT 2 President's Message Hon. Bernadette D'Souza 26 Trial Advocacy Training for Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, Louisiana 2 Interim Executive Director's Women by Women Message PRESIDENT-ELECT 29 District News Hon. Karen Donohue 3 VP of Publications Message King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington 51 District Directors & Committees 4 Q&A with Judge Ann Breen-Greco VICE PRESIDENT, DISTRICTS Co-Chair Human Trafficking 52 Sponsors Hon. Elizabeth A. White Committee Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County 54 New Members 5 Independent Immigration Courts VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLICATIONS Hon. Heidi Pasichow 7 Resource Board Profile Superior Court of the District of Columbia Cathy Winter-Palmer SECRETARY Hon. Orlinda Naranjo (ret.) 8 Global Judicial Leadership 419th District Court of Texas, Austin Doing the Impossible: NAWJ work with the Pan-American TREASURER Commission of Judges on Social Hon. Elizabeth K. Lee Rights Superior Court of California, San Mateo County IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 11 Global Judicial Leadership Hon. Tamila E.
  • Confidentiality Complications

    Confidentiality Complications

    Confidentiality Complications: How new rules, technologies and corporate practices affect the reporter’s privilege and further demonstrate the need for a federal shield law The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press June 2007 Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq. Gregg P. Leslie, Esq. Elizabeth J. Soja, Esq. 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 807-2100 Executive Summary The corporate structure of the news media has created new obstacles, both financial and practical, for journalists who must keep promises of confidentiality. Information that once existed only in a reporter’s notebook can now be accessed by companies that have obligations not only to their reporters, but to their shareholders, their other employees, and the public. Additionally, in the wake of an unprecedented settlement in the Wen Ho Lee Privacy Act case, parties can target news media corporations not just for their access to a reporter’s information, but also for their deep pockets. The potential for conflicts of interest is staggering, but the primary concerns of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are that: • because of the 21st-century newsroom’s reliance on technology, corporations now have access to notes, correspondence and work-product information that before only existed in a reporter’s notebook; • the new federal “e-discovery” court rules allow litigants to discover vastly more information than a printed page – or even a saved e-mail – would provide during litigation; • while reporters generally only have responsibilities to themselves,
  • Protecting More Than the Front Page: Codifying a Reporterâ•Žs Privilege for Digital and Citizen Journalists

    Protecting More Than the Front Page: Codifying a Reporterâ•Žs Privilege for Digital and Citizen Journalists

    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 89 | Issue 3 Article 10 2-2014 Protecting More than the Front Page: Codifying a Reporter’s Privilege for Digital and Citizen Journalists Kathryn A. Rosenbaum Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1427 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\89-3\NDL310.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-FEB-14 9:04 PROTECTING MORE THAN THE FRONT PAGE: CODIFYING A REPORTER’S PRIVILEGE FOR DIGITAL AND CITIZEN JOURNALISTS Kathryn A. Rosenbaum* “‘The reporters who work for the Times in Washington have told me many of their sources are petrified even to return calls,’ Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The New York Times, said . on CBS’s Face The Nation broadcast. ‘It has a real practical effect that is important.’”1 INTRODUCTION The stifling of investigative journalism stems in part from a torrent of stories in 2013 regarding the government’s intrusive tracking of journalists’ and individuals’ cell phone records and e-mails without their knowledge.2 The federal government also tracked two months of call records of more than twenty Associated Press phone lines.3 In a leak probe regarding a news story about North Korea, the government surreptitiously obtained informa- tion about Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.4 Offi- cials monitored his “security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings at the State Department[,] .
  • Policy Approaches to the Encryption Debate

    Policy Approaches to the Encryption Debate

    CONTENTS Introduction 1 Encryption: An overview 2 The “Going Dark” problem and the backdoor debate 2 Question One: Is a backdoor necessary or useful? 4 Lack of empirical evidence 4 Legal restrictions 5 Efficacy and utility of already available technology 6 Associated policy recommendations 8 Collect quantitative evidence of need 8 Increase resources and training for law enforcement 8 Question Two: Is there a passable technical solution? 9 Associated policy recommendations 10 Conduct adversarial testing 10 Question Three: Is there a workable policy implementation? 10 Associated policy recommendations 12 Conduct scenario planning 12 Conclusion 12 About the authors 13 R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 133 March 2018 individual rights and public security if strong encryption is compromised. These polarized views have left policymakers at an impasse. However, such seemingly irreconcilable perspectives on POLICY APPROACHES TO THE either side of the debate arise primarily because encryption ENCRYPTION DEBATE policy is treated as a thought experiment, often with over- simplified facts coupled with a great deal of certainty. For example, the most commonly employed hypothetical scenar- Charles Duan, Arthur Rizer, io involves the following: an encrypted message or communi- Zach Graves and Mike Godwin cation that—if only the government were able read it—would reveal the secrets required to stop a deadly attack or to bring INTRODUCTION a terrorist to justice. fierce debate has been ongoing for many years over This resembles another famous thought experiment: the strong computer encryption of communications and “ticking time bomb,” where torturing a suspect is the guar- data, which can both deliver security and privacy for anteed and only means to defuse the bomb.2 While this latter individuals but also make it difficult for the intelli- conundrum has also generated volumes of polarized debate, Agence and law enforcement communities to perform their its most pragmatic solution is one that can also be applied surveillance and investigative duties.
  • Article: Why Dylann Roof Is a Terrorist Under Federal Law, and Why It Matters

    Article: Why Dylann Roof Is a Terrorist Under Federal Law, and Why It Matters

    ARTICLE: WHY DYLANN ROOF IS A TERRORIST UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND WHY IT MATTERS Winter, 2017 Reporter 54 Harv. J. on Legis. 259 * Length: 19820 words Author: Jesse J. Norris 1 * Highlight After white supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine African-Americans at a Charleston, South Carolina church, authorities declined to refer to the attack as terrorism. Many objected to the government's apparent double standard in its treatment of Muslim versus non-Muslim extremists and called on the government to treat the massacre as terrorism. Yet the government has neither charged Roof with a terrorist offense nor labeled the attack as terrorism. This Article argues that although the government was unable to charge Roof with terrorist crimes because of the lack of applicable statutes, the Charleston massacre still qualifies as terrorism under federal law. Roof's attack clearly falls under the government's prevailing definition of domestic terrorism. It also qualifies for a terrorism sentencing enhancement, or at least an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines, as well as for the terrorism aggravating factor considered by juries in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. Labeling Roof's attack as terrorism could have several important implications, not only in terms of sentencing, but also in terms of government accountability, the prudent allocation of counterterrorism resources, balanced media coverage, and public cooperation in preventing terrorism. For these reasons, this Article contends that the government should treat the Charleston massacre, and similar ideologically motivated killings, as terrorism. This Article also makes two policy suggestions meant to facilitate a more consistent use of the term terrorism.
  • How Noninstitutionalized Media Change the Relationship Between the Public and Media Coverage of Trials

    How Noninstitutionalized Media Change the Relationship Between the Public and Media Coverage of Trials

    06__WHEELER__CONTRACT PROOF.DOC 11/18/2008 11:41:41 AM HOW NONINSTITUTIONALIZED MEDIA CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA COVERAGE OF TRIALS MARCY WHEELER* I INTRODUCTION Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart1 puts citizenship and the public at the heart of the purpose of media coverage of legal proceedings: Commentary and reporting on the criminal justice system is at the core of the First Amendment values, for the operation and integrity of that system is of crucial import to citizens concerned with the administration of government. Secrecy of judicial action can only breed ignorance and distrust of courts and suspicion concerning the competence and impartiality of judges; free and robust reporting, criticism, and debate can contribute to public understanding of the rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system, as well as improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effects of exposure and public accountability.2 That is, media coverage of legal proceedings should further the public understanding of those proceedings and of the legal system generally and should foster oversight over its functioning. Unfortunately, much coverage of legal proceedings now serves to increase ratings rather than to increase the public’s understanding of the justice system.3 Moreover, examples like early coverage of the Duke lacrosse case show that the press can exacerbate—rather than expose—abuses of the judicial system and the legal system generally. Since the advent of the Internet, however, additional media outlets—like blogs and wikis—have begun to change the relationship between media Copyright © 2008 by Marcy Wheeler.
  • Help Decide the Future of SJ County Iran: We Need to Stop the Next

    Help Decide the Future of SJ County Iran: We Need to Stop the Next

    San Joaquin County’s Alternative Newspaper PRICELESS connections Volume XXV, Number 2 Published by the Peace & Justice Network since 1986 March 2007 Help decide the Iran: we need to SAVE THE DATES future of SJ County stop the next war As we at FCNL walk the an Iranian diplomatic office in Matt Perry March 10 halls of Congress lobbying Erbil, Iraq has caused tensions The population of against the escalation of the not only with Iran but also with foreign policy San Joaquin County war in Iraq, we are hearing also the government of Iraq, which symposium film ....20 is projected to double new concerns from members of condemned the raids. Adding by 2030, and to grow Congress about President Bush's fuel to this conflict was the White by over a million escalating confrontation with House decision last week to tell March 17 new people by 2050. Iran and President Ahmadinejad's reporters that President Bush has Such dramatic growth escalating confrontation with the authorized U.S. soldiers in Iraq to peace convergence raises major questions: U.S. The president accuses Iran kill or capture Iranians in Iraq that with dolores huerta . Where and how should of sponsoring armed, violent the U.S.administration believes to we grow? Where will groups inside Iraq and said in be aiding Shite milita groups. ...........................20 the roads go? How do a January 29 interview that the A f e w d a y s a f t e r t h a t we want this growth U.S. will 'respond firmly' to any announcement, Vice President to affect our economy, Iranian interference in Iraq.